Mia Dees

- Opening post: Today the Supreme Court hears the Birthright Citizenship case. American citizenship is a sacred privilege, not an automatic gift to those who break our laws. I’ve been fighting this issue in the Senate and at the Supreme Court. Here’s what I’ll be listening for. 🧵 (includes 1 image) - Case overview: The case—Trump v. Barbara—asks whether President Trump’s executive order (interpreting the 14th Amendment and federal law) is legal when it says the U.S. does not require unlimited birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens and temporary visitors. (includes 2 images) - 14th Amendment context: The 14th Amendment contains the Citizenship Clause. It was ratified after the Civil War to overturn the Dred Scott decision (which said people of African descent could never be citizens because of their race). SCOTUS will interpret this clause. (includes 1 image) - How SCOTUS interprets the Constitution: Justice Kavanaugh has said the Court looks at the Constitution’s “text, pre-ratification and post-ratification history, and SCOTUS precedent.” (includes 1 image) - What I’ll listen for #1 – Text of the 14th Amendment: The Citizenship Clause grants citizenship to children who are (1) born in the U.S. and (2) “subject to” its “jurisdiction.” The key question is: What does “subject to the jurisdiction” mean? (includes 1 image) - Trump Admin / Schmitt argument on “jurisdiction”: It means complete political jurisdiction, not just regulatory jurisdiction. So it covers U.S. citizens and legally domiciled aliens—but not illegal aliens or temporary visitors. (includes 3 images) - Additional textual clue: The clause also refers to parents who “reside” in the state. Neither temporary visitors nor illegal aliens legally “reside” in a state, so the clause doesn’t apply to them. (includes 1 image) - What I’ll listen for #2 – Pre-14th Amendment history: Some claim mere birth on U.S. soil was enough for citizenship, but the actual historical rule was birth on the soil to parents under the sovereign’s protection (i.e., legal immigration). (quotes a video from a Senate Judiciary hearing with law professor Ilan Wurman) - What I’ll listen for #3 – Post-14th Amendment history: Critics say the government never held Trump’s view, but that’s incorrect. Past government practice strongly supports the Trump EO. (includes 1 video of Schmitt explaining this) - Historical example #1: Attorney General George Williams (a Senator during 14th Amendment debates) said “jurisdiction” meant more than just regulatory jurisdiction. (includes 1 image) - Historical example #2: 19th-century Secretaries of State denied birthright citizenship to children of temporarily present aliens because those parents were not domiciled in the U.S. and thus not subject to full jurisdiction. (includes 1 image) - Historical example #3: Treasury ruled that a child born to a mother who had not been lawfully admitted to the U.S. was not a citizen. (includes 1 image) - What I’ll listen for #4 – Key SCOTUS precedents: The two main cases are Elk v. Wilkins (1884) and Wong Kim Ark (1898). Both strongly support the Trump EO. (includes 1 image) - Elk v. Wilkins explained: SCOTUS held the clause does not cover tribal Indians because they owed allegiance to their tribe, not complete political jurisdiction to the U.S. Trump’s EO uses the same interpretation of “jurisdiction.” (includes 1 image) - Wong Kim Ark explained: SCOTUS held the clause covers children of domiciled (legally settled) immigrants, regardless of race. The EO takes the exact same position. Opponents wrongly try to stretch it to cover temporary/illegal aliens. (includes 2 images) - Closing / summary: In sum, text + history + precedent all support President Trump’s EO: Children of illegal aliens and temporary visitors are not entitled to birthright citizenship. This is massively important for American sovereignty. Hopefully SCOTUS gets it right. (includes link to Schmitt’s earlier amicus brief on the topic

🚨 I’m Done With the Chicago Bulls Forever They fired Jaden Ivey for standing on his religious beliefs… but let actual criminals stay on the roster? I promise — no more Bulls games for me. Where’s the real justice? Who else is boycotting? 👇 #StandWithJadenIvey #BullsBoycott #JadenIvey #NBAHypocrisy #ChristianAthlete #ReligiousFreedom #ChicagoBulls #NoMoreBulls