Ninth Circuit apparently handed Trump a victory

[Don Alaska]

According to analysts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the most liberal court in the nation, has apparently handed President Trump a victory he hadn't asked for. The Ninth Circuit decided that a child born to a foreign national 50+ years ago and who has been treated like a citizen since that time is not a citizen after all and may have his citizenship revoked. The person involved has been getting passports and voting in New York for many decades, is NOT a citizen. This may provide a legal precedent as Trump's EO negating birthright citizenship as it has been understood since a SCOTUS justice wrote a footnote to a decision several decades ago stating it to be a fact. That was considered to be a legal decision by many when it, in fact, was the opinion of one single justice, not the court as a whole.

I wonder if this will bring everything to light as this case AND the Trump EO wend their way to the Supreme Court.

Born in N.Y., Lived in U.S. for Nearly 70 Years, Subscribed Oath of Allegiance 5 Times—But, It Turns Out, He Isn't a U.S. Citizen

Was the father a consul or an attaché? It is on such matters that the law sometimes turns.

reason.com

 

[Axel Slingerland]

As the article says "Moncada was born 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment unless he was born with diplomatic immunity—immunity from the jurisdiction of the United States."

So the Courts will have jurisdiction over whether he is or is not a US Citizen.

But wasn't the Trump EO about Birthright Citizenship in general?

People always seem to forget what it says in the Constitution about Amendments, and what they would have to do to legally change or create one. I'm in a lot of pain right now so to avoid having to retype this myself with one finger, this is copied from the Constitution.

Section 1, 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Unlike a few Amendments that confuse a lot of people with their unfamiliar 18th Century language, this one seems pretty clear.

Article V:

To change the U.S. Constitution, an amendment must first be proposed by either a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress or by a national convention called by two-thirds of the state legislatures. Second, the proposed amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states, either by their legislatures or by state conventions. Once ratified by the required number of states, the amendment becomes a valid part of the Constitution.

That could take a very long time and require an enormous amount of support. The 27th Amendment took 203 years to ratify, from 1789 to 1992. So no matter what the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals or anyone else says, Birthright Citizenship is enshrined in the Constitution, and the only way to change that is to create another Amendment overriding the previous one. Presidential Executive Orders do not have the authority to do that. So a President can ask Congress to get that massive ball rolling, but he can't do it with an Executive Order.

 

[Don Alaska]

The idea held by Trump and others is that those who enter the country illegally are "not subject to thee jurisdiction thereof" just like the diplomats are. They are inherently outside the jurisdiction since they have entered the nation illegally. Both diplomats and illegals have to comply with U.S. laws in a way, but both are subject to "deportation", essentially Persona Non Grata.

 

[Jacob Petersheim]

Very similar to tourists who happen to birth a kid while here in the U.S.