Pretty sure Barron Trump isn’t going to lose his citizenship.
US or EU?
Because there were no foreign citizens who violated U. S. immigration law and illegally entered back in 1789. The first attempts at Immigration laws were in 1882, but there were the Alien and Sedition acts in 1798. the below site is a Timeline of US Immigration laws-
What about the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807
Lots of enslaved people, and freedmen, were here in violation of this U.S. law.
What’s vague about it? Born in the US is clear, and subject to the jurisdiction of the US is clear. If a person commits a crime, can American police arrest them? Yes? Then they’re subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Say nothing else about the citizenship clause, it most definitely affirmed that children of slaves were citizens. That was the one thing everybody agrees the “Framers” of the Fourteenth Amendment anticipated. (And, disanalogous to illegal immigration cited by Justice Kavanaugh, the people who violated the import ban were shipmasters and other human traffickers, not the slaves themselves.)
~Max
My cite does not consider that a Immigration law.
Which is why people with Diplomatic Immunity who have children while here- those kids are generally not Birthright citizens. (there may be a few exceptions, IANAL)
What if they are citizens of another country through their parents, and that country requires military service?
Then they are subject to the jurisdiction of both the U.S. and that other country. It doesn’t seem clear to me that being partially subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. is, or is not sufficient.
Also, if it is all so clear, why did today’s SCOTUS decision have to get into all those details about feudalism and the common law? It’s because jurisdiction can mean different things, and there are arguments on both sides. It happens that the arguments on one side are humane, and those on the other are inhumane. It happens that precedent is on the humane side. But from what I read it was not immediately obvious, or obvious at all, that the dissenters had no case.
AIUI after this all came up over Obama, the United States is in no way obligated to adopt the citizenship rules of other countries.
OK, and? The Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t say anything about jurisdiction of other countries. And a good thing, too: When I visited Ireland, I was subject to Irish jurisdiction, and if I had committed a crime there, I’d have been arrested by Irish police. Did that mean that I wasn’t a US citizen while I was there?
Because they wanted to support their ridiculous conclusion, of course.
The majority opinion (striking down Trump’s executive order) is the one that went into feudalism and common law. Well, so did the dissents, but the majority relied on that history more.
~Max
Cite? They went into this thing called “The Bill of Rights”. Would you like a link to that?
Read the majority opinion
pp. 2-4 (click to show/hide)
The story of citizenship in the United States begins with the English common law. Before the Revolution, the Amer ican colonists—like all in the British Empire—were consid ered subjects of the sovereign. See Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbour in City of New York, 3 Pet. 99, 120– 121 (1830). That arose not from royal fiat, but from what the common law conceived as the relationship between the sovereign and the people. The King, Blackstone explained, owes those “born within the dominions” a duty of “protection.” 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 354 (1765) (Blackstone); see also id., at 358. And “in return for that protection,” those “born within the dominions” owe the King a “duty” of “allegiance” (some times rendered “ligeance”). Id., at 354, 356. Children born with that allegiance were “natural-born subject[s].” Doe v. Jones, 4 T. R. 300, 308, 100 Eng. Rep. 1031, 1035 (K. B. 1791) (Kenyon, C. J.). As Lord Coke put it in the celebrated Calvin’s Case, 7 Co. Rep. 1a, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (K. B. 1608), a “dual and reciprocal tie” thus connects “the Sovereign and [his] subject[s].” Id., at 4b–5a, 77 Eng. Rep., at 382 (trans lated from Latin). Because the sovereign’s power (and thus his duty) was limited in various respects, so too was the scope of this rule. He could not demand allegiance from—for he could not pro tect—those born in lands that he did not control. Id., at 18a, 77 Eng. Rep., at 399. (Among that group were the peo ple born in the King’s lost dominions—“France, Aquitain, Normandy, &c.”—over which he claimed an “absolute right” but had no actual power to rule. Ibid.) The same held true even in discrete areas within his kingdom that were tempo rarily outside his control. See id., at 18a–18b, 77 Eng. Rep., at 399 (if “enemies” were to “possess” a “castle or fort,” their children would not be born “under the King’s ligeance”). And the same held true for ambassadors (and their fami lies), who were considered—by a fiction of extraterritorial ity—to remain on foreign soil and thus “under the ligeance” of their home country. Id., at 18a, 77 Eng. Rep., at 399; see also Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116, 138– 139 (1812) (Marshall, C. J., for the Court). In all other respects, however, the sovereign’s power— and his claim to the people’s allegiance—was complete. A foreign mother could enter the British Isles, give birth, and leave with her child the very next day, and that child would remain a British subject. Why? Because the child owed an implied allegiance to the sovereign who protected him at his birth—no matter how “momentary and uncertain” his pres ence in the King’s realms.2 Calvin’s Case, 7 Co. Rep., at 6a, 77 Eng. Rep., at 384; see also Doe, 4 T. R., at 308, 100 Eng. Rep., at 1035. The same rule applied to children born in the realm of parents subject to expulsion. For example, chil dren of “gypsies” (today, called Romani or Roma people) born in the realm were natural-born subjects, notwith standing that British law at the time “directed” the Roma people “to avoid the realm” under “pain of imprisonment” or even death. 4 Blackstone 166 (1769); see Brief for Gerard N. Magliocca as Amicus Curiae 2–4; cf. H. Hirota, Expelling the Poor 114–115 (2017) (describing outcry in 1855 when Massachusetts deported a pauper Irish mother with her American-born infant, who was acknowledged to be a “na tive born citizen”). For those children, and all others born in Britain, the rule was the same: With protection came al legiance, and with allegiance came the status of a natural born subject. ...
This case had nothing to do with the Bill of Rights. Maybe you are thinking of a different case?
~Max
I’d say they wanted to support an inhumane conclusion, inconsistent with precedent, that would result in lots of hard working people either being deported or, at best, staying poor and thus paying hardly any federal taxes.
U> nder the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, “[a]ll 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.”…Several
parents filed suit, some in the name of their children, arguing that the
Executive Order violates the Fourteenth Amendment and the INA.
The District Court agreed, provisionally certified a nationwide class of
children who would be denied citizenship by the Order, and preliminarily enjoined the Order’s enforcement. This Court granted certiorari
before judgment.
Held: Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States
and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. Pp. 2–26.
(a) The Citizenship Clause
The 14th amendment is mentioned many times. And yes common law was also mentioned. Justices love to throw in Blackstone somewhere.
Unless maybe you are claiming the Bill of Rights is only the first ten amendments. 
Yeah, it is only the first ten Amendments. The Fourteenth Amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights, having been ratified almost 100 years later…
~Max
Um, yes, it is. There are other amendments, and some of them are pretty darned important, but they’re not the Bill of Rights.
Ah, so that is your argument, Okay, sure, so what? Your point was
But the decision relying mostly on the 14th ad. Not history or feudalism- which last I didnt find, so maybe a cite on that? And not a link to a 147 page document.
As I cited explicitly and pasted for your convenience, from pages 2-4, the very first pages of substance in the opinion, the majority goes into feudalism and common law principles which (they hold) the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause embodies.
pp. 2-4 (click to show/hide)
The story of citizenship in the United States begins with the English common law. Before the Revolution, the Amer ican colonists—like all in the British Empire—were consid ered subjects of the sovereign. See Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbour in City of New York, 3 Pet. 99, 120– 121 (1830). That arose not from royal fiat, but from what the common law conceived as the relationship between the sovereign and the people. The King, Blackstone explained, owes those “born within the dominions” a duty of “protection.” 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 354 (1765) (Blackstone); see also id., at 358. And “in return for that protection,” those “born within the dominions” owe the King a “duty” of “allegiance” (some times rendered “ligeance”). Id., at 354, 356. Children born with that allegiance were “natural-born subject[s].” Doe v. Jones, 4 T. R. 300, 308, 100 Eng. Rep. 1031, 1035 (K. B. 1791) (Kenyon, C. J.). As Lord Coke put it in the celebrated Calvin’s Case, 7 Co. Rep. 1a, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (K. B. 1608), a “dual and reciprocal tie” thus connects “the Sovereign and [his] subject[s].” Id., at 4b–5a, 77 Eng. Rep., at 382 (trans lated from Latin). Because the sovereign’s power (and thus his duty) was limited in various respects, so too was the scope of this rule. He could not demand allegiance from—for he could not pro tect—those born in lands that he did not control. Id., at 18a, 77 Eng. Rep., at 399. (Among that group were the peo ple born in the King’s lost dominions—“France, Aquitain, Normandy, &c.”—over which he claimed an “absolute right” but had no actual power to rule. Ibid.) The same held true even in discrete areas within his kingdom that were tempo rarily outside his control. See id., at 18a–18b, 77 Eng. Rep., at 399 (if “enemies” were to “possess” a “castle or fort,” their children would not be born “under the King’s ligeance”). And the same held true for ambassadors (and their fami lies), who were considered—by a fiction of extraterritorial ity—to remain on foreign soil and thus “under the ligeance” of their home country. Id., at 18a, 77 Eng. Rep., at 399; see also Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116, 138– 139 (1812) (Marshall, C. J., for the Court). In all other respects, however, the sovereign’s power— and his claim to the people’s allegiance—was complete. A foreign mother could enter the British Isles, give birth, and leave with her child the very next day, and that child would remain a British subject. Why? Because the child owed an implied allegiance to the sovereign who protected him at his birth—no matter how “momentary and uncertain” his pres ence in the King’s realms.2 Calvin’s Case, 7 Co. Rep., at 6a, 77 Eng. Rep., at 384; see also Doe, 4 T. R., at 308, 100 Eng. Rep., at 1035. The same rule applied to children born in the realm of parents subject to expulsion. For example, chil dren of “gypsies” (today, called Romani or Roma people) born in the realm were natural-born subjects, notwith standing that British law at the time “directed” the Roma people “to avoid the realm” under “pain of imprisonment” or even death. 4 Blackstone 166 (1769); see Brief for Gerard N. Magliocca as Amicus Curiae 2–4; cf. H. Hirota, Expelling the Poor 114–115 (2017) (describing outcry in 1855 when Massachusetts deported a pauper Irish mother with her American-born infant, who was acknowledged to be a “na tive born citizen”). For those children, and all others born in Britain, the rule was the same: With protection came al legiance, and with allegiance came the status of a natural born subject. ...
~Max
Sure, like I said, Blackstone is almost always cited. But your claim seemed to indicate that was what the Decision was based upon. It was not, it was based upon the 14th ad.