Expel Delia Ramirez — and enforce the oath of office



A sitting member of Congress declaring on foreign soil, in a foreign language, that she has primary allegiance to a foreign country sounds like the plot of a Russian spy thriller. Instead, Americans got a political telenovela when Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) told an audience in Mexico, in Spanish, “I’m a proud Guatemalan before I’m an American.”

The only real surprise is that Ramirez said it out loud — on camera — and without qualification. Given the decline in standards among today’s lawmakers, especially on the Democrat side of the aisle, the sentiment isn’t shocking. The candor is.

Americans deserve to see whether Congress will enforce its own standards. Every member should go on record.

Ramirez’s statement has drawn condemnation from commentators, political leaders, and media outlets. Condemnation isn’t enough. She should be expelled from the House of Representatives. The Oversight Project has even done the work for members. On Thursday, we released the draft text of an expulsion resolution.

Realistically, that won’t happen. The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote to expel a member, and Democrats will protect one of their own, even when that member flagrantly violates her oath of office.

Still, the vote should happen. Americans deserve to see whether Congress will enforce its own standards. Every member should go on record. Let the chips on “foreign interference” fall where they may.

The founders foresaw this

Congress has expelled 21 members in U.S. history — 17 for supporting the Confederacy, three for bribery or fraud, and one senator for siding with the British in West Florida. Almost no precedent exists for expelling a sitting member for declaring loyalty to a foreign country. That’s what makes Ramirez’s admission so remarkable.

The Constitution is built on the premise that lawmakers must have allegiance to the United States — exclusively. The founders addressed the danger of foreign influence in the oath of office, in treason’s definition, and in George Washington’s Farewell Address warning against “entangling alliances” and urging that the “name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity,” must take precedence over all other allegiances.

Expelling Ramirez would reaffirm that basic principle. Her district in Chicago is nearly 30% foreign-born and 42% Latino, according to recent, questionable census data. Many in her district no doubt share her divided loyalties, but that does not excuse it in an elected representative to Congress. Democracy may have put her in office, but the Constitution provides a remedy when loyalty to another nation trumps loyalty to the United States.

RELATED: ‘Paperwork Americans’ are not your countrymen

Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images

Our draft resolution makes the case succinctly: Ramirez violated the oath she took upon entering office — to support and defend the Constitution and bear “true faith and allegiance to the same.” On May 14, she posted: “I swore an oath to protect the Constitution.” She remembers the oath well enough when it suits her politics.

If Congress cannot enforce that oath in the face of such a blatant breach, then the oath is meaningless.

No dual allegiances

Over the past few decades, Democrats have turned constitutional principles into political bargaining chips. Quiet subversion has given way to open defiance — nowhere more evident than in the immigration debate. Increasingly, they argue not over policy details, but over whether the United States should have immigration laws at all.

Republicans, for their part, have largely failed to confront this trend. Too often they negotiate away sovereignty in exchange for hollow compromises. That must end.

The line is simple: The United States cannot have a member of Congress whose primary allegiance is to Guatemala — or any other nation. Congress should act accordingly. Ramirez should be expelled.

Kristi Noem reveals fallout of liberal lies about ICE, telling Glenn Beck: 'Words have consequences'



Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem spoke on Thursday with Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck about the current phase of the administration's deportations as well as about the Department of Homeland Security's successful new recruitment campaign.

Noem emphasized that while there are opportunities for patriots to directly help U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement round up criminal noncitizens, it is essential that "hardworking, everyday Americans" assist by publicly signaling their support for ICE — especially in the face of mounting attacks on federal agents.

President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act allocates $76.5 billion to ICE. Roughly $30 billion of the funds are intended for the recruitment of 10,000 more staff so that the agency can achieve 1 million annual deportations.

'That almost gives them permission to go out there and take action against these individuals.'

To fill some of these roles, the DHS launched an ICE recruitment campaign last week offering eligible applicants a maximum $50,000 signing bonus, student loan repayment, and other perks. On Wednesday, the agency announced it was also waiving age limits "so even more patriots will qualify to join ICE."

Noem told Beck, "We already have over 80,000 applicants for those 10,000 positions, so we're going through that and getting them through the process to see who qualifies."

RELATED: Sanctuary cities on DOJ's list set to reap the whirlwind

Photo by DOMINIC GWINN/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

The secretary noted that the overwhelming interest demonstrates that the "American people stand with the rule of law, that they want to help, and they want to be a part of this" despite the demonization of ICE officers by "the media and the socialists."

Nevertheless, she acknowledged that anti-ICE propaganda — including false claims of agents kidnapping people and Nazi affiliations — are impactful.

Responding to Beck's suggestion that such propaganda sets the stage for attacks and obstruction, Noem noted that "we just got this morning the notification that attacks on ICE officers is up by over 1,000% than what it was six months ago."

"Words have consequences," continued Noem, referring to the rhetoric pushed by some politicians. "What you say matters. And the consequences of using dangerous language like that is that people take action on them. Anybody who has a tendency to be unstable or to be violent, that almost gives them permission to go out there and take action against these individuals."

The DHS revealed last month that assaults on ICE agents between January 21 and July 14 were up 830% over the same period the year before.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

‘Paperwork Americans’ are not your countrymen



At a recent Panamerican Congress in Mexico City, Rep. Delia Ramirez of Illinois stood before attendees and declared in Spanish, “I’m a proud Guatemalan before I’m an American.” Ramirez, who sits on the House Homeland Security Committee, helps shape policies vital to the nation’s safety. Yet she openly and proudly identifies with another country, and in a foreign language, no less.

Ramirez isn’t alone. She’s part of a growing class of politicians who treat their American citizenship as a formality. Many are first-generation immigrants. Ramirez isn’t even that. She was born to an illegal immigrant mother who crossed the border while pregnant and secured birthright citizenship for her daughter. On paper, Ramirez is American. In every other way, she is not.

What does it mean to be American?

The immigration debate has forced Americans to confront the deeper question of national identity. Nearly everyone agrees the southern border should be closed to illegal aliens. But views on legal immigration vary widely, and those differences often rest on whether people believe the United States is a “propositional nation.”

The idea that a sitting congresswoman can say she belongs to Guatemala before she belongs to America — and face no consequences — is insane.

That idea holds that America is defined not by a shared heritage or culture, but by a set of abstract principles. According to this view, anyone who completes the paperwork and swears an oath is just as American as someone whose ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War.

The problem is, no one is ever denaturalized and deported for rejecting the proposition. New citizens can — and often do — criticize or outright deny basic American values. They can declare loyalty to foreign governments while holding office in the United States. And because citizenship confers First Amendment protections, they face no consequences for doing so.

This turns the entire idea of a “propositional nation” into a joke.

Paperwork without allegiance

Ramirez herself is not an immigrant. She was born under current understanding of the 14th Amendment. Her mother, in violation of U.S. law, crossed the border while pregnant. No agreement to any American proposition was required. Ramirez acquired the legal status of an American and the constitutional right to reject the nation that gave it to her.

There is no ideological connection, cultural tie, or apparent love of country. Only the paperwork remains.

Immigration skeptics have long warned that newcomers often bring with them foreign loyalties. Critics dismissed such concerns as racist, even when examples piled up. Today, those examples speak for themselves.

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) has described Somalia as her “real homeland” and addressed Somali crowds in their native language, pledging to fight for their interests. Omar Fateh, likely the next mayor of Minneapolis, speaks the same way. These are not the words of people assimilating. These are declarations of divided loyalty.

During the Los Angeles anti-ICE riots in June, protesters waved Mexican flags, burned cars, and attacked police. Many were illegal immigrants. But many others were citizens, some born in the United States, who openly called for the “reconquest” of California in the name of Mexico.

RELATED: Judicial activism strikes again in 14th Amendment decision

Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm via Unsplash

President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico even claimed the rioters as her own, describing them as fellow Mexicans and calling on them to pressure the U.S. government to change laws that affected Mexico’s economy.

The president of Mexico sees through the paperwork. She knows who her people are. Americans, for some reason, continue to pretend the paperwork alone tells the whole story.

We need to talk about allegiance

The debate over American identity will continue for a long time to come. But the modern definition clearly isn’t working, and something new will require some tough conversations. If we can’t candidly discuss who belongs in the nation and why, we’ll never resolve the issue.

In the meantime, we should at least agree on one thing: No one who openly declares loyalty to another country should hold public office in the United States.

The idea that a sitting congresswoman can say she belongs to Guatemala before she belongs to America — and face no consequences — is insane. A nation that tolerates this cannot endure. A nation that refuses to expel such people, not just from office but from its borders, is already dying.

We treat this behavior as acceptable. In reality, it is a form of treason.

Paperwork alone does not make someone American. The people exploiting our system understand this. They aren’t confused. They’re mocking us. And unless we find the courage to act, they will keep doing it.

Send them back. Every last one.

Homeland Security Committee Member Says She’s Loyal To A Different Homeland

The founders knew our republic could not survive if its people -- let alone leaders -- were filled with foreign attachments.

Democrat anchor-baby congresswoman admits the truth: 'I'm a proud Guatemalan before I'm an American'



Rep. Delia Ramirez (Ill.), an open-borders Democrat who sits on the House Border Security and Enforcement Subcommittee, spoke to fellow leftists in Mexico City over the weekend at the second Panamerican Congress, a three-day meeting opened by former M-19 terrorist turned Colombian President Gustavo Petro.

Ramirez, who last week called for the defunding of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, suggested in a statement obtained by the Los Angeles Times that the lawmakers and leaders headed to the convention sought to take up various challenges supposedly affecting the Western Hemisphere, including "democratic backsliding, climate crisis, deep poverty, political violence, [and] family displacement."

In her speech at the conference, Ramirez revealed where her true loyalties lie, telling fellow travelers in Spanish, "I'm a proud Guatemalan before I'm an American."

— (@)

There was significant backlash to the Democratic congresswoman's public prioritization of a foreign nation over the United States — especially because it reads as ingratitude.

After all, Ramirez is not only an anchor baby born of a Guatemalan mother who illegally stole into the country, but she is married to Boris Hernandez, an illegal alien and DACA recipient as of 2024.

The Department of Homeland Security shared the following quote from President Theodore Roosevelt in response to Blaze News' post detailing Ramirez's remarks: "There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. ... Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance."

RELATED: 5 things Trump must do to fulfill his mass deportation mandate

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

"My late parents, who were immigrants, loved this country with every fiber of their being and were grateful for the incredible opportunities it offered them. I can only imagine how much it would have pained them to hear a sitting member of Congress, Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-IL), declare (in Spanish) at a public event in Mexico City that 'I’m a proud Guatemalan first, before I’m an American,'" wrote U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau. "Words more poisonous to legal immigrants, and antithetical to our national character, have never been spoken."

"She didn't leave much ambiguity there," wrote Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah).

'Just send her back to Guatemala then.'

The White House similarly blasted Ramirez over her remarks.

"These Democrats' comments are despicable and underscore their commitment to putting Americans last," White House spokesperson Liz Huston told Fox News Digital. "In stark contrast, President Trump is working tirelessly to secure peace deals, deport illegal alien criminals, and advance America’s interests at home and abroad."

Blaze Media digital strategist Logan Hall noted, "The idea that this person’s abuela can show up here illegally, touch some magic dirt, and is now somehow as American as a guy who can trace his ancestors to the Mayflower is pure insanity."

RELATED: Appeals court's decision in Trump's birthright citizenship case sets up HISTORIC battle before Supreme Court

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

"Just send her back to Guatemala then," wrote BlazeTV host Steve Deace.

BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre said, "It's time to talk about paperwork Americans."

Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) joined others in calling for Ramirez's denaturalization and deportation, adding that "we know where her allegiances lie."

Ramirez has made no secret of her willingness to put the interests of foreign nationals before those of Americans.

She has, for instance, voted against preventing noncitizens from voting in American elections; against the Secure the Border Act; against compelling Washington, D.C., to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement activities; against the Laken Riley Act; against the Preventing Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act; against the Police Our Border Act; and against legislation that would require the detention and deportation of illegal aliens who assault American police officers and demanded the resignation of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem over her proper enforcement of federal immigration law.

'I am from both Guatemala and Chicago, Illinois.'

The congresswoman also introduced a bill in May that would prohibit the use of federal funds to carry out the democratically elected American president's executive order titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship."

Trump's order, now likely headed for a historic battle before the U.S. Supreme Court, made it U.S. policy not to issue citizenship documents to a person whose mother was unlawfully in the country and whose father was neither an American citizen nor a permanent resident at the time of the person's birth.

Ramirez said in response to the backlash, "Today's attacks are a weak attempt to silence my dissent and invalidate my patriotic criticism of the nativist, white supremacist, authoritarians in government."

"It is the definition of hypocrisy that members of Congress — who betray their oath each day they enable Trump — are attacking me for celebrating my Guatemalan-American roots," continued Ramirez. "I am the daughter of immigrants and the daughter of America. I am both Chapina and American. I am from both Guatemala and Chicago, Illinois."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here

Judicial activism strikes again in 14th Amendment decision



In typical fashion, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals completely misread the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and the congressional speeches of its principal framers in a July 27 decision, State of Washington, et al. v. Donald Trump, et al.

This ideologically motivated opinion was written by a three-judge panel composed of two Clinton appointees and a Trump appointee who registered a “partial concurrence and a partial dissent.” Overall, however, it was an embarrassment to the canons of legal reasoning and historical truth. It surely will be overruled by the Supreme Court — hopefully on an expedited basis.

The principal drafters, architects, and supporters of the 14th Amendment understood the meaning of 'jurisdiction' in terms of 'allegiance.'

On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump acted expeditiously to fulfill a campaign promise by issuing an executive order redefining who is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

I believe Trump is to be applauded for bringing the question of birthright citizenship to the attention of the public and provoking debate on this crucial issue. I have questions, however, as to whether an executive order in isolation is the most constitutional way of raising the question.

Constitutional end, questionable means

Congress clearly has power under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment “to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” One provision is that “no State shall make or enforce any law which abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” This has been controversial because the language of the amendment is couched in negative terms.

The question of how a negative is to be enforced by positive legislation has always been an enigma. Congress passed a sweeping Civil Rights Act in 1875, which, in part, foundered on this issue along with the issue of “state action.”

In the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases, Congress’ power to enact regulatory legislation under the Privileges and Immunities and Equal Protection Clauses was thoroughly hobbled. No serious attempt to revise civil rights protection was made again until the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The judges in the Ninth Circuit decision, citing contemporary dictionary definitions of “jurisdiction” from the time of the 14th Amendment’s passage, find that the “ordinary meaning of jurisdiction” is simply "'the authority of government; the sway of a sovereign power.’” They easily conclude that this is “consistent with Plaintiffs’ interpretation of ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ as subject to the laws and authority of the United States.” To drive this point home, the opinion alleges:

Defendants point to no contrary dictionary definitions that define jurisdiction in terms of allegiance and protection. Indeed, they make no arguments about the ordinary meaning of the Citizenship Clause at all. Defendants’ only argument based on the text of the Citizenship Clause is that "subject to the jurisdiction" cannot simply refer to "regulatory jurisdiction," because that definition would render the Citizenship Clause’s requirement of jurisdiction surplusage. They claim that the United States has "exclusive and absolute" regulatory jurisdiction within its territory, so that all children born in the United States are subject to its jurisdiction.

It is entirely true that defendants do not prove their point about “jurisdiction in terms of allegiance” by recourse to contemporary dictionaries. Rather, they have recourse to the statements and arguments made during floor debates in the 39th Congress. The principal drafters, architects, and supporters of the 14th Amendment understood the meaning of “jurisdiction” in terms of “allegiance.”

The authors' intent

Senator Jacob Howard (R-Mich.), a member of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, was the floor leader for the debate on the Citizenship Clause. It was a late addition to the amendment, proposed by Senator Benjamin Wade of Ohio (R-Ohio), which initially stated that citizens are “persons born in the United States or naturalized by the laws thereof.” Wade added that he believed the matter of citizenship had been settled by the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

Wade’s proposal was referred to the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, and Senator Howard presented the committee’s draft, which became the first sentence of the 14th Amendment. The significant addition to Wade’s proposal was the clause that specifies its subject as those “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Evidently, Senator Howard and the Joint Committee placed some importance on the addition of this jurisdiction clause.

This meant, at a minimum, that not all persons born in the U.S. were automatically citizens; they also had to be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. When he introduced the bill, Senator Howard said he regarded the Citizenship Clause as declaratory of the law as it already existed. He was clearly referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, passed over the veto of President Andrew Johnson by a two-thirds majority in both houses less than two months prior to the May 30, 1866, debate in the Senate.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 established the citizenship of newly freed slaves and the protection of their rights and liberties on the exact same basis as those of white citizens. This included the right to own, rent, inherit, and convey property; make contracts; the right to keep and bear arms; and all other rights and liberties pursuant to full citizenship. In short, this was a color-blind law.

Some believed the Civil Rights Act was unnecessary, arguing that the 13th Amendment had already accomplished the intended purpose. Others believed that the amendment guaranteed only manumission, so that security of citizenship and rights should be recognized in legislation as a social compact. Still others, however, feared that such legislation could be repealed by future majorities. This concern became the impetus for the 14th Amendment to “constitutionalize” the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

Senator Lyman Trumbull (R-Ill.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and principal architect of the 13th Amendment as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1866, joined Senator Howard, agreeing that the “law of the land” in the U.S. meant that “subject to the jurisdiction” connoted “complete jurisdiction,” not “owing allegiance to anyone else” — the very definition of citizenship in the Civil Rights Act.

Redefining citizenship

The Ninth Circuit Court refers to the leading case on the issue of citizenship, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, decided in 1898. Based on this ruling, the Ninth Circuit argues, “Supreme Court precedent makes clear that reading ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ to mean ‘subject to United States authority and laws’ is not redundant.”

As proof, the Ninth Circuit Court, like the Wong Kim Ark court, cites an opinion by Chief Justice Marshall, Murray v. The Charming Betsy (1804). Justice Horace Gray, in his opinion for the court in Wong Kim Ark, alleges that Marshall’s opinion “assumed … that all persons born in the United States were citizens of the States.”

Justice Gray reports that the chief justice held that position, but it is nowhere stated in the opinion. The Charming Betsywas a complicated case, touching on various questions regarding whether a person can divest himself of American citizenship by swearing allegiance to one or more countries. In deciding the case, Chief Justice Marshall said:

Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country can divest himself absolutely of the character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide. In other words, it was not necessary to decide the question of citizenship to determine the outcome of the case.

The Ninth Circuit also discusses the Supreme Court’s decision in Elk v. Wilkins(1884). In this case, the Supreme Court gives a social compact account of the status of native persons in the U.S. that could have been written by James Madison himself. The Ninth Circuit Court seems unaware that the opinion was written by Justice Gray (he does not admit he is the author in the opinion).

However, the opinion in Elk cannot be squared with the Wong Kim Ark opinion, and it remains a mystery why Justice Gray changed his mind on this important issue of the common-law basis of American citizenship.

RELATED: How the Supreme Court can shut off the left’s migrant-to-school pipeline

Photo by Win McNamee / Staff via Getty Images

The Ninth Circuit closes its opinion by arguing that “post-ratification public understanding of the 14th Amendment supports the Plaintiffs’ interpretation of the Citizenship Clause.” That understanding was that jurisdiction was equated with being subject to the laws of the United States.

Abraham Lincoln didn’t live to see the ratification of the 14th Amendment, but it is difficult not to see his spirit embedded in its first section. Lincoln said presciently in his First Inaugural Address that the “intention of the law-giver is the law.” This is a perfectly Aristotelian statement and undoubtedly understood by Lincoln as such.

Nothing can be more obvious, even to the most unpracticed eye, than that the intentions of the framers, architects, supporters, and friends of the 14th Amendment were that “jurisdiction meant, owing complete allegiance to the U.S. and to no other foreign jurisdiction.”

Editor’s note: A version of this article was originally published by the American Mind.

Appeals court's decision in Trump's birthright citizenship case sets up HISTORIC battle before Supreme Court



President Donald Trump signed an executive order on his first day back in office titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship." The order, which was set to go into effect on July 27, made it U.S. policy not to issue citizenship documents to a person whose mother was unlawfully in the country and whose father was neither an American citizen nor a permanent resident at the time of the person's birth.

Liberals, apparently content to cheapen citizenship by dealing it out wholesale to children born to noncitizens on American soil, filed numerous legal challenges to prevent Trump from making good on his campaign promise to end birthright citizenship.

The challengers have won the various legal battles fought to date; however, the outcome of the war over this hot-button issue will likely be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in short order owing to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' Wednesday ruling, which upheld a nationwide pause on the enforcement of the policy.

'This is still at a preliminary stage — not a ruling yet on the merits.'

On Jan. 21, the states of Arizona, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington filed a lawsuit in the U.S District Court for the Western District of Washington claiming that the executive order violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act. The complaint advanced by Democratic state attorneys general suggested further that Trump lacks the authority to determine who should and should not be granted American citizenship at birth.

In a move of the kind that the U.S. Supreme Court would later claim likely exceeds the equitable authority given to federal courts by Congress, Seattle-based U.S. District Judge John Coughenour granted a universal injunction, blocking the law's implementation.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Appeals Court ruled 2-1 on Wednesday to keep in place Coughenour's injunction.

The two judges in the 9th Circuit majority were both appointed by Bill Clinton. The lone dissenting judge was a Trump appointee who said the states had no legal right to bring the case.

RELATED: 'Game of whack-a-mole': Leftists have new favorite way to block MAGA agenda — without universal injunctions

Photo by GUILLERMO ARIAS/AFP via Getty Images

Ronald Gould, one of the Clinton judges, noted in the majority opinion, "We conclude that the Executive Order is invalid because it contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment's grant of citizenship to 'all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'''

Gould wrote further that the "district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the States complete relief" and that the "universal preliminary injunction is necessary to give the States complete relief on their claims."

The appeals court declined to tackle the individual plaintiffs' claims as they are already covered by a class action in the case Barbara v. Trump.

On July 10, a U.S. district judge in New Hampshire granted class action status to a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union challenging Trump's order, certifying the babies of illegal aliens and temporary migrants as a class.

Judge Joseph Laplante, a George W. Bush appointee, then issued a preliminary injunction in Barbara, temporarily shielding the supposed class from the order's enforcement.

Although Laplante paused his decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, absent such an appeal, his order has reportedly gone into effect.

Dr. John C. Eastman, founding director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, told Blaze News that "the 9th Circuit decision is still only a preliminary decision, affirming a nationwide preliminary injunction for the States, which it found to have standing. Both of those parts of the decision are somewhat in tension with the Supreme Court’s decision on June 27 in the CASA case, but not entirely foreclosed by it."

'Those born to parents who did not agree to abide by U.S. laws are not citizens.'

"I suspect we’ll see if a request for stay filed with the Supreme Court in short order," continued Eastman. "But again, this is still at a preliminary stage — not a ruling yet on the merits, only on the 'likelihood' of the merits."

In contrast, Gerald L. Neuman, the J. Sinclair Armstrong professor of international, foreign, and comparative law at Harvard Law School, suggested the 9th Circuit Court's ruling "is clearly correct."

"As the opinion explained, the meaning of the Citizenship Clause is well-settled, and Congress shared that understanding when it adopted the INA in 1952," Neuman told Blaze News. "The dissenting judge on the panel did not disagree with this conclusion on the merits of the case, but raised procedural objections to the court’s ability to make its decision in the case before it."

Should the Supreme Court rule in the challengers' favor, Neuman indicated it "might base its decision directly on the constitutional provision, or on the statute, or on both."

RELATED: 'Complete madness': Court blocks Trump's birthright citizenship policy with universal injunction by another name

Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

When asked about the significance of this case, law professor Gregory Germain of the Syracuse University College of Law told Blaze News, "I doubt that any of these lower court cases will be significant because I believe the Supreme Court will ultimately take the case and settle the question."

"I disagree with the 9th Circuit that the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause is clear on its face," said Germain. "The clause on its face contains a limitation on birthright citizenship, requiring that the child be 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the U.S. Why was that language put in the Constitution if it was intended to be meaningless? So that language means something — the issue is what it means."

Germain noted that the Supreme Court held in the case U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark that:

children born to permanent residents were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States even though the parents were citizens of China. But the Court also held that children of foreign soldiers occupying U.S. land or diplomats (or Indians) were not "subject to the jurisdiction" and not citizens. So the Court recognized that there were some exceptions to birthright citizenship, but did not clearly define them.

The Syracuse University law professor opined that it would be "perfectly rational" to say that children born on American soil to parents who have agreed to abide by American laws are citizens but "those born to parents who did not agree to abide by U.S. laws are not citizens."

Germain said that would be "consistent with Ark, because the parents were permanent residents who agreed to abide by U.S. law to obtain that status, and would rationally distinguish foreign soldiers and diplomats (both of whom are subject to U.S. law in many circumstances, even though they never agreed to abide), but also illegal aliens."

By adopting this approach, German indicated that the Supreme Court would have to "split the baby, so to speak, on Trump's executive order": Kids born to foreign nationals who are legally in the country and who agreed in visa applications to abide by American law would qualify, but children of aliens illegally in the country would not qualify for citizenship.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Democrats find loophole that could continue birthright citizenship for illegal aliens



Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling that restricted the ability of judges to block President Trump’s policies using nationwide injunctions, a federal court has barred the Trump administration from enforcing his executive order limiting birthright citizenship nationwide.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante in Concord, New Hampshire, made the ruling on July 10 after being asked to grant class action status to a lawsuit filed seeking to represent infants who would not qualify for citizenship under Trump’s directive.

“You might be able to blame Kavanaugh’s concurrence in the CASA decision for this,” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales comments.


“You look at the CASA decision, and the majority decision from Chief Justice Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett said, ‘Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to the federal courts.’ However, you had Kavanaugh in his concurrence who left the door open for what the judge is trying to do,” Gonzales explains.

“The decision today will not alter this Court’s traditional role in those matters. Going forward, in the wake of a major new federal statute or executive action, different district courts may enter a slew of preliminary rulings on the legality of that statute or executive action,” Kavanaugh said. “Or alternatively, perhaps a district court (or courts) will grant or deny the functional equivalent of a universal injunction — for example, by granting or denying a preliminary injunction to a putative nationwide class under Rule 23(b)(2).”

“I’m getting in the weeds here, but it matters,” Gonzales says, explaining that “in order to have a judge take class action, you’ve got to have rule 23.”

“It lays out the criteria. Numerosity: So you’ve got a class that’s so big that individual lawsuits are impractical. You’ve got to lump them all together because not doing so would cause too many lawsuits to happen,” she continues.

“Commonality: There are common legal or factual questions among class members. Typicality: The named plaintiff’s claims are typical of the whole class. Adequacy: So the plaintiffs and their attorneys will fairly and accurately protect the interests of the entire class. And then rule 23(b), which, of course, Kavanaugh referenced, is the injunctive relief for that class,” she adds.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

'Complete madness': Court blocks Trump's birthright citizenship policy with universal injunction by another name



President Donald Trump signed an executive order on his first day back in office titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship." The order, set to go into effect on July 27, made it U.S. policy not to issue citizenship documents to a person whose mother was unlawfully in the country and whose father was neither an American citizen nor a permanent resident at the time of the person's birth.

A number of individuals, organizations, and states took the Trump administration to court over the order, obtaining universal injunctions against its implementation. However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 27 that these injunctions "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts."

Liberal litigants, desperate for an alternative, have since pursued universal injunctions under the guise of class-action lawsuits.

Joseph Laplante of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire is among the federal judges who is apparently happy to help torpedo the democratically elected president's agenda.

On Thursday, Laplante, a George W. Bush appointee, granted class action status to a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union challenging the birthright citizenship order, certifying the babies of illegal aliens and temporary migrants as a class.

He then issued a preliminary injunction, temporarily shielding the supposed class from the order's enforcement.

After the Supreme Court ruling in CASA, immigration activists requested that Laplante certify a class "of all current and future children who are or will be denied United States citizenship by Executive Order No. 14160 ... and their parents."

RELATED: 'Game of whack-a-mole': Leftists have new favorite way to block MAGA agenda — without universal injunctions

Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

Laplante obliged the activists, although he slightly narrowed the certified class, enjoining the Trump administration from implementing the order with regard to:

all current and future persons who are born on or after February 20, 2025, where (1) that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

"This ruling is a huge victory and will help protect the citizenship of all children born in the United States, as the Constitution intended," said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, which argued the case.

This class-wide injunction has the same effect as a nationwide injunction.

'This needs to end.'

Laplante's decision comes just a week after the Obama judge overseeing a case concerning Trump's asylum ban certified all border-jumping asylum-seekers "who are now or will be present in the United States" as a protected class, then barred the administration from expelling members of the class — a ruling the government quickly appealed.

RELATED: Trump fighting 'unconstitutional power grab' by Obama judge who reopened the floodgates

Photo by GUILLERMO ARIAS/AFP via Getty Images

Justice Samuel Alito cautioned district courts against such actions in his concurring opinion in CASA Inc., noting, "Rule 23 may permit the certification of nationwide classes in some discrete scenarios. But district courts should not view today's decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors of Rule 23. Otherwise, the universal injunction will return from the grave under the guise of 'nationwide class relief.'"

A senior White House official speaking to Blaze News this week about liberal litigants' class-action strategy noted, "We're ready to go immediately. We're prepared for every outcome."

Laplante's ruling has already prompted some outrage among Republicans.

Rep. Mike Collins (Ga.) noted, "No one elected judges to make nationwide policy. This needs to end."

"This is absurdity and complete madness that has to end," wrote Sen. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.). "We cannot allow activist judges to halt the work of a president who is carrying out the work that the American people elected him to do."

Evidently fed up with the games played by activists on and off the bench, Sen. Tom Cotton (Ark.) indicated he will introduce legislation next week to "end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants once and for all."

Laplante's ruling won't go into effect for seven days, affording the Trump administration time to appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals to stay the relief.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Judge Blocks Another Trump Order, Proving Alito Was Right About Loopholes In SCOTUS Injunction Ruling

Days after Justice Samuel Alito warned that a recent Supreme Court ruling had two glaring holes that could be exploited, an Obama-appointed judge appears to have done just that. U.S. District Judge Randolph Daniel Moss sided with the left-wing ACLU and several other activists organizations when he ruled that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority […]