Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship
Roberts Opinion, joined by Barrett and the liberal block, fully embraces birthright citizenship for all. Children born to women illegally or temporarily in the country “are citizens at birth.”
“Birthright citizenship” is the concept that every person born in the United States “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a citizen, as set forth in the 14th Amendment. But what does “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean? Are the children of mothers illegally in the country or temporarily here (for example on a tourist visa) automatically citizens?
That issue is before the Supreme Court on a legal challenge to a Trump administration Executive Order. Here is the Question Presented on which the court agreed to take the case:
The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that those “born * * * in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” are U.S. citizens. U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 1. The Clause was adopted to confer citizenship on the newly freed slaves and their children, not on the children of aliens temporarily visiting the United States or of illegal aliens. On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 14,160, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, which restores the original meaning of the Citizenship Clause and provides, on a prospective basis only, that children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens by birth. The Citizenship Order directs federal agencies not to issue or accept citizenship documents for such children born more than 30 days after the Order’s effective date.
The question presented is whether the Executive Order complies on its face with the Citizenship Clause and with 8 U.S.C. 1401(a), which codifies that Clause.
We covered the oral argument, and here was my quick take:
The argument is over, and I don’t see any clear signal from the Justices which way this will go. Sotomayor and KBJ are clearly against the government position, but the others — even Kagan — were harder to read. One thing I can say to a certainty, is that this was not the frivolous issue portrayed in the mainstream media The Justice seem torn as to a somewhat unclear historical and case law record. What didn’t get a lot of attention, and I think may be significant, is that the Executive Order at issue only turns on current legal status, not esoteric arguments as to domicile….
The Court just ruled 5-4 that children born to women illegally or temporarily in the country “are citizens at birth.”
MORE TO FOLLOW
From the Roberts majority opinion:
At issue in this case is whether the Constitution guarantees citizenship to children born of parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States.
***
The ordinary legal meaning of the text of the Clause thus neatly captures the common law rule, with its broad reach and narrow exceptions. The same groups included (and excluded) by jus soli were included (and excluded) by the conventional understanding of jurisdiction. Excluded by both were the children of foreign ministers and members of 19thcentury Indian tribes over whom the United States had ceded a part of its territorial jurisdiction to preserve its relationship with a foreign sovereign (or quasi-sovereign). No such intersovereign concerns apply to children born of parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States; no foreign sovereign would “have any motive for wishing” them outside this Nation’s authority. Ibid. Those children are thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They satisfy both elements of the Citizenship Clause: they are “born . . . in the United States” and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Under the Constitution, they are citizens at birth….
In any case, postenactment history cannot override the text. If Congress intended to limit American citizenship to the children of those domiciled in the United States, nothing in the succinct language of the Citizenship Clause conveyed that design. Words appearing frequently in the Executive Order—“mother,” “father,” “lawful,” “temporary”— are absent from the Clause. For a simple reason: they did not matter. And while the Clause does ensure state citizenship attaches for U. S. citizens in “the State wherein they reside,” Amdt. 14, §1, the explicit invocation of residence for state citizenship only highlights its absence from the criteria for U. S. citizenship. See Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 74 (1873) (a person can “be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State”)….
Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights— to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to “every free-born person in this land.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., at 600 (Sen. Trumbull). We keep that promise today.
Kavanaugh concurred in the result but not the constitutional holding:
Executive Order No. 14160 establishes new exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. 90 Fed. Reg. 8449 (2025). The Court today holds that the Order violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. I respectfully disagree with the Court’s constitutional holding. In my view, the Executive Order does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. But the Order does contravene a federal statute, 8 U. S. C. §1401(a). Congress could—consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment—amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But Congress has not yet done so.
Thomas wrote a dissent joined by Gorsuch:
Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power, and were subject to no other authority…. The same could not be said for the children of foreign temporary visitors. Foreign temporary visitors were attached to their home country, lacked similar bonds to this country, and would not be called upon in time of war….
Congress implemented the principle that citizenship follows birth and domicile in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and then in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment….
The Court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President’s Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens. In doing so, the Court adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support. Because many potential applications of the President’s Order are consistent with the original public meaning of the Citizenship Clause, I respectfully dissent.
Alito also wrote a dissent:
This is one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court, and in my judgment, the Court has made a serious mistake. As interpreted by the Court today, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on virtually everyone who happens to be born in this country, including the children of “birth tourists,” women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child and then promptly return home. Careful analysis of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the process that led to its adoption shows that it does not degrade the concept of United States citizenship in this way. Instead, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country….
The Court’s account of the birthright-citizenship rule in American law is roughly as follows. After American independence, the British rule of birthright subjecthood was modified in just one way (to take account of Indians who lived under tribal governance), but otherwise the rule was transplanted intact to American soil. As modified, the rule was that a child born in this country is automatically an American citizen unless the child is born to tribal Indians or to a diplomat with immunity from legal process. During the period before the Civil War, the rule’s status was firm. After the war, Congress codified the rule in §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. And in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649 (1898), this Court issued a binding precedent confirming what Congress had done.
Every step of this story is incorrect….
We should base our decision on the firm ground provided by the constitutional text, but if we look beyond the text, the congressional debates and public commentary confirm that the Citizenship Clause requires complete allegiance….
As a result of the events of the past 50 years, the United States now has a huge contingent of people who entered or remained in this country illegally, as well as a large group of people who were born here to such parents. The Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment makes all the members of this latter group citizens. Many of those who have grown up here now have a strong moral claim to be allowed to remain, but that is a matter that the Fourteenth Amendment, when properly interpreted, leaves to Congress.
As shown in Part II, supra, a person who is born in the United States is made a citizen by the Fourteenth Amendment only if that person was also “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. And that phrase means subject to the jurisdiction of the United States alone and not “subject to any foreign power.”
A great many persons who are born here to illegal immigrant parents fail this test because at birth they are automatically made nationals of their parents’ native country and, as a result, incur duties to that country. This means that they are “subject to a foreign power” and are thus not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment….
The Court’s interpretation preserves a powerful incentive to enter or remain in this country illegally. Immigrants naturally prefer affluent countries where economic opportunities are available. Other than Canada, the United States will be the only affluent nation where birth alone is enough to establish citizenship.17 If the Fourteenth Amendment required these results, the country would have to live with them or amend the Constitution. But the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the rule the Court now imposes on the country. In my judgment, the Court has made a mistake that will seriously affect the country’s future.
Prediction — John Roberts will retire when there is a Democrat President to appoint his replacement.
His decision today to reach the constitutional question on birthright citizenship is completely contrary to his entire tenure as CJ when he has always cautioned the Court to not…
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) June 30, 2026
🤮🤮🤮
The children of Chinese birth tourists are now constitutionally entitled to citizenship. https://t.co/2XfP5Jbn9h
— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) June 30, 2026
SCOTUS’s decision proves all illegal immigrants must be deported immediately.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) June 30, 2026
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Terrible result but I guess you win some (men can’t compete in women’s sports) and you lose some (like this one) 🤦🏼♂️🤔🤷♂️
End of the day, life is too short to be miserable all the time. Hence why it’s not good for the mental health to be suffering from the cancer of leftism.
On the scale of importance, the win for women’s sports is far less important than the loss of the citizenship case. The “trans rights” BS will blow over eventually. We will be dealing with the fallout from the citizenship case until Congress acts (setting up another potential go at ending birthright citizenship). In other words, forever.
Still, life is too short to be miserable. It is done and dusted and no amount of angsting will change that 🤷♂️
That holding is limited to sports. The Court did not adopt Thomas’s opinion that says boys are boys, trans-gender is actually gender dysphoria etc.
That holding is limited to women’s sports in 27 states that have banned mentally ill males from women’s sports and private spaces (locker rooms, restrooms). It leaves the idiocy in place elsewhere. Doesn’t seem like much of a victory when a majority of justices “let” sensible state keep being sensible, but in 23 remains states women’s rights are extinguished whenever a demented male asserts his fake “right” to cosplay (anywhere along the spectrum from cross-dressing all the way to chemically/surgically assisted cross-dressing).
With a Supreme Court like this, who needs the enemy: Democrats packing it.
Nobody, and I mean nobody saw this coming!!!!
That’s funny because everything I read before said they would keep the absurd system we have now.
Whoosh
I thought that the Supreme Court might split the baby on this one, but instead they took the baby and blessed it and said. “Go and be fruitful and multiply and fill the country.”
The damage this ruling has done and will do to this country is, well, almost incalculable. One of the Court’s worst and most damaging decisions, and there’s a lot of competition for that.
Many media headlines state that this was a loss for Trump. It is actually a loss for the country.
Among other things, Roberts and company are afraid of the claim jumpers, so they pretend there’s no problem.
Given that Roberts committed adoption fraud with his foreign born children we did see it coming.
There’s exactly as much evidence for that as there is that Melania Trump was a prostitute. I.e. zero.
It was obvious to me during oral arguments when Roberts and others seemed hung up on the “ambassador exception.” The actual explanation by the 14th amendment’s framers of the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause had a much wider range of exclusions: foreigners, aliens, the children of ambassadors or foreign ministers (and American Indians, who were seen as subject to the jurisdiction of their tribes). Apparent the results oriented majority didn’t catch this little tidbit of history or chose to ignore it. To believe SCOTUS’s bogus interpretation, we would have to believe that in addition to underscoring freed blacks were US citizens, the amendment’s framers intended to grant citizenship to children of every foreigner passing through—even for a day—down to the children of every illiterate hod carrier capable of sneaking in. From their record, these framers valued American citizenship far more highly.
So an irresponsible political S.Ct. gave us Dred Scott which was a contributing cause to the Civil War which led to the 14th Amendment which a new irresponsible political S.Ct. now misinterprets for a new generation. I am honestly too sick to my stomach to elaborate further on my disgust for this institution.
This decision has handed Trump and conservatives the killer app that abortion was. Time to fast track a Constitutional amendment to abolish birthright citizenship. Fashion it after other nations…especially from Europe. Make the Dems vote up or down for the Amendment. Use their rejection for the mid-terms. How many US minorities want their benefits taken by a thief? Can the Dems promise US citizens fair play? Who opened the flood gates to take away US citizen rights? It’s a perfect tool to use now.
Roberts: See, so if the mama is on the magic dirt, the kid’s a Natural Born Citizen.
Barrett: Gotcha.
“Magic dirt” I spit out my coffee on that one.
Hahahaha
More like if the mama is on the NGO magic bus.
You may not be aware of it, but there is a whole political philosophy built around that name (you can google it). Its major premise is that without a working “melting pot” (assimilation), immigrants will never contribute to a strong USA because having their feet hit our “magic dirt” just isn’t enough.
I find Roberts’ logic to be taxing.
HA! well played.
His “logic” is whatever it takes to avoid a confrontation, with Barrett to heel like a loyal German Shepherd.
I see what you did there.
As opposed to blood magic? Allegiance following place of birth has been the longstanding rule in the even before the country was even created.
The very idea that a tourist here on a 2 week travel visa gives birth to an American citizen has always been pure lunatic insanity.
And yet it’s always been the law here.
No it hasn’t
Wrong, people who have no legitimate reason to be here should not make citizens my giving birth.
Then propose a constitutional amendment and see how you do with it.
An amend.ent is not required. Section 5 covers how to address implementation:
“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
The question is whether the current Congress, or any future Congress will act upon “appropriate legislation”
Nope, we just need to replace Roberts and we are good.
Disappointing but not unexpected. With the usual suspects doing what they usually do.
3 originalists, 3 ultra liberals, and 3 slender reeds blowing in the wind.
On the contrary, Roberts is the originalist here.
Roberts is an originalist? Like when he invented the idea Obamacare was “a tax?”
There is no way Roberts can be said to be an originalist in this instance. None. The Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to confer citizenship on illegal aliens or their children, even if born on US soil.
Nope, he was the activist. The originalist take is that birthright citizenship is not in the 14th amendment.
We also live in a crazy time where it’s the person proposing something that is solely driving opposition to that something.
I mean let’s be honest here, if this was something Barry, peace be upon him, was pushing for, the left would be all in favour of this and totally onboard. However as it’s OMB then it must be opposed at all costs 🙄
Who knows or cares what the left would be doing? They don’t know themselves. They take whatever positions best advance their cause at any moment, and reverse themselves the moment the advantage shifts.
What we should be concerned about is the truth, and the truth is that the text is clear: If someone is born in the USA to parents capable of being arrested by US police, sued or prosecuted or forced to testify in US courts, subject to US taxes, then that person is a US citizen. That’s the way it’s been since before we even had a USA, and it’s been in the constitution since 1868.
No the truth is the text is clear, they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US because they are not citizens of the US. Its been that was even before we had a USA, and its been in the Constitution since 1868. You are entirely wrong, sorry!
Once again establishment cuckservative roberts goes thru mental gymnastics to side with leftie agenda? Is anybody surprised?
Impeach the sonofabitch
Relying on history and precedent is not “mental gymnastics”.
Giving away our country to illegals and birth tourism by our enemies is OK with you I guess.
With that in mind, maybe N e grows should be slaves in your mind.
Whatever the constitution says is OK. If we ignore that we don’t have a USA in the first place.
BullSchiff. We don’t have a country now. Just an open borders shithole that you support.
1) If you’re looking for a result that should come from the legislative process, don’t start b****ing when the judicial branch refuses to do the legislature’s job.
2) It’s not the child that’s born on American soil – and thus a citizen of the United States – that’s at fault. The fault lies in people like Barack Obama and Joe Biden who allow illegal aliens of all sorts to enter the USA without consequences. The United States would have been far better off if neither of these wretched scumbag were ever born.
3) If entering the United States illegally for the purpose of giving birth under fraudulent circumstances were punishable by 20+ years in a federal prison I think that kind of abuse would quickly come to an end.
If entering the United States illegally would give you the status of “invader” to be immediately eliminated through the use of deadly force if necessary, it would be even better.
3) the parents can depart soon after the birth, they won’t be arrested.
I read a few days ago that the main site used by the CCP for “birthright tourism” is not even in the USA but Saipan. They send women to give birth in Saipan so the children will be US citizens, and then bring them back to China to raise them as good communists.
However Saipan is not part of the USA. Like Puerto Rico, it’s an unincorporated territory. People born there get automatic citizenship courtesy not of the 14th amendment but of an act of Congress. Congress can change that statute, and grant citizenship to children born there only if their parents reside there, or even only if the parents are both US citizens. The actual Saipanese wouldn’t mind, since Congress gave them all US citizenship in 1986.
Thumbs up! You are correct. But please don’t expect Congress to do anything except campaign 24/7 for their next election.
The SCOTUS justices just handed the US to foreigners wishing to cash in or destroy the US. As Cloward and Piven wanted…use the generous laws of the country to destroy it. Coney Island Barrett and Epstien Roberts have done immeasurable damage. At least Barrett’s kids will live to suffer her decision.
They didn’t just open the door, they took a wrecking ball and tore out half of the wall, installed automatic double doors and placed a welcome mat in front.
“At least Barrett’s kids will live to suffer her decision.”
It’s just gut wrenching to me that Barrett sided with Ketanji Brown Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor.
Nice kids she has there. I would hate to see a rapist from some shithole country do something to them.
Context is important. Lawyers constantly ignore it when it suits them.
So how does this work now, people who are illegals that had a kid here can stay?
Well, duh.
No!
I read that having a citizen child does not change a deportation. Parents have to choose whether to take their anchors with them, or leave them with a legal family member. That is what I read, but I don’t believe it.
That is 100% correct. You don’t have to believe it, it’s a clear verifiable fact.
Nope, deport their criminal asses and send their kids with them.
No, they can’t. Their kid’s citizenship doesn’t affect their status at all. When they’re deported it’s their choice whether to take the kids with them or leave them with family or friends to raise. If they take the kids with them, then when they grow up they can return; the parents can’t.
Until a Democrat authorizes it. Ever hear of Joe Biden.
Of course the can stay here. The whole extended family can stay can stay. Wouldn’t want to separate the family unit now, would we? And the even better the newly minted US citizen will be eligible for receiving welfare benefits.
Well, the country was good while it lasted.
I’m so glad I’m old.
You and me, both.
Ditto! But I feel for my grandsons
My grandsons own firearms to eliminate invaders, even if the Supreme Court calls them otherwise.
I too. It just needs to hold together a wee big longer.
I want to live long enough to see the fuse lit. Because, sooner or later, someone will do so.
So am I, but I have grandchildren and great-grandchildren who will be forced to learn Spanish and Chinese, whichever becomes the replacement for the national official language.
A willfully ignorant decision made solely to quell our broken system in which non-citizens loan, own, and profit. Rather than admit that their interpretation is obviously stupid, they double down.
You want a country where citizenship matters? Make your own, says SCOTUS
This is the one ruling that turns our Constitution into a suicide pact! The Chinse are actually building an army of soldiers wirh US passports! WTF were these idealists thinking?
Not much of a “suicide pact” when this has been the rule for the better part of a millennium.
It’s in the Constitution to say settle the matter that blacks are citizens. Some account might be made of that.
Plenty of account, apparently none of them thought to to check the congressional record when all of this was debated. The intention was quite clear and it wasn’t to reward criminals.
The motivation for passing the amendment in the first place is irrelevant. All that matters is the amendment’s text, with each term used having the same meaning it had at the time it was ratified.
The second amendment says why it was ratified — because a well-regulated militia was believed to be necessary to the security of a free State. And yet we insist, correctly, that its meaning has nothing to do with militia service. It says that since a well-functioning militia is necessary, therefore the people’s RKBA must not be infringed, and we insist on that to this day, even though we no longer think a militia is so necessary.
Guess what, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is part of the text. (I don’t care how you interpret that phrase, BTW.)
Extending the logic of so-called “birthright citizenship”, if a pregnant woman were to break into my home and give birth, the child would be allowed to live there and would become a member of my family.
This is a crock of total s–t.
No, that does not follow at all. Your home is not a state, doesn’t have citizens, and most importantly is not governed by the US constitution.
Yes, it “follows”. It was not supposed to be an exact equivalent.
Those 2 always side with the left when the rubber hits the road.
Not “side with”…
Gorsuch and Barrett alternate. “Okay Amy, it’s your turn. I’ll side with the liberals next time.”
“At issue in this case is whether the Constitution guarantees citizenship to children born of parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States.”
Also at issue is what the heck happens to the parents who are unlawfully present? Nothing! Absolutely nothing!
This doesn’t change what happens to them at all. They are just as likely to be deported now as they were before.
The solution is simple…..destroy the welfare state. (Not holding my breathe)
another simple solution ,..deny visas to pregnant women
Nah — that only takes care of the parasitically opportunist invaders, it doesn’t get rid of the politically motivated invaders.
All invaders should be treated as . . .
Invaders, and with deadly force, if necessary.
What is the saying?
“A judges republic is a contradiction in terms”
A seriously bad decision. Children of temporary residents are one thing although birth tourism is a big too far. To recognize the citizenship of children born to parents who knowingly entered the country illegally defies common sense and boggles the mind. Another nail in the coffin of this country to be hammered home if a democrat is ever elected president again.
It’s literally what the constitution says. It makes no difference whether you think it’s a good law or a bad law; it is the law. And amending the constitution without a bipartisan consensus is impossible.
Pleas provide the specific portion of the Constitution that “literally” provides for this.
HINT: There is no such portion.
Some say an amendment is necessary; it is not. Section 5 of the 14th says:
“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
The question is will they act in way meant by the framers of the 14th or not?
If a pregnant woman sneaks across the border, and thus, she is here illegally, and she has her baby in El Paso, the baby is automatically a U.S. citizen. OK. If she is the sole support of said child, how can the government deport her? Who takes care of the baby? Does the baby sit on the curb and wait for passersby to feed it?
As a citizen, the baby cannot be deported. Obviously, if the mother is deported, she will take the baby with her. So when the kid grows up, he comes to America @ 16 or 15 and then as an anchor baby, he brings to America the rest of his family? I’m missing the logic of this decision. I could understand (but disagree) the decision if the mother also automatically became a citizen. But this way?
Who raises the child? Where? Help!
Under Mexican law, that child is entitled to Mexican citizenship. The mother can be deported because she’s here illegally. The child, upon turning 18, can petition for her to immigrate.
Add the “Public charge” to her deportation hearing.
Once the child is back in Mexico, the child is entitled to all rights and privileges of the country.
Let Mexico suck on it for several years.
I don’t see a problem here. When an adult is deported, no family is “broken up.” The family can go with the adult back to his country of origin, if keeping the family together is important to the family. This is a decision for families to make, not the government’s to make for them.
If parents of a child born here are deported, allow parents the option to leave the child here in the custody of others. But allow the parents to make the choice, not a one-size-fits-all government solution.
OK, so the obvious way to game this system is to set up a corporate nanny — some institution “secretly” beholden to the invading country to care for the kids of the missing parents.
And voila, we see that exactly this has already been done for Biden’s trafficked kids, in the form of cartel “sponsors,” many of whom pimp the kids out either first or second hand.
Easy, send her criminal ass back to her own country, blackball her from ever reentering the United States for any reason and send her kid with her.
Yes, this has always been the case.
Hah. “Sole support.” How often do you think that happens? Usually Uncle Sam is the kid’s sole support, and therefore is no worse off if he continues to be.
If the mother chooses to abandon her child then it is treated exactly like any other abandoned child. It’s taken into care, and if no one is willing to adopt it then it goes into the system. It’s entirely the mother’s choice.
There. Problem solved.
He can apply to do so. And the government of the time can decide whether to grant the application. There is no right involved.
The logic is that it is not a judge’s place to consider whether something is good policy or bad policy. An honest judge decides what the law is, not what he would like it to be.
Again, we already have a system for who raises abandoned children. It’s not a great system, but it’s the one we have.
John Roberts is a Bush Republican, i.e. RINO. He is too much politician and not enough jurist. Amy Barrett is probably been intimidated by the violent Leftists and thinks she is keeping peace in this Nation. I wish both would somehow change or leave in time for Trump to install good jurists in their place. With these two our Nation (as founded) is lost.
The CCP plays the long game. I now envision millions of Chinese women coming here to given birth sponsored by the CCP, take the children back to China to be properly indoctrinated as Communists and then at the right time send them to the U.S. to vote Communists into office. Eventually they will make the U.S. a vassal state to China with Mandarin as our new official language. I fear for my grandchildren.
Amy Barrett is probably been intimidated by the violent Leftists and thinks she is keeping peace in this Nation.
She is an out and out liberal who pretended to be a conservative in order to get on the court.
Amy Barrett is starstruck by Roberts, I wouldn’t be surprised if they were shaboinking on the side!
If millions were doing it we would notice and could stop it. Deny them visas. I recently read that this is happening on a much smaller scale, but in Saipan, not in the USA itself. Congress can fix that easily by legislating stricter citizenship rules for children born in Saipan. The 14th amendment doesn’t apply, at least according to the current court, because it hasn’t been incorporated into the USA. Gorsuch disagrees.
Border states should cede their hospital land to Mexico and pay rent.
Only Congress can do that.
Only Congress can do that, with the state legislature’s consent.
This was not a surprise. Sickening.. but not a surprise.
I looked in the mirror this morning after eating breakfast and it was plain I had egg on my face. This ruling was as plain as that.
Break the law, reap the reward. Our founding fathers would have these fools tarred and feathered.
Our founders would not only have agreed with the decision, but would be shocked to learn that there was such a thing as an “illegal immigrant”. They would have put open borders in the constitution if they knew Congress would one day restrict immigration.
Robert’s TDS is flow blow out there. Brown Jackson is auto-pen judge.
Ketanji is a fourteen-year-old. In one of her recent opinions, she wrote “…(wait for it)….” In her concurrence for this case she wrote that “Those who championed the Fourteenth Amendment…understood the assignment.”
One super easy way to terminate the birthing tourism is to have the foreigner women do a quick pregnancy test at the POE while they’re being “Inspected and Admitted” by the CBP Officer. Until they’ve been admitted, they have zero U.S. Constitution rights. If the woman refuses the test, she csn be excluded at entry. Let’s remember what Justice Thoma wrote this week in one the Immigration cases:
Non-Citizens Have No Equal Protection Rights Against the Federal Government. This clear constitutional distinction emphasizes that the federal government’s authority over immigration and national security is not constrained by the same equal protection standards that apply to U.S. citizens.
I know Tom Homan and Rodney Scott. Maybe I could suggest this to them.
If that’s our only recourse to prevent women from coming here, downloading their offspring and claiming citizenship, that’s what needs to be done.
I agree, but they should not be permitted onto the ground at POE. They must have the test outside the US in a consulate or embassy.
Give the men a pregnancy test, too.
Tell them it’s to keep our Democrats from complaining. 🫃🏻
The Somalians and all Muslims are dancing in the streets. Watch for the sickening growth of the third world population of the United States. Okay, shut the fricking boarder down, no one gets in.
This is going to be expensive for taxpayers that live in blue states. Owning anything in these blue states will be a liability. The host will ultimately be consumed by the parasites.
Reason to get all women here illegally out of the country as quickly as possible.
Trump should’ve had an Executive Order ready to go denying entry to any pregnant foreigner
Better yet, mandatory pregnancy tests St the border
Cheaper to simply deny entry to all women of childbearing age.
‘upholds’?
Ad finem usa
A$$holes
Well, that sets it. No pregnant women allowed into the country for any reason whatsoever.
Any drugs that mask pregnancy tests?
Asking for an investor friend.
Here’s a fix. Require a statement under penalty of perjury declaring:
1. That they are not pregnant and promising not to become pregnant during stay
2. Requires immediate notification to Immigration if they become pregnant
3. That they will not overstay visa/other permissive entry of any type.
Make each violation of that a Federal Felony punishable by 5 years and 250K. Plus a full lifetime ban on this or any other material lie, failure to follow immigration enforcement requirements. Make this final point non justiciable to head off Cray Cray Judges.
The other thing we need to consider is revising Selective.Service requirements as an additional avenue to find illegal aliens, find visa over stays, deny eligibility for ANY Federal program and as another criminal violation to justify deportation.
To that end require EVERYONE both male and female to sign up/register; no exceptions. A pacifist or conscientious objector must sign up and can get a waiver from being called to Service but not from the requirement to register. Window should be from age 18 until 19th birthday. Require anyone older present in the USA but not on a visa/temporary permission to register within 30 days of status change or illegal entry. Now every adult illegal alien and every adult visa overstay must register for Selective Service and we know where to find them using Federal database sharing. If they fail to register then when eventually caught they get hemmed up on federal charges. It becomes much easier to arrest them in ‘sanctuary’ jurisdiction b/c now there a valid warrant for their apprehension; run the Selective.Service actions through the Military Courts and presto. Like butter.
Eventually it will all end. I am certain the Dems are keeping track of the number of illegals and anchor families it needs to seal one party rule forever. The real battle will be in the Dem Party as to when the faucet is turned off. The SDA/CCP will hold for complete control even over the old guard. Then and only then will the birthright be done away with. This ruling rewards criminality, something the Dems/Left need. Estrogen fueled toxic empathy is the downfall of civilizations…..
I want Roberts to retire at best
Amy is just a loser
Knew it at her confirmation hearing..
Perhaps Republicans ought to find their balls and do exactly what the democrats want to do. Increase the number of Justices on the Supreme Court and then pack the SCOTUS with those that will support the Republican agenda. I mean, how could the democrats complain. That’s exactly what they claim to want to do.
eot
You can pack the court if you can find the judges. A funny thing though. Sometimes a judge ends up ruling different than you thought they would prior to appointment.
All SCOTUS did here was keep what we’ve always had.
It was wrong then, it is wrong now and it will still be wrong tomorrow. The so-called Supreme Court has effectively hastened the end of the United States.
Deport the illegal parents and make them take their kids with them. Then let the “citizens” come back when they reach the age of majority.
That’s what they want, for the child to spend all of his formative years in China.
You can’t make them take the kid with them. The kid has the right to remain; the parents don’t. The parents make that decision for the kid.
Ok so that’s not unanticipated, especially after yesterday’s decision on Mississippi voting/ballot rules. I did believe there was an outside shot the CT would come down against the egregious birth tourism based on clear differences between that and the bulk of the remaining cases.
Oh well. Short of a constitutional amendment there’s ways to address it.
1. Require all travelers to the USA to proceed through a US Embassy/Consulate within two weeks prior to ticket purchase and a second time within five.days prior to departure. Why?
A. Pregnancy test examination by Embassy Physician
B. Sign sworn statement they are not pregnant and will not become pregnant for tourist visa. Longer term visa such as work/student require Norplant and mandatory reporting to Immigration if the bias holder becomes pregnant.
2. All foreign flights to any US Territory/Protectorate plus HI and Alaska are forbidden. A foreign traveler must first proceed to lower 48 ports of entry, undergo additional exams/screening before being allowed entry and follow on travel to PR, Guam or wherever.
3. End to ‘welfare’ benefits other than to supplement a 40 hour week of employment for able bodied 18- full SSA retirement age. Reverse the policies of past 5 decades or so in which Uncle Sugar replaced in part/whole traditional responsibility/expectation of family members to care for their own.
The idea of a ‘national divorce’ just gained a lot of steam. When it becomes an easier/simpler lift to have a divorce than get a constitutional amendment or wishy washy SCOTUS members to rule for common sense it’s bad. ACB and Roberts no doubt believe they are on the side of the Angels but this decision brings us closer to a national divorce. Since that divorce won’t be amicable b/c the power hungry tyrants bent on destroying the social fabric of the USA it will mean far worse things occur than denying citizenship to a tourist or temporary alien of any status.
Those recommendations have my support.
The Spanish new channels are ecstatic! They even interrupted FIFA news!
The future is going to get spicy!
Why is Justice Roberts engaged in mind-reading?
“No such intersovereign concerns apply to children born of parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States; no foreign sovereign would “have any motive for wishing” them outside this Nation’s authority.”
No, he’s making a rational assessment, just as judges always do. What conceivable reason would a foreign government have for such a wish? And more importantly, could the people who ratified the amendment in 1868 have conceived of such a motive?
While this was a bad decision nobody expected something different.
What was unexpected was how close this was.
It means we need to be ferocious about deportation and border enforcement.
Luckily because it isn’t a leftist supreme court the stay in Mexico policy is upheld.
The United States is no longer a country.
Nothing can save it now.
Five activists just flushed it into the sewer.
I’m glad that I lived when I did. I feel sorry for future generations.
Was it a country until now? If so, what has changed? And how can it be activist to uphold the law that has been in place for our entire history? You’re using the word “activist” without knowing what it means.
Just because an old policy has been in place for centuries doesn’t mean it should remain in place when a new avenue of attack becomes possible, never mind widely used,
Otherwise, freedom of the press wouldn’t have applied to television, the Fourth Amendment wouldn’t have applied to digital records and “intelligence at a distance” (never mind through walls), and the Second Amendment wouldn’t apply to tasers.
Go fuck yourself; Milhouse.
Now that we are saddled with this decision it will likely take a carefully worded amendment to the constitution to put an end to this nonsense. One that makes it cystal clear that citizenship at birth will only be granted to children of US citizens and other permanent legal residents, and it will be denied to those only here temporarily and/or here illegally.
”…it will likely take a(n)…amendment to the constitution to put an end to this nonsense.”
Wishful thinking aside, that was always the only way out of this mess.
The phrase, subject to the jurisdiction thereof does not mean allegiance.
If it did, former slaves, who arguably had no allegiance to a country that enslaved them, would have been exempt from the 14th Amendment,
Like it or not, the plain text of the Amendment is clear..
Not really. They owed a reciprocal duty/obligation to the USA whether they wanted it or not same as practically everyone else. Especially for males who, once becoming free Men, were subject to the same obligations as white Men; jury duty, State militia service, potential conscription by Federal govt, Sheriff’s Posse.
What you’re arguing as allegiance seems to be a ‘warm fuzzy’ feeling of devotion/appreciation which is much different than an obligation of allegiance. Think of it like Parental responsibility; you may hate the kids produced with your ex spouse but you still owe child support as an obligation. No love required.
If ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ meant ‘potential for detention/arrest for criminal/civil infraction then it is redundant/meaningless. Failing to assign a good faith meaningful intent/purpose to that phrase, as the majority effectively does here, is IMO, an error.
Everyone in a country, other than diplomats, has a duty of allegiance to that country while they are there.
There are numerous documents from that era explicitly saying this, including a letter from the US ambassador to Cuba affirming that a US citizen visiting Cuba owed it allegiance.
So I owed a duty of ‘allegiance’ to Germany when I was stationed there? How about Iraq, Afghanistan and various Asian/African assignments?
IMO, what you ‘owe’ as visitor to another Nation isn’t ‘allegiance’ but a duty to at minimum refrain from breaking the laws of the Nation and to abide by the customs/social mores of the host Nation. IOW act like a respectful guest without forgetting they are the host and as it is ‘their house’ the we gotta follow ‘their rules’. If the guest finds that intolerable then then guest can/should depart.
IMO, ‘Allegiance’ in terms of Nation is a duty to bear arms in defense of a Nation. That’s not something every alien of any category is willing to perform. Even the (IMO entirely foolishly allowed) category of dual citizenship can’t make that work b/c their ‘allegiance’ is split. A dual citizen of a Nation in conflict with the USA is in a tough position both legally and morally. If both Nations demand his military service which does he fulfill and which does he reject? He’s gonna fail to meet his obligation of ‘allegiance’ to at least one, maybe both if he attempts to be neutral and rush off to third Nation to avoid service with either.
Good luck with that. It is impossible to amend the US constitution without broad bipartisan support.
In Justice Robert’s majority opinion he states; “No such intersovereign concerns apply to children born of parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States; no foreign sovereign would “have any motive for wishing” them outside this Nation’s authority. Ibid. Those children are thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
IMO, Roberts makes a false assumption. Namely, “no foreign sovereign would “have any motive for wishing” them outside this Nation’s authority”
That’s manifestly untrue. Many nations, indeed most would dispute that they do not see the parent’s citizenship as determinative of their children’s citizenship.
Indeed an argument can be made that granting US birthright citizenship to children of non-US citizenship places the parental rights of the child’s parents at risk. Finally, can a law abiding, US citizen, be legally deported? When families are deported, are not the now ‘legal’ US citizens being forcibly deported?
No, the citizens are not being deported, they are going with their family. They can come back whenever, that’s the right of a citizen, but their illegal family member cannot and should be blackballed forever.
You misunderstand. What foreign nation would object to the US considering such a child its citizen, in addition to being that country’s citizen.
And what matters is not whether we can come up with a reason, it’s whether the people ratifying the 14A would have come up with one.
Deport, deport, deport, deport.
All illegals currently in this country. They can take their bastard children with them, no matter where they were born. They can seek repatriation when they turn 18. IF they can find their birth certificate.
Refuse entry to any woman who cannot pass a pregnancy test. Test must occur at a consulate or embassy before entering the US.
Constitutional amendment. NOW!!!
Birthed tourism is wide open to the world
Thanks Robert’s and company, the Marxists will thank you.
So let’s have Congress pass a law that does not allow visibly pregnant= women-on-the-verge from foreign countries to enter. To remedy crazy situations, sometimes a crazy solution is the only one. Or we can have a civil war over this, the mail in ballots, the election fraud, the two-tiered justice system, DEI, trans for all and all for trans, the communists in our midst…doo di dah.
One other possible solution: they want that kid to be a citizen of our country? Fine that kid is OURS! Immediately placed in foster care, no contact allowed between them and their birth parents until the age of 18, not allowed to travel to the birth parents home country until the age of 18, violations treated as felonies that rise to the level of jeopardizing national security. That would likely keep a lot away who are expecting birth.
Are you nuts?! It seems that everyone on your side of this question is! The fact that a child is a US citizen does not make it the USA’s property! Do you want that rule applied to your children?!
The right to raise ones own children as one sees fit is a fundamental constitutional right, which all people who are in the USA enjoy, as well as US citizens and residents worldwide. The child’s citizenship is irrelevant to this.
No, I am angry and not inclined to be nice to those who use and abuse our immigration system and laws for their gain, exploiting our nation’s goodwill while the legitimate citizens of this nation continue to get the shaft, both from our government and foreign ones. You are right about the amendment up above, it’s a tall order that takes time and is meant to be, but that would be the nicer way to go about things. In the short term though our nation needs to start thinking of ways to make foreigners think twice about having their kids born here if we are to start getting a handle on the problem. Perhaps not as outright horrible as what I suggested above, but most definitely NOT nice!
I suppose one other slightly nicer option might be: if the child is taken by the parents back to their home country and raised for the majority of his/her life outside of the USA up to the age of 18 then that child’s claim to US citizenship could be considered forfeit. We already have processes for citizens to renounce their citizenship, we could model it after that. That person would then have to go through the same process as everyone else to apply for citizenship in order to have it reinstated, which as we know can often take years.
It is a nonsense straw question.
First of all, my citizen children have a citizen parent fully present and undeported to support them, so the question doesn’t even arise.
Second, if I commit a crime, or flee the country for some reason, my kids get swept up into “the system.” A rule largely similar to the one described gets applied to my children as well, children of a citizen, so there’s nothing unfair about it.
Under this set of rulings, how many mail-in ballots will we get in from ‘citizens’ living in foreign countries, are citizens of those countries, and have never lived in the US? Couple of million each Presidential cycle?
As many as we already do, since that has always been the law.
Not surprised. Probably the correct decision. Real issue is using an anchor baby as back door family immigration. The way it was for my sister in law in the 90’s was the baby was us citizen, but family (and child) went back to country of origin. At baby’s age 21 the baby could move to USA. And then since an adult could apply for parental immigration. It’s logical to me in that the time delay (21+ years) kept the birthright citizenship from being a back door family-can-now-jump-the-line-immigration technique. In my family’s case the parents applied for legal immigration while living in their home country and it was granted about 10 years later.
It is the correct decision.
The words either mean what they say or they don’t. If they don’t, then you might as well say the same thing for all the other Amendments.
“All persons born….”
Not All slaves,..
All persons…
I like Clarence Thomas.
He’s one of the best jurists to ever sit on the Supreme Court, but he’s wrong on this.
So are the other jurists who respectfully dissented. It doesn’t matter who, or how many people are abusing the immigration process in this country. That’s something that Congress can and should deal with.
It should have nothing to do with the truth that the text of the amendment conveys. Those words are either true or they are not.
The words of the amendment either stand or fall on their own..
Period
End of discussion
You’re leaving out some important phrases that make this less black and white than you describe. First is ‘subject to jurisdiction’. If, as SCOTUS held in practice, this phrase has no meaning or is simply ‘obey laws or get arrested’ then it is superfluous and unnecessary. That doesn’t make sense logically nor in legal tradition/precedent. Failing to give any significant weight to this phrase is flat wrong.
Second re ‘birth tourism’ is the phrase ‘are citizens of the US and the state in which they RESIDE’. A child of a temporary visitor born on US soil to transient foreign Nationals (aliens) has zero physical nexus to the USA. The Parents don’t ‘reside’ in the USA, nor does that child. They don’t have any cultural or societal connection to the USA nor ties to a specific community. They don’t display/participate in any mechanisms to demonstrate ‘allegiance’ b/c they don’t have any ‘allegiance’ to the USA; they are Foreign Nationals who continue to live/reside remain domiciled in another Nation.
Finally Wong ruled that Mr Wong was a US Citizen precisely b/c his Parents were in the USA with permission/legally, at his birth. Today they’d have had a green card. Reliance on a twisted interpretation of Wong that ignores the lawful status of his Parents is an example of willful ignorance at best and blatantly bad faith argument at worst.
Explain to me how you would test a former slave for allegiance.
How exactly is that an objective qualifier that can be adjudicated in a court of law
Explain that to me…
I fat fingered the link when I tried to downvote your idiotic comment. It’s even more historically ignorant than the SCOTUS majority.
Another cowardly decision by the spineless Roberts, joined by the unimpressive Barrett. In discussing the 14th amendment in Congress Senator Howard said of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” the following: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers, but will include every other class of persons.” We can add to this list Indians, who at the time were considered subject to the jurisdiction of their tribes (a situation not remedied by Congress until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. The results-oriented majority missed this interesting tidbit of legislative history, and also ignored the fact this amendment was aimed squarely at clarifying the citizenship of former black slaves. No politician that voted for this amendment believed it opened up American citizenship to the children of every tourist (legally admitted) and every third world hod carrier (no legal status) who could sneak over the border.
The dissenters got this right! The majority got it just as wrong as the majorities in Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson. Plus any majority that includes KJB is a dead giveaway the decision is garbage.
The American people will be paying for this legal travesty for decades, since an evenly split Senate means no corrective amendment seems politically possible.