Trump is not backing down.


US may ask parents to prove citizenship or immigration status to get passports for their children
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-birthright-curbs-may-prompt-us-passport-checks-parents-2026-09-01/

By Kristina Cooke and Nate Raymond
September 1, 20264:09 PM CDTUpdated 17 hours ago

Quote:

---

Summary

• State Department drafts new passport rules for children
• Parents would have to prove citizenship or immigration status
• Policy tied to Trump's latest birthright citizenship order
• Courts are weighing challenges to Trump's executive action

---

More Americans. Of all kinds.

Bull Meachem said:

---

Enforce the law. Amend the 14th Amendment.

---

Without demorats it's not possible, do you have another solution?

schmendeler said:

---

More Americans. Of all kinds.

---

Even ones of low IQ?

samurai_science said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

More Americans. Of all kinds.

---

Even ones of low IQ?

---

Maga can remain citizens, yes

doubledog said:

---

Fightin_Aggie said:

---

doubledog said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

You can stop it with a constitutional amendment repealing the 14th.

---

This is not merely a matter of endorsing birthright citizenship; it is fundamentally about upholding the Constitution.

Personally, I would feel equally frustrated if a liberal attempted to manipulate the language of the Second Amendment, which, for the sake of discussion, is considerably more ambiguous than the 14th as it is phrased.

---

What a ridiculous take


Shall not be infringed vs under the jurisdiction of

---

" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" vs " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

Those are the two clauses that are relevant to this conversation. The first is very ambiguous (in 2026) and can be hard to construe.

---

How is the first hard to construe? The Bill of Rights were drafted specifically for the protection of INDIVIDUAL rights. Regarding the 2nd, it's for the INDIVIDUAL and has nothing to do with any formal organization or state.

The purpose is to allow for individuals to possess weapons to allow them to band together against the tyranny of an overzealous central government. It does NOT grant authority for an overzealous one to restrict the worship of weapons in any sense or by any means.

The only ambiguity in the 2nd would be defining what is meant by "arms". I do not think the FFs intended for individuals to have nukes, fighter jets and battleships, but it's open for debate. Though absolutist argue "shall not be infringed" allows for such possession.

The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is piss-arse wording that is being misused to subvert the construct of our Countey.

Stop the free benefits and this goes away for the most part.

flown-the-coop said:

---

doubledog said:

---

" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" vs " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

Those are the two clauses that are relevant to this conversation. The first is very ambiguous (in 2026) and can be hard to construe.

---

How is the first hard to construe? The Bill of Rights were drafted specifically for the protection of INDIVIDUAL rights. Regarding the 2nd, it's for the INDIVIDUAL and has nothing to do with any formal organization or state.

---

Construe the phrase "A well regulated Militia" as it applies in the year 2026.

doubledog said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

doubledog said:

---

" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" vs " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

Those are the two clauses that are relevant to this conversation. The first is very ambiguous (in 2026) and can be hard to construe.

---

How is the first hard to construe? The Bill of Rights were drafted specifically for the protection of INDIVIDUAL rights. Regarding the 2nd, it's for the INDIVIDUAL and has nothing to do with any formal organization or state.

---

Construe the phrase "A well regulated Militia" as it applies in the year 2026.

---

Why? Its inconsequential to the meaning of the amendment. It provides a reason, though none is needed.

It could have just as easily read, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"Arms", being capitalized, should be properly defined but I do not think it is. Outside of that the amendment is pretty straight-forward.

If they intended for it to be some sort of right of the States to have only a "well-regulated militia" then it would not belong in the Bill of Rights, which are intended solely for the individual.

flown-the-coop said:

---

doubledog said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

doubledog said:

---

" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" vs " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

Those are the two clauses that are relevant to this conversation. The first is very ambiguous (in 2026) and can be hard to construe.

---

How is the first hard to construe? The Bill of Rights were drafted specifically for the protection of INDIVIDUAL rights. Regarding the 2nd, it's for the INDIVIDUAL and has nothing to do with any formal organization or state.

---

Construe the phrase "A well regulated Militia" as it applies in the year 2026.

---

Why? Its inconsequential to the meaning of the amendment. It provides a reason, though none is needed.

---

It is not inconsequential, because the law must construe the entire sentences, you cannot cherry pick the clauses you like. The law cannot legally choose to ignore any clause in a constitutional amendment. That is why there has been 10 major rulings on the Second Amendment in its history.

So with that in mind : Construe the phrase "A well regulated Militia" as it applies in the year 2026.

The "Well regulated militia" statement is construed via basic English sentence structure and grammar. It is there as a justification, not a declaration. It is equivalent to a "whereas" in a resolution, while "shall not be infringed" would fall under "be it resolved that." Any honest reading of the full 2nd amendment text should make that obvious.

But, if you really want to go there. The 2nd amendment is basically saying that the general population has the right to be just as well armed as the state,

coconutED said:

---

The "Well regulated militia" statement is construed via basic English sentence structure and grammar. It is there as a justification, not a declaration. It is equivalent to a "whereas" in a resolution, while "shall not be infringed" would fall under "be it resolved that." Any honest reading of the full 2nd amendment text should make that obvious.

But, if you really want to go there. The 2nd amendment is basically saying that the general population has the right to be just as well armed as the state,

---

Correct. It gives you the why which is not needed when you say the second part.

Similar to "we the people, in order to form a more perfect union..." is nice and all, but the preamble just needs to say "We the people do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The why and justification are irrelevant when the action from the sentence contain the "law".

Now let us extend this to H1Bs and other work related.

🚨 BREAKING: DHS just dropped an interim final rule which declares that children born on American soil to foreign government noncitizen employees are NOT BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENS, PERIOD

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

LONG overdue! This is enforcing a Trump executive order to crack down on the foreign… pic.twitter.com/aQ9Mfvl7Js

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) September 4, 2026

More unconstitutional declarations