From February 19, 2025, these children may no longer be recognized as U.S. citizens, even if they are born on U.S. soil.

Sexy In Sari · Jan 20, 2025 11:02 PM

R u sure it willll be implemented ? BS

Sampurna pokhrel · Jan 20, 2025 11:10 PM

Even if a child born in the United States obtains a U.S. birth certificate, the State Department may require proof of lawful permanent residency or U.S. citizenship from at least one parent when applying for the child’s U.S. passport. Specifically, the State Department may mandate that one parent present a valid Permanent Resident Card (Green Card) or U.S. passport as part of the application process. If neither parent can provide such documentation—for instance, if both parents hold temporary nonimmigrant visas (e.g., F-1/F-2 status)—the State Department may deny the passport application, regardless of the child’s U.S. birth certificate. This could result in the child being unable to obtain a U.S. passport, thereby limiting their ability to prove U.S. citizenship and access associated rights and benefits.

Sexy In Sari · Jan 20, 2025 11:14 PM

The U.S. Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, which states that anyone born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a U.S. citizen. A birth certificate serves as proof of this constitutional right.  However, the State Department’s passport application process is an administrative procedure, not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. While the Constitution ensures citizenship, the State Department’s requirements for issuing passports—such as demanding proof of a parent’s permanent residency or U.S. citizenship—are bureaucratic hurdles that can create barriers for children born to parents on temporary visas. 

Sexy In Sari · Jan 20, 2025 11:24 PM

SIS, I know you like it, but it’s not retroactive. First, it’s proactive—if you have U.S. citizenship, it won’t apply retroactively. Second, this is more of a stunt. It’s protected by the Constitution, making it difficult to change without amendments.

bhamnepali · Jan 20, 2025 11:47 PM

What do you think democrates wont overturn this law again after 4 yrs? 14th amendment will never ever go .

Sampurna pokhrel · Jan 20, 2025 11:50 PM

Ending birthright citizenship would require more than just a simple majority or support from Democrats. It would need approval from three-fourths of Congress and ratification by 38 out of 50 states. This is simply a political stunt aimed at energizing his base by making it look like he tried. Also, the “jurisdiction thereof” argument is not going to work. If it stands, it would mean that foreign nationals could act without consequences.

bhamnepali · Jan 20, 2025 11:58 PM

United States v. Wong Kim Ark highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to children born of foreigners (a concept known as jus soli), with only a limited set of exceptions mostly based in English common law. The court's dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power—that is, not being claimed as a citizen by another country via jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent)—an interpretation which, in the minority's view, would have excluded "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country". In the words of a 2007 legal analysis of events following the Wong Kim Ark decision, "The parameters of the jus soli principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts." A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that the Wong Kim Ark decision held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship "applies to children of foreigners present on American soil" and states that the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language". Since the 1990s, however, controversy has arisen over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and legal scholars disagree over whether the Wong Kim Ark precedent applies when alien parents are in the country illegally. Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress to restrict birthright citizenship, either via statutory redefinition of the term jurisdiction, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through an amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has been enacted. But with SA TRUMP and his Supreme Court, I don't know what is going to happen. Specifically when he can just brand ACLU as a terrorist organization without needing any proof.

ritu123 · Jan 21, 2025 4:42 AM

@bhamnepali:  I agree that documents need to be provided to establish birthright citizenship. However, what about other agencies like the State Department issuing passports? A passport isn’t a birthright citizenship document—it’s a travel document issued based on proof of citizenship. The process for obtaining a passport, especially for children, involves additional requirements, such as parental documentation, which goes beyond just proving birthright citizenship. Please note that under the current policy, if you want to get a passport for a child under 16, you have to submit a new application—you can’t simply renew an old U.S. passport. This process is separate from what’s outlined in the Constitution and is based on the rules and procedures set by the State Department. Now, the argument is that "new application" means going through the entire process again from scratch—not just updating or renewing an existing passport. It’s not a simple renewal; it’s starting fresh, which includes providing all required documentation, like the parent’s legal documents, all over again.

Sexy IN Sari · Jan 21, 2025 8:32 AM

Trump isn’t disqualifying the child; he’s disqualifying the parents. The issue centers on the parents’ legal status or documentation, such as proof of lawful permanent residency (e.g., a green card) or U.S. citizenship (e.g., a U.S. passport or certificate of naturalization). The child’s eligibility is contingent on the parents meeting these legal requirements, not on the child themselves.

Sexy IN Sari · Jan 21, 2025 8:35 AM

This is not retroactive. And it’s not finalized yet, I don’t understand this scare mongering. I see sadism here. People have enough struggles to live a normal life. Why add pain?

chicagoan · Jan 21, 2025 9:48 AM

It is just a fanfare to rile up his base like SIS. Even though it is proactive, I am sure it has no chances of holding up. Lawsuits have already been filed and will be enjoined before it even starts. MAGAts are getting caught up in this too.

bhamnepali · Jan 21, 2025 10:55 AM

It has to pass by House and Congress, long way to go. You will see many tricks as a street charmer. You entered happily and if you have to go back, go happily.

Logan · Jan 21, 2025 11:24 AM

Yo  lai kehi pani thaha chaina …. JPt bolna aaucha … lawsuits are coming Last edited: 21-Jan-25 12:09 PM Last edited: 21-Jan-25 12:27 PM

Sampurna pokhrel · Jan 21, 2025 11:45 AM

Hey Sajha Folks, US Citizenship by Birth is protected by US Constitution and cannot be just changed by an executive order. The judicial system will block such executive order if it doesn't align with the US Constitution.

ujl · Jan 21, 2025 11:59 AM

The order has been blocked by a Reagan appointed judge, albeit temporarily. https://www.seattletimes.com/s...

bhamnepali · Jan 23, 2025 1:46 PM

खोक्रो सान्त्वना भए पनि दिउ होला कहिँ भबिस्यमा भरिलो हुन्छ कि ? आउछ र पाउछौ थप Extension -TPS

Logan · Jan 24, 2025 12:27 PM