Republican attorneys general from 18 states are pushing back against lawsuits filed by Democrat AGs and legal groups nationwide challenging the Trump administration’s executive order on birthright citizenship. They are filing an amicus brief.
“If someone comes on a tourist visa to have an anchor baby, they are not under that original meaning of the United States Constitution,” Iowa AG Brenna Bird told Fox News Digital in an interview Monday. Bird is the lead AG leading an amicus brief filing in support of the executive order on Monday.
“Oftentimes, when this has happened. It’s the taxpayers that are paying for the health care through Medicaid or through hospitals, paying for care for someone to have a child, or the state child health insurance system as well,” Bird said. “Each state has a system that helps kids without insurance, and so the taxpayers are on the hook here for all the costs.”
18 Democrat AGs Who Love Illegal Immigration
Eighteen Democrat-led states launched their own lawsuit, claiming the order is unconstitutional and “unprecedented.”
“The President has no authority to rewrite or nullify a constitutional amendment or duly enacted statute. Nor is he empowered by any other source of law to limit who receives United States citizenship at birth,” the lawsuit reads.
Attorneys general from California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, and others signed on to the suit, along with the city and county of San Francisco and Washington, D.C.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration the same day he signed the order “on behalf of organizations with members whose babies born on U.S. soil will be denied citizenship under the order.”
Not being a lawyer, I can’t say if President Trump has a case, but it’s good to see the question asked and resolved.
The 14th Amendment states that everyone born here is a US citizen. However, that Amendment was meant for Black people who had been enslaved. They were not in the US illegally! They were NOT illegal aliens.
Illegal aliens were not promised their children would be citizens, as constitutional lawyer Ann Coulter wrote on X.
The Supreme Court has never held that the kids born to illegals are citizens. Congress should pass a law to make it absolutely clear that they are not. https://t.co/SpKYvHtRoB
— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) December 8, 2024
It ALL needs to be written into law or built with cement and razor wire. Executive orders are written in sand. https://t.co/NLESRiceTD
— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) January 22, 2025
As Ann Coulter wrote:
The late Supreme Court Justice William Brennan invented the anchor-baby policy out of whole cloth and snuck it into a footnote of an opinion written in 1982. Yes, this ancient bedrock principle, this essence of “Who We Are,” dates all the way back to the Reagan administration.
The Brennan footnote was not part of the decision. It does not have the force of law. Yet, today, we act as if Brennan’s absurd dicta is the law of the land for no reason other than a) sheer ignorance and b) a fear of being called “racist.”
No U.S. Congress or Supreme Court ever debated and then approved the idea that children born to mothers illegally present in the country should automatically become citizens. Consequently, any president or Congress could simply state that children born to illegal aliens are not citizens. If only we had a president or Congress that would do so.
You can comment on the article after the ads and subscribe to the Daily Newsletter here if you would like a quick view of the articles of the day and any late news:
We are no longer phased by name calling. Nor are we moved by a news clip of precisely timed “guilt trip” tears. Once we were abused, but now we’ve toughened up. Therefore, if a foreigner cares to play with life, by birthing in the US, then we too shall play! If you aren’t American and give birth here, congrats, now go home with your baby. Choose to argue that the baby’s American, that’s ok too. We’ll keep the baby, but not its illegal family. I would gladly adopt one of these children. Either way, it’s befitting of those who choose to procreate in the name of ill gotten citizenship.
It’s a complete perversion of the 14th. You can’t be rewarded for breaking the law. If I commit arson and burn down my house can I collect the insurance money? Nope. If I rob a bank can I use the money to buy a house or car and keep them? Nope. If I kill my significant other can I keep the life insurance policy cash? Nope. This is no different.
The 14th amendment does not mention anchor baby tourists or illegal invaders , but it also does not specify aliens from another planet either, because it did not have to.
My point is they did not have to be specific, because honest intelligent people know what they meant by birth right.
Trump is right.
Birth right does not apply to anchor baby tourists, illegal invaders ( or space aliens )
You raise a superb point! Unfortunately, “honest intelligent people”, is no longer a common measure of a man. This is why modern election fraud became rampant.
While the14th Amendment is straightforward, it doesn’t account for those who wish to “play dumb” and act as if it includes birth tourism, illegals, etc. equal American Citizenship.
It’s time to shut this argument down. We need to make what is already known, a lot more air tight.
Some suggest the “subject to jurisdiction” would mean subject to prosecutions etc. But that omits fully under a jurisdiction. One has to consider whether the family is subject to another country’s jurisdiction also. If the family is subject to the US jurisdiction then it follows they are subject to any requirement, such as being drafted. Their are more such situations.
Jurisdiction is also in reference to country loyalty. If not a U.S. citizen, then your loyalty still lies with your home country. Individuals are always subject to the laws and regulations of the country they visit, however, they could not be inducted into military service because of their jurisdiction (loyalty) to another country. They are however subject to jurisdiction of their home country and could be called back for service, jury duty, etc.. Bottom line is that the parents committed a crime, although the child is innocent, does not reap the rewards, at least shouldn’t. Not much different than if I’m driving the get away car for bank robbers. I might not get the same punishment as those that robbed the bank, but I was part of it.
It’s time for common sense, and time to stop letting larcenous people take advantage of American kindness ad generosity.