Thread: Judge Boardman ignored facts when blocking Trump’s E.O. restricting birth citizenship

As will be demonstrated below, US District Judge Deborah Boardman misrepresented actual facts when issuing her preliminary injunction against President Trump’s Executive Order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”.

Judge Boardman writes:

“The President’s novel interpretation of the Citizenship Clause contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment and conflicts with 125-year-old binding Supreme Court precedent. At the turn of the twentieth century, the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 -- 1898, resolved any debate about the scope of the Citizenship Clause and the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Wong Kim Ark forecloses the President’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause.”

The truth is, Judge Boardman suspiciously ignores the following facts surrounding Wong Kim Ark:

(1)Wong Kim Ark’s parents were in the United States legally;
(2) had been settled in America for quite some time;
(3) the parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States;
(4) they were carrying on a lawful business;
(5) and the parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth.

Trump’s Executive Order is directed at the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil as distinguished from the parents of Wong Kim Ark.

So, contrary to Judge Boardman assertion that, “. . . Wong Kim Ark forecloses the President’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause. . .”, the truth is, Wong Kim Ark did not decide if the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil are granted citizenship upon birth.

In fact, there is no Supreme Court case which Judge Boardman can cite which took up the question and confirmed, a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is granted U.S. citizenship upon birth.

Judge Boardman also writes: “Today, virtually every baby born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen upon birth. That is the law and tradition of our country.”

The truth is, there is no “appropriate legislation” enacted by Congress under its exclusive Fourteenth Amendment Section 5 authority, which Boardman can cite as "law", declaring a child born to an illegal entrant foreign national while on American soil is granted citizenship upon birth.

It is true that Congress has exercise its exclusive power in the past, e.g., in 1924, and granted birthright citizenship to Indians born on American soil by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

But as it turns out, Judge Boardman misrepresents the truth when saying that our “law” commands that every baby born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen upon birth.

Judge Boardman also asserts "The government will not be harmed if enforcement of the Executive Order is enjoined."

But the truth is, American citizens will, and are now being harmed, by granting citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals who are born on American soil. American citizens are paying the price to provide social and economic needs for the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals, while the children of American citizens suffer as needed and limited resources are diverted for the use and enjoyment of children of illegal entrant foreign nationals.

Today, nothing more than unwritten federal policy, not "law" recognizes the offspring born to an illegal entrant foreign national on American soil as a citizen of the United States upon birth.

Although Judge Boardman has expressed her compassionate views in support of granting citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, her views are certainly not the “law” and only reflect existing public policy which a President, under his Article 2 authority, can lawfully change.

Let us keep in mind the policy making authority of our President is a hallmark of our Republican Form of Government guaranteed by the terms of our Constitution, which also provides for elections in order to accommodate change of existing public policy.

Since our Constitution does not explicitly grant citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, nor has Congress acted to grant such citizenship, nor is there a Supreme Court case where the Court was called upon to decide if the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil are granted United States citizenship upon birth, and that nothing more than unwritten federal policy has recognized the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born while on American soil as citizens of the United States, President Trump, elected by the good people of the United States, is free to exercise his administrative policy-making power, so long as it does not violate any provisions of our Constitution, and he may change existing federal policy which has recognized the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born while on American soil as citizens of the United States upon birth.

Elections have consequences!

The bottom line is, US District Judge Deborah Boardman has misrepresented facts in granting her injunction, has made a mockery of our county's rule of law, and in doing so has flaunted the Code of Conduct for United States Judges

JWK


“If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges." - Joseph Story
.

.
It is absolutely stunning and unforgivable that Judge Boardman falsely asserts, "The government will not be harmed if enforcement of the Executive Order is enjoined."

The truth is, American citizens and their children will suffer an ever increasing irreparable harm if Trump’s Executive Order is enjoined and the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil are continually recognized as citizens of the United States who are already taking over and overburdening the nation’s emergency health care rooms; public schools, public housing and even recreation facilities . . . all meant for America's needy citizens and their children.

How dare Judge Boardman intentionally close her eyes to the devastating consequences she knowingly inflicts upon American citizens in her quest to recognize the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil as citizens of the United States upon birth.

JWK

America's wage-earning citizens are being made into taxed slaves to pay for the economic and social needs of millions upon millions of foreign nationals who have invaded the United States’ border.

Originally Posted by johnwk

.
It is absolutely stunning and unforgivable that Judge Boardman falsely asserts, "The government will not be harmed if enforcement of the Executive Order is enjoined." America's wage-earning citizens are being made into taxed slaves to pay for the economic and social needs of millions upon millions of foreign nationals who have invaded the United States’ border.

While DOGE uncovers facts like people 100 or 150 years old are still getting Social Security and Medicare payments and benefits, Dahboo77 brought up the point that they are NOT talking about prosecuting those responsible for these crimes, or recovering the funds inappropriately paid.

Although it is important to FIND the problems, as you've said, it is critical to keep going until the issue is resolved. In the case of Judge Boardman, and in the case of DOGE findings, MORE needs to be done.

One of the problems with this, too, is that the "news cycle" only covers a news item for a very limited amount of time and then you never hear about it again ... think Hurricane Helene or the Lahaina Fire as just 2 examples, but there are MANY more. We used to have public discussions for a MUCH longer period of time where other points surfaced.

Thank you for bringing up some very good complex issues.

Originally Posted by GaiaGoddess

While DOGE uncovers facts like people 100 or 150 years old are still getting Social Security and Medicare payments and benefits, Dahboo77 brought up the point that they are NOT talking about prosecuting those responsible for these crimes, or recovering the funds inappropriately paid.

Although it is important to FIND the problems, as you've said, it is critical to keep going until the issue is resolved. In the case of Judge Boardman, and in the case of DOGE findings, MORE needs to be done.

One of the problems with this, too, is that the "news cycle" only covers a news item for a very limited amount of time and then you never hear about it again ... think Hurricane Helene or the Lahaina Fire as just 2 examples, but there are MANY more. We used to have public discussions for a MUCH longer period of time where other points surfaced.

Thank you for bringing up some very good complex issues.

Judge Boardman has certainly made a mockery of the very purpose of our elections and is using her office of public trust to meddle with the will of a majority of American citizens expressed during the 2024 election.
.

As stated in the OP, there is no “appropriate legislation” enacted by Congress under its exclusive Fourteenth Amendment Section 5 authority, which Boardman can cite as "law", declaring a child born to an illegal entrant foreign national while on American soil is granted citizenship upon birth. Public policy, and only public policy, not “law”, now recognizes the offspring born to an illegal entrant foreign national on American soil as a citizen of the United States upon birth.

To confirm, once again how Congress, not Judge Boardman, is authorized to grant United States citizenship to specifically identified groups, the following is another example of Congress exercising its exclusive authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment granting citizenship to a specifically identified group.

See: CHAP. CCCXXXII. - An Act to abolish the tribal Relations of the Miami Indians, March, 1873. And for other Purposes . . .( enter 673 in box at top and press “Enter” on your keyboard)


“SEC. 3. That if-any adult member of said tribe shall desire to become a citizen of the United States, shall prove by at least two competent witnesses, to the satisfaction of the circuit court of the United States for the State of Kansas, that he or she is sufficiently intelligent and prudent to manage his or her own affairs, and has, for the period of five years, been able to maintain himself or herself and family, and has adopted the habits of civilized life, and shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States, as provided by law for the naturalization of aliens, he or she shall be declared by said court to be a citizen of the United States, which shall be entered of record and-a certificate thereof given to said party.”

So, once we prove that not “. . . every baby born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen upon birth. That is the law and tradition of our country…”, which is what Judge Boardman falsely asserted. Public policy, not “law” enacted by Congress, has recognized the offspring born to an illegal entrant foreign national on American soil as a citizen of the United States upon birth.

As demonstrated above, our “oath of allegiance” is a critical part in granting citizenship to those entering our country which then satisfies the Fourteenth Amendment’s qualifier “… and subject to the jurisdiction …”


Elections do have consequences, and for Judge Boardman to put her finger on the scale as she has done, not only ignores the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, but is a deliberate subjugation of the very purpose our Constitution guarantees elections.

JWK

Why have a written constitution approved by the people if those who it is meant to control and regulate are free to make it mean whatever they want it to mean?

The following evidence confirms a child born to a subject of a foreign country, (which obviously includes an illegal entrant foreign national) while on American soil is not a United States citizen upon birth.

Mr. Bayard to Mr. Winchester.
Department of State,
Washington,

November 28, 1885.

Sir: Your No. 24, in regard to the request of Richard Greisser for a passport, has been received. In reply, I have to say that on general principles of international law I do not consider that Richard Greisser is a citizen of the United States. He was, it is true, born in 1867 in the State of Ohio. His father, however, was at that time a German subject, and, so far as we can gather from the facts stated, domiciled in [Page 815]Germany. The son, therefore, so far as concerns his international relations, was at the time of his birth of the same nationality as his father. Had he remained in this country till he was of full age and then elected an American nationality, he would on the same general principles of international law be now clothed with American nationality. But so far from this being the case, he left this country with his mother when he was under two years old, apparently joining the father in Germany, to which country the latter had previously returned, and then, after his father’s death, moved with his mother to Switzerland. His technical nationality and domicile would, therefore, during his minority and his father’s life, be in Germany, and afterwards in Switzerland.

It does not follow, however, that though on general principles of international law his nationality and domicile are in Germany, he may not in this country by force of our special legislation be a citizen of the United States and as such entitled to a passport. We have in the naturalization legislation of modern civilized states numerous illustrations of the rule that, the law of nations, as to particular matters, may be, as to such particular countries, either expanded or contracted by local legislation, and we have, therefore, to inquire how far the rule above stated is affected by the legislation of the United States.

By section 1992, Revised Statutes, enacted in 3866—

All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.

By the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868—

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State in which they reside.

Richard Greisser was no doubt born in the United States, but he was on his birth “subject to a foreign power” and “not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” He was not, therefore, under the statute and the Constitution a citizen of the United States by birth; and it is not pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.

I am, &c.,

T. F. BAYARD. (SOURCE)