NJ challenging EO to end birth right citizenship

quote:

---

Why are states or in this case my state wasting tax payer funds on this?

---

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

quote:

---

Discussion time: Birthright Citizenship EO
We cannot explore this issue without first understanding the uniquely American distinction of Citizen vs Subject.
The Founders intentionally rejected the concept of "subjects" under a sovereign — individuals subject to the whims of a monarch. They instead embraced the concept of citizenship, a reciprocal relationship involving both rights and duties, grounded in consent, allegiance, and an understanding of shared civic responsibility.
The 14th Amendment reaffirmed these foundational principles but included an explicit limitation: "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Considered now my many as a cumbersome old-timey way of saying “inside our borders” (because who isn’t subject to the power of law enforcement when they’re here, right?). This clause actually reflected the premise that citizenship requires full allegiance to the United States.
It necessarily excluded those owing allegiance to foreign sovereignties (e.g., diplomats, tribal nations), as well as those who violate the law through unauthorized presence. This is well-supported by SCOTUS opinions in Elk v. Wilkins (1884), where the Supreme Court clarified that merely being born within U.S. territory does not suffice for citizenship when allegiance is owed to another entity, as well as later Congressional action to extend citizenship to Native Americans in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. (Ask yourself why this was necessary if being born inside our borders was always enough after the 14th passed)
Birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment was never intended as a universal grant to anyone who was “born here” but as a legal recognition of those who properly belong to the U.S. community — those whose presence conforms to the rule of law and allegiance to our country.
By conflating citizenship with "presence", we diminish its value and contribute to widespread civic decline. If citizenship is merely a birthright of geography, a happenstance related to the GPS coordinates of your mother when you were born, we further detach people from the obligations of allegiance and assimilation.
The fundamental compact of reciprocal loyalty – duty – between citizen and nation is lost. And as we’ve all seen (but are all too often cowed into pretending isn’t the case) the progeny of this nation-altering policy (mis)interpretation often grow up to reject American principles and actively undermine them… yet they are still granted a voice in shaping our future?
This misinterpretation undermines the American experiment, inviting instability by allowing those who share our land but reject our ideals to influence our policies and politics.
The left will continue to intentionally confuse the intellectual necessity of loyalty and allegiance with xenophobia, silencing legitimate discussion of constitutional principles by screaming “racist!” at anyone who resists. Resist anyway.

All who love America must reclaim the argument for citizenship as a vital cornerstone of our republic. Citizenship is more than a passive status; it is an active commitment to the ideals, duties, and responsibilities that sustain a free society. Recognizing the limits of birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment isn’t merely about immigration policy, it’s about reaffirming the integrity of what it means to be an American.
The Founders’ wisdom in distinguishing citizens from subjects — grounding rights in allegiance and responsibility — is a principle worth defending. To ignore this distinction is to betray the very constitutional order they entrusted to us.

---

quote:

---

How is filing a lawsuit over an EO that strips us of Constitutional rights while being the heavy favorite to win a waste of your taxes?

---

quote:

---

Never knew you were an anchor baby born from an illegal alien mother. Explains a lot though.

---

quote:

---

Think of it this way. Someone from Great Britain visiting the United States is subject to our laws while here, which is to say subject to our partial or territorial jurisdiction. He must drive on the right-hand side of the road rather than the left, for example. But he does not thereby owe allegiance to the United States; he is not subject to being drafted into our army; and he cannot be prosecuted for treason (as opposed to ordinary violations of law) if he takes up arms against the United States, for he has breached no oath of allegiance.

---