The executive order issued by President Donald Trump, which bans birthright citizenship of illegal aliens in connection with the border invasion, could lead to a landmark Supreme Court decision that would fix a decades-old problem and be a Trump victory.

On Inauguration day — January 20, — several executive orders and actions by the president dealt with immigration and southern border. Trump said that the situation at the border was an invasion of the United States, and issued a declaration banning entry for illegal aliens.

In EO 14160, which deals with birthright citizenship, President Trump ordered that his government would not issue citizenship documents to the children of women who were illegal aliens in the U.S. or on a temporary Visa and whose fathers were not U.S. Citizens or lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs).

Democrats and their allies did not waste any time in filing at least ten lawsuits against the constitutionality this EO. In Massachusetts, 18 Democratic state attorneys general filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this EO. Four other states also filed in Washington.

1776 Coalition Sponsored Double your Impact We have a generous donor who’s agreed to match all donations up to $1 million and we hope you’ll take advantage of it! These funds will allow us to ensure Israel’s soldiers and security forces can safeguard Israel by providing them with essentials such as: Modern body armor, Medical supplies, and Life-saving equipment Unfortunately, we won’t be able to get these supplies to those who need them most if you don’t respond before the end of February. Accept your 100% match upgrade NOW!.

Leftists say that anyone born in the United States automatically becomes a citizen. This is not and has never been law.

These lawsuits all assert the Citizenship Clause in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which states that “All persons who are born or naturalized within the United States under their jurisdiction, are citizens both of the United States as well as the state where they reside.”

Dred Scott V. Sanford, the most infamous Supreme Court case of American history, was where it all began. A Black man, who was a slave and then moved to a state with no slavery laws, sued the federal court for a ruling that he should remain free. In the 1857 case, a court ruled that a Black man was not an American citizen and therefore no federal court had jurisdiction over his case.

The Thirteenth Amendment was proposed by Congress as the Civil War ended. It ended slavery. This amendment contained Section 2, which empowered Congress to pass laws to enforce slavery to the fullest extent.

The Civil Rights Act of1866 was passed by Congress as soon as the Thirteenth Amendment had been ratified in 1866. This act claimed authority from Section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment. The act included a clause about federal citizenship that stated: “All persons who are born or naturalized within the United States without being subject to any other power, shall be citizens of the United States as well as of the state where they reside.”

Congressman John Bingham, R-OH at the time believed that Section 2 did not cover citizenship. Others agreed with him that a new constitutional amendment was necessary to address issues such as citizenship, equal protection laws, and due process. The states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 after repackaging the language of the Civil Rights Act.

The Congress repackaged the citizenship provision and changed the phrase “not subject to a foreign power” into “and subject to their jurisdiction.”

Jacob Howard (R – MI) explained the meaning of this phrase, which some call “complete jurisdiction”.

The word “jurisdiction” as used here should be interpreted so that it implies a full and comprehensive jurisdiction by the United States. This jurisdiction is coextensive with all the constitutional powers of the United States whether they are exercised by Congress or the executive department.

Sen. LymanTrumbull (R – IL) said that the phrase did not include anyone who owed a “partial” allegiance to “someother Government” outside of the United States. Other members have made similar statements, including Congressman John Broomall, R-PA, who explained that “a civilized man must be a citizen somewhere.” This was not possible under Dred Scott for a Black person, but nevertheless, this man “must “owe allegiance” to some government.

Citizenship Clause, which overruled Dred Scott, was therefore written into the Constitution. The clause was added to the Constitution to overturn Dred Scott.

Federal law has recognized for many years that certain persons are excluded from citizenship by this phrase. Children of foreign diplomats, foreign dignitaries and foreign soldiers who are born in the United States do not become citizens.

The question that arises is, who else is excluded from this exclusion? President Trump says that the children of illegal immigrants are included in that category. Two Supreme Court decisions set the frame for this discussion.

Elk v. Wilkins was the first case. The Supreme Court ruled in 1884, that an Indian born on a reservation was not entitled to citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, because Indian nations were quasi-sovereign and Elk therefore was not subject to the political jurisdictions of the United States.

Elk discussed the history and quotes listed above and then went on to say that Indians who were not covered by the Citizenship Clause, are on the exact same level as “the Children of Foreign Subjects,” who are temporarily in the United States, and both groups have the constitutional citizenship rights of “the Children of Ambassadors”, meaning that the Constitution didn’t promise them citizenship.

U.S. V. Wong Kim Ark is the second case, in which the Supreme Court ruled in 1898 that it was the Constitution that guaranteed citizenship to the child of Chinese nationals who lived in California. Their son was born in America in the year 1873. He had visited China, but was refused reentry as he wasn’t treated like a citizen.

Wong Kim Ark may seem to be a problem, but the court in that country reasoned the parents had renounced their allegiance and ties to China, and lived permanently in the United States. This is important, because an illegal alien does not have a permanent status in the United States. They were also here legally. The Chinese Exclusion Act prevented Chinese immigrants from becoming American citizens during that period. These parents were as close as they could get to being citizens, living here permanently and legally when their son was conceived in the U.S.

The court opinion also included a broader wording that covered the children of noncitizens. This language is called “dicta” by courts, not the “holding” or decision of the court. This term is used to describe the “holding” of the court.