TRUMP'S BIRTHRIGHT EXECUTIVE ORDER

 

What is the wording of trumps birthright executive order

American Immigration Council

Breaking Down Trump’s Attempt to End Birthright Citizenship

aila.org

Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship

federalregister

[PDF] EXECUTIVE ORDER 14160 - Federal Register

Common Cause

Explainer: Trump's Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship

There are many idiots posting that Trump's kids aren't citizens because of his EO. 

 BUT the idiots haven't read it, or know their idiot audience of followers are too stupid to read it.

  The order is clear, mom is illegal and dad NOT a citizen.  If one parent is a citizen, the child the child has birthright citizenship.  

Executive Order 14160: Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship

Executive Order 14160, titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," was signed by President Donald Trump on January 20, 2025, his first day in office12. The executive order attempts to restrict birthright citizenship for certain children born in the United States.

Complete Text of the Executive Order

The full wording of Executive Order 14160 is as follows34:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Purpose. The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift. The Fourteenth Amendment states: "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 wherein they reside." That provision rightly repudiated the Supreme Court of the United States's shameful decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), which misinterpreted the Constitution as permanently excluding people of African descent from eligibility for United States citizenship solely based on their race.

But the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that "a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment's text.

Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person's mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth, or (2) when that person's mother's presence in the United States at the time of said person's birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth.

Sec. 2. Policy. (a) It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when 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) when 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.

(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order.

(c) Nothing in this order shall be construed to affect the entitlement of other individuals, including children of lawful permanent residents, to obtain documentation of their United States citizenship.

Sec. 3. Enforcement. (a) The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Commissioner of Social Security shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the regulations and policies of their respective departments and agencies are consistent with this order, and that no officers, employees, or agents of their respective departments and agencies act, or forbear from acting, in any manner inconsistent with this order.

(b) The heads of all executive departments and agencies shall issue public guidance within 30 days of the date of this order regarding this order's implementation with respect to their operations and activities.

Sec. 4. Definitions. As used in this order:

(a) "Mother" means the immediate female biological progenitor.

(b) "Father" means the immediate male biological progenitor.

Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 20, 2025.

Key Provisions and Legal Status

The executive order targets two specific categories of births where citizenship would be denied56:

1. Children of undocumented mothers: When the mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident

2. Children of temporary visa holders: When the mother's presence was legal but temporary (tourist, student, work visas, or Visa Waiver Program participants) and the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident

The order was set to take effect for children born 30 days after January 20, 2025 (February 19, 2025)75, meaning it would not apply retroactively.

However, the executive order has been blocked by multiple federal courts since its issuance. Federal judges in Washington, Maryland, and Massachusetts have issued nationwide injunctions preventing its implementation, with judges calling the order "blatantly unconstitutional"18. As of June 2025, the order remains blocked by court injunctions, though the Supreme Court recently limited federal judges' ability to issue universal injunctions in this case910.

Related

What is the exact wording of Trump's birthright executive order

How does Executive Order 14160 define who is denied U.S. citizenship

What legal language did Trump use to justify ending birthright citizenship

How does the order describe the scope of birthright citizenship changes

What specific phrases in the executive order address persons born in the U.S.

Mobile Sidebar

WARNING TO IRAN & PRO-HAMAS PRO-PALESTINE terrorist supporters

 This is a warning to Iranians supporting the Supreme Leader, and those who oppose Trump.

Place your bets.  We are either in a WW3 ENDS OF TIME period or the events between Israel and Iran are historically meaningless.  If meaningless, than Trumps actions also are without meaning.

But what if prophecy is true?  What if this is a variation on Pascal’s Wager?

How are you placing your bet - your life and that of your descendants is on the table.  Which explains why so many have chosen not to create descendants - better none that the wrong bet.

Introduction: A Call to Conscience – Obedience to God or Loyalty to a Regime?

Blaise Pascal, a 17th-century philosopher, proposed a powerful idea known as Pascal’s Wager: if God exists, it is far wiser to live as if He does—because the cost of disbelief, if wrong, is infinite. Today, this logic applies not just to personal faith, but to entire nations standing on the edge of divine judgment. To the faithful Muslims of Iran, particularly those loyal to the Supreme Leader, this is not merely a political moment—it is a spiritual test.

The Qur’an warns that when corrupt leaders distort religion and bring fitnah (chaos), Allah raises others to restrain them (Surah Al-Hajj 22:40). The regime in Tehran has claimed divine authority, yet its actions—coercion in religion, suppression of dissent, and the shedding of innocent blood—contradict the very principles of the Qur’an and Sunnah. By aligning itself with violence and apocalyptic ambition, the Supreme Leader's rule fulfills the dark role of Gog and Magog, not the defenders of true Islam.

Returning to a just monarchy, like that of a Shah who defends the people's dignity and preserves Islam without tyranny, is not rebellion—it is obedience to Allah. To overthrow this regime is not sedition—it is repentance, a national taubah to escape the fate of those nations God destroys for their arrogance. If prophecy is being fulfilled, and if Trump—or any world leader—is raised up like Dhul-Qarnayn to resist Gog and Magog, then failing to act could place the people of Iran against Allah’s plan. In this wager, inaction is a gamble against divine truth. The wise will choose submission to God over submission to corrupt men.

The Destruction of Iran's Regime as a Prophetic Fulfillment in Pre-Messianic Scripture

The prophetic literature of both the Bible and Qur’an contains vivid descriptions of an end-times coalition led by a figure named Gog from the land of Magog—an alliance of nations destined to rise against Israel shortly before the arrival of the Messiah. Among the named participants is Persia, the ancient name for modern-day Iran, placing the current Iranian regime squarely within the prophetic framework of Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39. This coalition, including Persia (Iran), Meshech and Tubal (Anatolia/Turkey), and the distant northern land (commonly interpreted as Russia), attacks Israel but is ultimately destroyed not by Israel itself, but by a divine act of judgment—fire from heaven or a decisive intervention through a chosen leader.

Linguistic and historical evidence places Magog in the Black Sea and Central Asian regions, the ancient homeland of the Turkic and Scythian peoples. Iran, with its ethnogenesis intertwined with the Medes (Madai, a brother of Magog), and heavily influenced by later Turkic and Mongol migrations, inherits not just the geography but the prophetic lineage of Magog. Furthermore, the expansion of Turkic and Magog-descended tribes into vast territories—including linguistic echoes found as far as Native American languages—mirrors the Qur’anic portrayal of Gog and Magog (Ya'juj and Ma'juj) as a destructive force that surges over all lands at the end of days.

In this prophetic drama, the figure of Donald Trump has emerged with striking parallels to priestly and royal archetypes described in scripture. Like Aaron in Leviticus 8, Trump's right ear was notably bloodied in a 2023 assassination attempt—a symbolic echo of priestly consecration. Like Cyrus in Isaiah 45, he played a central role in restoring Jerusalem’s political significance, brokering peace among former enemies, and standing firm against the apocalyptic ambitions of Iran’s theocratic leadership. His resemblance to Dhul-Qarnayn in the Qur’an—who built a barrier to hold back Gog and Magog—supports the idea that he serves as a divinely positioned restrainer of global chaos.

The Iranian regime, through its militant eschatology, suppression of religious liberty, and sponsorship of international terrorism, fits the role of the Magogic antagonist. As such, its destruction or decisive defeat would not merely be a geopolitical outcome—it would fulfill the pre-Messianic requirement found in both Bible and Qur’an: the fall of the Magogic coalition and the global recognition of divine sovereignty. In this framework, the end of Iran’s ruling order marks not just a regional shift, but the spiritual tipping point that ushers in the age of the Messiah.

FORMALIZING 2028 Election Prediction on 5 May 2025

Bernie Sanders said Dems had paid a political price for not listening to the working class. He also said that Dems will lose again if they run Maryland Governor Wes Moore as the 2028 nominee instead of a more progressive candidate. What is your view?

Bill

Former Dem County Chair -- 70/80's knew Reagan & TrumpJust now

Assuming the Republicans run a descendant of the 4-SISTERS, then the Democrats MUST run someone who also meets that historically consistent standard (for historic relationship chart, see real cover of

TRUMP CARD 2.0: POTUS 45 into 47: Lipton, W Lawrence: 9798302688736: Amazon.com: Books

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DV5KCFL6

)

The policies aren’t that important… the historic kinship is — when broken, the nation falls. YES, a Progressive candidate would be a better choice. But it is probable that Trump will ensure the Republicans adopt “Progressive” policies that are economically intelligent and block waste, fraud, and debt.

Trump has three years to either save America or go down as the worst President or leader in the history of any nation. If the USA goes down — TRUMP gets the blame. Nobody will publicise the 4-SISTER break … at least not for another twenty years… By then, Trump’s failed position in the history books will be secure and timless.

Basics… Democrats ran Hillary and Harris — neither is a POTUS COUSIN related to the 4-SISTERS. Thus they has to lose. Biden’s connection is greater than Trumps, so Biden beat Trump. Whn the candidates are established and announced, anyone with a hour or so online can check the ancestry of the candidates and know which will win… or if the nation is doomed (because neither are POTUS COUSINS).

1 view

1 of 18 answers

Finite and Infinite Games as a Lens to current events

 

Finite and Infinite Games as a Lens

The concept of finite and infinite games, popularized by James P. Carse and later Simon Sinek, provides a useful framework. A finite game has defined players, rules, and a clear endpoint—someone wins, someone loses. An infinite game has no fixed endpoint; the goal is to keep playing, adapting, and evolving indefinitely. Applied to human existence, evolution itself can be seen as an infinite game: species adapt and persist without a predetermined "winner," driven by survival and reproduction. However, political and ideological conflicts—like those between Trump-era Republicans, Democrats, or global actors in wars—often operate as finite games, with immediate winners and losers, risking the broader infinite game of humanity’s survival.

Political Ideologies and Existential Stakes

Under Trump’s leadership, Democrats have been "willing to kill the USA," perhaps implying policies or actions perceived as undermining national stability (e.g., economic, cultural, or geopolitical decline). Conversely, those control driven Republicans, in their pro-life {anti-Baby-Bust}stance, might prioritize the fetus’s life even at the cost of the mother’s, potentially sacrificing future reproductive potential for an ideological "win" in the present. Both can be framed as finite-game thinking: short-term victories (political power, moral purity) that might jeopardize the infinite game of human continuity.

• Democrats and the USA: If we interpret "killing the USA" as a willingness to risk national cohesion—say, through polarization, economic policies, or alignment with globalist agendas—it’s a finite move that gambles with long-term stability. For example, critics might argue Democratic support for Ukraine risks escalating tensions with Russia, a nuclear power, prioritizing ideological wins (e.g., democracy vs. authoritarianism) over existential safety.
• Republicans and Pro-Life: The pro-life stance, when absolutist, could be seen as a finite game where the immediate "win" (saving a fetus) ignores the infinite-game cost (a woman’s survival and future offspring). This mirrors a broader critique of rigid ideology: winning the moral battle today might lose the evolutionary war tomorrow.

Wars in Israel and Ukraine: Finite Games with Infinite Risks

The wars in Israel (e.g., against Hamas or broader Middle East tensions) and Ukraine (against Russia) exemplify finite games with existential stakes. In Ukraine, the U.S. and NATO back a proxy conflict to weaken Russia, a finite goal that risks escalation—Putin’s nuclear saber-rattling underscores this. In Israel, the fight against terrorism or regional rivals like Iran (a potential nuclear player by 2033/34) is a finite struggle for security that could spiral into a broader conflict. Both wars pit immediate objectives (territorial control, ideological dominance) against the infinite game of human survival, especially if nuclear thresholds are crossed.

Nuclear War in 2033/34: The Ultimate Existential Threat

Projecting to 2033/34, a nuclear war could arise from these simmering conflicts. Russia’s arsenal, China’s growing nuclear capabilities, and Iran’s ambitions (potentially realized by then) create a multipolar nuclear landscape. A miscalculation in Ukraine—say, NATO’s direct involvement—or a Middle East crisis escalating to involve Israel’s nuclear deterrent could trigger a cascade. This would be the ultimate finite game: a "winner" emerges only in the sense of who’s left standing, but the infinite game of humanity’s evolution could end. The evolutionary pathway—whatever its mysterious "reason" might be—would be severed if civilization collapses in nuclear fallout.

Coherent Expression

Here’s a synthesized narrative:

Humanity’s existence unfolds as an infinite game, a slow evolutionary dance toward an unknown purpose—survival, adaptation, perhaps transcendence. Yet, we’re trapped in finite games that threaten this continuity. In the U.S., Democrats under Trump’s shadow have played a high-stakes game, risking national vitality for ideological wins, like backing Ukraine against Russia, a nuclear giant. Republicans, with pro-life absolutism, chase moral victories, potentially sacrificing women’s lives—and future generations—for the unborn today. Globally, the wars in Ukraine and Israel are finite battles for power and survival, but their escalation could ignite a nuclear fire by 2033/34. Russia’s threats, Iran’s ambitions, and superpower rivalries turn these conflicts into existential gambles. If we prioritize winning these short-term games—political, moral, or military—we risk losing the infinite game of human existence itself. Evolution demands we play for persistence, not triumph; nuclear war would be the checkmate that ends the board entirely.

This framing ties the ideas together: political shortsightedness, ideological rigidity, and geopolitical brinkmanship all threaten the evolutionary "why" of humanity. It’s not about who’s right or wrong—it’s about whether we can transcend finite thinking to safeguard the infinite.

USA infinite vs finite with baby-bust as filter

 The ongoing baby bust in many developed nations, particularly in the United States, can be understood as a form of natural selection favoring those who think in multi-generational terms. Societies and individuals who prioritize short-term gratification, personal fulfillment, or temporary political or economic success tend to have fewer children, if any at all. Over time, this self-limiting behavior reduces their representation in the population. Meanwhile, those who adopt an infinite-game mindset—focusing on long-term survival, cultural transmission, and the continuation of their values—are more likely to have larger families. As a result, their influence grows over generations, while the finite thinkers gradually disappear from the demographic landscape.

In the United States, this dynamic is particularly evident in the contrast between different political and ideological factions. Figures like Donald Trump and Elon Musk embody long-term strategic thinking, each in their own way. Trump’s influence extends beyond electoral cycles; his movement is structured to persist beyond his presidency, reshaping the Republican Party and American politics for the foreseeable future. His approach to legacy, family, and nationalism aligns with an infinite-game perspective. Musk, though operating outside of traditional politics, similarly pursues goals that extend beyond his own lifetime, such as interplanetary colonization and technological transformation, ensuring his impact will last for generations.

In contrast, the leadership of the modern Democratic Party often operates within a finite-game framework, prioritizing short-term political victories, social trends, or personal career advancement over enduring influence. Many of these figures do not have large families, and in some cases, they have no children at all, which symbolically aligns with their approach to governance—focused on the immediate rather than the lasting. This is not merely a question of personal choice but an ideological marker; those who do not see the need for cultural or biological continuity may naturally phase themselves out of the long-term political equation.

If this trend continues, the future will belong to those who embrace generational thinking. Religious communities, traditionalists, and others who prioritize family and legacy will increasingly shape the demographic and cultural landscape. The baby bust, then, is not merely an economic or social crisis but a selective process that favors infinite-game players over those who see life as a series of isolated, individual pursuits.