SCOTUS issues ruling regarding lower courts that could be the end for "Birthright Citizenship"

[Anti Federalist]

 

[Anti Federalist]

Trump wins SCOTUS victory towards ending birthright citizens

Are we close to the end of anchor babies

national-conservative.com

Birthright citizenship, whose recipients are known as “anchor babies,” is a legal fiction that has already done immeasurable harm to the United States. Trump signed an executive order calling for an end to this on the first day of his second term.

Executive Order 14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” denies birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are illegal aliens or are on temporary visas, asserting that such individuals are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States under the 14th Amendment. It directs federal agencies to cease issuing citizenship documents, such as passports and Social Security cards, to children born after February 18, 2025, who are affected by this policy.

Activist judges in New Hampshire, Washington, and Maryland issued injunctions blocking the nationwide implementation of this executive order.

Today, June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc. concerning Executive Order 14160. CASA refers to the far-left, open-borders activist group CASA de Maryland. The plaintiffs also include the far-left open borders Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project [ASAP] and five pregnant women.

In a 6-3 decision, SCOTUS limited the scope of federal courts’ authority to issue nationwide (universal) injunctions, ruling that such injunctions, which block a policy’s enforcement across the entire country, exceed judicial power under Article III of the Constitution. SCOTUS held that injunctive relief must be confined to the specific plaintiffs in a case, not extended to non-parties or the nation as a whole.

The U.S. Supreme Court Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the executive order. The Court ordered lower courts in New Hampshire, Washington, and Maryland to reconsider the scope of their injunctions that had blocked the enforcement of EO 14160.

However, the ruling potentially will have significant implications for many other efforts by judges to block policies of the Trump administration.

The ruling is a victory in the fight to end birthright citizenship; however, the fight is not over. It is still subject to further legal review.

Ultimately, SCOTUS will likely have to issue a ruling on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship. Activist judges in the lower courts will continue to try to block it from being banned.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I voted for this.

 

[Invisible Man]

Let's say Trump's order holds for this. Years from now, when someone has to determine if a person who was born in the USA in 2025 is a US citizen, what will be required to prove that person is a citizen. A birth certificate won't suffice. What will?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Let's say Trump's order holds for this. Years from now, when someone has to determine if a person who was born in the USA in 2025 is a US citizen, what will be required to prove that person is a citizen. A birth certificate won't suffice. What will?

I don't know...we'll have to figure out something that is concrete but yet does not unduly infringe on a person's identity and privacy.

Ending birthright citizenship was one of the reasons I voted for Ron Paul three times in a row.

Nice to see one of the planks of his platform advancing.

 

[Invisible Man]

I don't know...we'll have to figure out something that is concrete but yet does not unduly infringe on a person's identity and privacy.

Ending birthright citizenship was one of the reasons I voted for Ron Paul three times in a row.

Nice to see one of the planks of his platform advancing.

I understand the reasoning of the policy and don't object to it. But figuring out how to do it has to come first. It can't be shoot first, ask questions later.

 

[CaptUSA]

Let's say Trump's order holds for this. Years from now, when someone has to determine if a person who was born in the USA in 2025 is a US citizen, what will be required to prove that person is a citizen. A birth certificate won't suffice. What will?

 

[nikcers]

Let's say Trump's order holds for this. Years from now, when someone has to determine if a person who was born in the USA in 2025 is a US citizen, what will be required to prove that person is a citizen. A birth certificate won't suffice. What will?

There are a lot of countries that dont grant birthright citizenship.

We have ways of identifying people's identity thats not a real argument.

Otherwise you could never charge someone for a crime because they could just say it wasn't me.

We can afford to have government issued identity paperwork and government granted citizenship.

We will never be able to get our independence back from the globalists without a real strategy to know who is a US citizen.

That usually means multiple reliable forms of evidence.

 

[Invisible Man]

There are a lot of countries that dont grant birthright citizenship.

We have ways of identifying people's identity thats not a real argument.

Otherwise you could never charge someone for a crime because they could just say it wasn't me.

We can afford to have government issued identity paperwork and government granted citizenship.

We will never be able to get our independence back from the globalists without a real strategy to know who is a US citizen.

That usually means multiple reliable forms of evidence.

It wasn't an argument. It was a question.

What's the answer?

"There are ways to do it," is not an answer.

"Other countries to it," is not an answer.

The answer needs to be specific, and whatever this specific method is, it needs to be morally defensible. Other countries' policies are not typically good rulers by which to measure that.

 

[nikcers]

It wasn't an argument. It was a question.

What's the answer?

"There are ways to do it," is not an answer.

Modern problems require modern solutions.

DNA and blockchain are a good thing of the modern age.

There are also algorithms that identify people through Metadata alone.

Finger prints, retina scans, facial recognition, voice recognition.

Radiography based RF body scans.

IRS and tax historical data.

Its good enough for finding people guilty.

Can people fake their identity certainly.

If we stop 99% of it then its better than nothing.

 

[Occam's Banana]

 

[Invisible Man]

Modern problems require modern solutions.

DNA and blockchain are a good thing of the modern age.

There are also algorithms that identify people through Metadata alone.

Finger prints, retina scans, facial recognition, voice recognition.

Radiography based RF body scans.

IRS and tax historical data.

Its good enough for finding people guilty.

Can people fake their identity certainly.

If we stop 99% of it then its better than nothing.

Conspicuously, you are avoiding answering the question. I'm not sure why you bother replying.

Hopefully you aren't actually saying you support the government doing any of the things you listed here.

 

[nikcers]

Conspicuously, you are avoiding answering the question. I'm not sure why you bother replying.

Hopefully you aren't actually saying you support the government doing any of the things you listed here.

We already do all of these things constantly.

What do you think happens in a paternity test?

If its your kid the state orders you to pay for it but if its not your kid you dont pay for it.

If you dont have citizenship and nationality you get globalism and globalism leads to the breakdown of societal norms and the rule of law and eventually the collapse of the economy because we have a democracy and the voters control how much the government spends.

 

[Invisible Man]

We already do all of these things constantly.

I'm not sure who you mean by "we." But there is no requirement for any American to be subjected to any of those things as a condition of staying in the country. Nor should there be.

 

[nikcers]

I'm not sure who you mean by "we." But there is no requirement for any American to be subjected to any of those things as a condition of staying in the country. Nor should there be.

The government can identify your citizenship and remove you from the country if you dont have it.

 

[Invisible Man]

The government can identify your citizenship and remove you from the country if you dont have it.

Right. Because I was born here.

Once that no longer proves someone is a citizen, what else will they have to provide the government in order not to be removed?

See how I'm talking in circles here, and you're pretending to make relevant responses, while actually not?

 

[nikcers]

Right. Because I was born here.

Once that no longer proves someone is a citizen, what else will they have to provide the government in order not to be removed?

See how I'm talking in circles here, and you're pretending to make relevant responses, while actually not?

How do you prove it? With multiple forms of reliable evidence.

The same way you prove anything.

 

[Invisible Man]

How do you prove it? With multiple forms of reliable evidence.

The same way you prove anything.

Such as?

My word, this is torture!

 

[nikcers]

Such as?

My word, this is torture!

How does a baby prove its identity?

How do you prove its your baby? A paternity test.

Who are the baby's parents and do they have citizenship?

 

[Invisible Man]

How does a baby prove its identity?

How do you prove its your baby a paternity test.

Who are the babies parents and do they have citizenship?

Notice how you just are refusing to answer a simple question repeatedly.

Are you saying that you believe that every American should provide their DNA to the government to prove who their parents are as a condition of being allowed to be in the country?