This was easy but I did get Gorsuch wrong. [Note see addendum on Gorsuch].
President Trump v Barbara
Please consider the opinion of the court President Trump v Barbara on Birthright Citizenship.
Held: Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. Pp. 2–26. (a) The Citizenship Clause must be understood in light of its historical context, from the English common law to the widespread condemnation of the Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393.
(1) Under the English common law, children “born within the [sovereign’s] dominions” owed a natural “allegiance” to the sovereign who protected them at birth, 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 354, 356 (Blackstone), regardless of how “momentary and uncertain” their presence, Calvin’s Case, 7 Co. Rep. 1a, 6a, 77 Eng. Rep. 377, 384. Such children were therefore “natural-born subject[s].” Doe v. Jones, 4 T. R. 300, 308, 100 Eng. Rep. 1031, 1035. The same rule applied to children born of parents subject to expulsion. See, e.g., 4 Blackstone 166. The rule’s exceptions were narrow: children born in lands the sovereign did not control, children born in areas temporarily outside the sovereign’s control, and children of foreign ministers (by a fiction of extraterritoriality). Calvin’s Case, 7 Co. Rep., at 18a–18b, 77 Eng. Rep., at 399.
This common law of citizenship—known as jus soli, or right of the soil—crossed the Atlantic and prevailed in “each and all of the states” after American independence. 2 J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law 39, n. a (Kent). The rule was applied even to the novel situation of quasi-sovereign Indian tribes, who maintained “dominion[s]” of their own such that Indians born under those dominions were not “citizens” but members of “alien and sovereign tribes.” Goodell v. Jackson ex dem. Smith, 20 Johns. 693, 714–715 (N. Y. Ct. Corr. Errors). In a Nation of immigrants, jus soli’s broad scope took on particular importance, assuring that children of foreigners—including those here on a “temporary sojourn,” Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch. 583, 638, 663–664 (N. Y. Ch.)—would be American citizens by birth alone.
(2) The Citizenship Clause’s key phrase—“subject to the jurisdiction”—refers to the power of the United States to govern those within its territory. (c) The Court’s precedent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, confirms this rule. Pp. 13–16. (1) For nearly two decades after the Amendment’s ratification, the Executive Branch viewed the Citizenship Clause as “simply an affirmance of the common law,” with the limited exception of “the children of foreign ministers,” and others “with rights of extraterritoriality.” Memorandum of Secretary of State H. Fish to Mr. Marsh (May 19, 1871), in 2 Digest of the International Law of the United States §183, p. 394. But the end of the Reconstruction era brought uncertainty. Around that time, the State Department began to deny citizenship to those with “dual or doubtful allegiance,” id., at 402, and several scholars proposed a new international-law based theory of the Citizenship
(2) In Wong Kim Ark, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment was “declaratory” of the “fundamental rule of citizenship by birth” that prevailed at common law, 169 U. S., at 688, excluding only those recognized as exempt “from the jurisdiction of this country”—the “children of ambassadors” and those born in the nations of Indian tribes, id., at 675, 681–683, 693. All others were citizens at birth, whether born to permanent residents or temporary visitors.
(d) Arguments for limiting birthright citizenship to those domiciled in the United States fail. These arguments err in their definition of “allegiance,” contending that natural allegiance was no longer sufficient for citizenship and that some greater quantum of allegiance (based on domicile) was required. There is scant evidence for this dramatically revisionist view; sources from 1776 to 1868 defined “allegiance by birth” just as the British did—as “the tie or duty” owed by one who is “born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign.” Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbour in City of New York, 3 Pet. 99, 155.
Attempts to narrow Wong Kim Ark by noting that the Court’s opinion repeatedly referred to the domicile of Wong’s parents fail because the holding’s underlying reasoning cannot be squared with a domicile requirement; the Court exhaustively canvassed the text and history of the Citizenship Clause and at no point identified any evidence that the ratifiers thought themselves to be imposing a domicile limitation.
Intent of the Act
Let’s pause here. I researched the matter as well. The intent was openly debated.
Please consider What Were the US Senators Thinking When They Debated the 14th Amendment?
The question is not realistically subject to logical debate, and I can prove it.
1866 Congressional Debate
Senator Howard
The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed that they be citizens.
We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same name in the fundamental instrument of the nation.
I voted for the proposition that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal right of other senators of the United States.
We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this amendment, that children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.
That is as printed in the 1866 Congressional Globe. So don’t pretend otherwise.
6-3 Ruling
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. JACKSON, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined as to the introduction and Part I. KAVANAUGH, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. ALITO, J., and GORSUCH, J., filed dissenting opinions.
Kavanaugh
Justice Kavanaugh agreed with the ruling but wanted to give Congress the opportunity to make modifications.
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part. 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.
Executive Order No. 14160 sought to add two new exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens who are either illegally or temporarily in the United States. In doing so, the Executive Order goes beyond what §1401(a) authorizes. For the Executive Order to be lawful, therefore, Congress would need to amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation to encompass those two new exceptions. As of now, Congress has not done so. Over the last 30 years, Congress has considered numerous proposed bills to alter birthright citizenship, but Congress has never actually passed such legislation.
Synopsis
- Birthright Citizenship holds with no restrictions and no outs.
- The final ruling is as predicted in this corner.
- However, I got Gorsuch wrong.
Justice Roberts “the Court exhaustively canvassed the text and history of the Citizenship Clause and at no point identified any evidence that the ratifiers thought themselves to be imposing a domicile limitation.”
I showed the history of the debate and I concur “and at no point identified any evidence that the ratifiers thought themselves to be imposing a domicile limitation.“
We Have Finality, As Predicted Here
Kavanaugh tried to Give Congress an out. All that would have done is lead to more endless and useless debate.
It takes 60 votes and there are never going to be 60 votes to overturn this. The ruling ends the debate.
It will take a Constitutional amendment to change this track.
I told you so, with one missed Justice. Oral arguments led me to believe Gorsuch would go against Trump.
I expected Alito and Thomas to dissent despite the history of the debate in 1866 being completely clear.
Fearless Predictions
Please recall Fearless Predictions, Ten Key Events to Expect in 2026
#1: Trump will Lose His Supreme Court Battle on Reciprocal Tariffs
Expect a 6-3 margin against Trump, possibly 7-2. I rate this a 75 percent chance.
#2: Trump will Lose His Supreme Court Battle on Birthright Citizenship
Expect a 7-2 vote against Trump. 9-0 would not be a surprise. I rate this a 90 percent chance.
#3: Trump will lose his Supreme Court battle over the right to fire Fed governor Lisa Cook.
Expect a 6-3 vote against Trump. I rate this a 80 percent chance.
Synopsis
- I got every justice correct on Reciprocal Tariffs.
- On Birthright Citizenship I got Gorsuch wrong. But I got finality correct. This is not a narrow ruling.
- On Lisa Cook, I did not do justice-by-justice but got someone wrong. Cook was 5-4.
Anyone Else Do Better?
Oh, there’s just one more thing. Thank you president Trump for sealing the fate of this monumental and correct decision.
You are free to dissent of course. But this case is not about decisions we might make today. It’s about interpreting the law as it exists, not how we want.
The Supreme Court does not rule on wisdom of the laws or wisdom of the Constitution. It rules on the law and it interprets the Constitution.
In that regard, this decision was correct, no matter what you think constitutional framers would do today.
Addendum
DeSantis understands the impact of a broad ruling.
DeSantis: “Well, the decision prevents Congress from doing just that. So, no, he couldn’t have successfully asked Congress. The Court is saying that citizenship is mandated by the Constitution for the children of foreign birth tourists and illegal aliens.“
The Idiot Parade
Weird Gorsuch Dissent
Gorsuch
Finally, just because the executive order has some lawful applications and can survive a facial challenge does not mean it is lawful across the board and immune from narrower legal challenges. Besides addressing temporary visitors, the order also denies the benefits of citizenship to children born in this country to parents who make their permanent home here, but do so in defiance of federal immigration laws. The government insists that aspect of the order can survive any possible legal challenge, too, because individuals can secure domicile in this country only if they do so in compliance with federal law. See ante, at 57–58, n. 10 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). About that, however, I harbor doubts.
Perhaps Wong Kim Ark does not squarely foreclose the government’s position. After all, that case addressed a child born to parents who lawfully resided in this country. Still, I wonder: Is a child born here to parents who have long chosen to make this Nation their permanent home not a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment solely because his parents’ presence violates statutory law?
If those parents are not domiciled here, then where are they domiciled? And if the answer is nowhere, how can we reconcile that conclusion with this Court’s longstanding recognition that every person is domiciled somewhere? See Desmare v. United States, 93 U. S. 605, 610 (1877).
Because the executive order is not facially invalid, these questions may not be properly before us. But their answers are undeniably important to a Nation committed to a view of citizenship open to all children born here to parents who can call this country their home.
Somehow, Gorsuch tries to justify the Executive Order while poking a big hole in his own dissent.
That makes little sense. I did not do as bad on Gorsuch as it seems at first glance.
Hey where are all the clowns who were arguing with me over this?
You were right that the supreme Court was going to rule this way. they made that correct determination. It’s also true that the policy of birthright citizenship is retarded. Both can be true at the same time
Correct
That is fundamentally correct.
While I am not here to say that your take is wrong or anything related to that, Mish did demonstrate the 14th was enacted with the impact it had firmly in the mind of those voting for it. The one highlighted debate passage showed that one of BC’s proponents felt that it was functionally and essentially already the law of the land since many years prior.
So – they originally did what they thought they were doing, and they meant to do it. I believe that much is very clear today.
Now let’s peek at the 2nd Amendment. If we are saying the original 14th Amendment is subject to revision to update for modern times, are any of those same people willing to say that about the original 2nd Amendment language? If you say BC was to fully free slaves, I can say the 2nd was for militias (or not with high capacity modern weaponry in mind) and not meant to give total gun rights to 100% of everyone. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
There is not 100% gun rights to everyone. Certain people (felons, mental illness etc) are not allowed guns.
Plus no where in the 2nd does it say I can’t own an ICBM and I really want one.
You’ll poke your eye out with that, kid.
Oh they’ll be here don’t you worry. Obviously it’s the court who is wrong, because the king should be the final word here. We *are* a democracy of course.
The law says what it says. It is relatively clear. But it is a law for/from another time.
Now, it is time to retire that law and pass a more restrictive law applicable for our modern world and sensibilities.
No, passing a law won’t do the job. It needs a constitutional amendment.
Apparently they feel your insightful and objective reporting has “trashed your legacy built over ten years.” This tells us more than they want us to know about their craven beliefs and lack of attention to what is real.
They are hiding in total shame and embarrassment. Congrats on calling it Mish.
I am awarding a 3-star Mishelin rating on this post for calling it right and early.
Tom Woods treated this topic several years back – stronger analysis and more reasonable conclusion than Mish’s take….
See: https://tomwoods.com/ep-1273-birthright-citizenship-what-the-constitution-and-common-sense-say/
I don’t have time to listen to 15 minutes on rambling topics.
What did he say
“Finally, just because the executive order has some lawful applications and can survive a facial challenge does not mean it is lawful across the board and immune from narrower legal challenges.”
This is the correct takeaway for the whole debacle. Rather than following the ill-worded letter of the law, rulings should be made with respect to the spirit of the law behind this amendment. The amendment wasn’t a technicality added to bring entire families to the United States because a child was born here on a vacation Visa. The law was designed for people who have been here essentally their whole lives, and who shold be naturalized in. Bringing whole families over the day a baby is born here is just absurd.
It’s as “constitutional” as Roe v Wade.
No one anywhere thinks Congress intended that foreign powers, frank unAmerican persons, or Chinese CCP birth tourists can jump the border and have a child and that qualifies that child as “automatically a US citizen”. Every person celebrating this decision with joy is an enemy of America. Only selective nonsense affirms jus soli, which is widely denied in originalist and early interpretations.
Justice Thomas in his dissent:
“The Court ultimately denigrates the evidence in support of my position as “scant.” Ante, at 18. I see it differently. The Court cites little evidence from the Reconstruction Congress that gave us the Citizenship Clause. And, its other 19th-century evidence is slim in comparison. As for the evidence in support of my position, it is substantial. Representative Bingham, the architect of the Fourteenth Amendment, believed that the Citizenship Clause would not apply to the children of temporary visitors. Senator Trumbull, a principal champion of the Amendment, agreed. Jacob Howard, who introduced the Citizenship Clause, agreed. Congressman after Congressman during the legislative debates agreed. Congress in 1870 agreed. President Grant’s Attorney General agreed. President Grant’s Attorney General before that agreed. The Supreme Court in 1873 agreed. State legislatures agreed. Executive Branch decisionmakers over the course of multiple decades agreed. Justice Miller agreed. Thomas Cooley agreed. A battery of other eminent scholars agreed. And, the great Justice John Marshall Harlan, on three separate occasions, agreed. Once again, “I am quite comfortable in the company I keep.” ”
See pg. 88 Thomas J. dissenting (pg 149 in the pdf)
Nonsense. If you bothered reading my posts you would understand.
What Were the US Senators Thinking When They Debated the 14th Amendment?
https://mishtalk.com/economics/what-were-the-us-senators-thinking-when-they-ratified-the-14th-amendment/
Senator Howard
I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been discusses in this body as to not need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law a citizen of the United States.
Senator Howard
The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed that they be citizens.
We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same name in the fundamental instrument of the nation.
I voted for the proposition that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal right of other senators of the United States.
We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this amendment, that children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.
“subject to the jurisdiction”. Term of art, widely understood as not to apply to foreign persons, illegals, etc. that’s why Indians weren’t included.
I should add, the smartest legal minds on the supreme court do not agree with your position. ACB is the best of the 5 in this decision, and she has been lukewarm on the originality question.
Interesting that the opinion cites English common law.
Just a shame that the US took a system that works, tried to improve it but ended up with something which is totally unworkable in the modern era.
For all of the UK’s problems, trust in the courts is high and they operate in a non-partisan, purley legal manner.
After 250 years, isn’t it time for a rethink.
So millions of illegals being born in this country. Sounds like the sovereign is not in control of these lands:
The rule’s exceptions were narrow: children born in lands the sovereign did not control, children born in areas temporarily outside the sovereign’s control, and children of foreign ministers (by a fiction of extraterritoriality).
The Supreme Court just ruled that they are not illegals, they are US citizens on birth. Eat that Mike.
The use of liberal democratic institutions to defend the indefensible and defeat the will of the people is only going to guarantee the eventual destruction of those institutions.
Can’t happen soon enough. This was never the intent of the Constitution, and what’s most telling is that everyone knows it.
ridiculous it wasn’t 9-0. and also ridiculous serving members of Congress don’t seem to understand that Congress can’t pass a statute to change the Constitution.
Ridiculous for republicans to say well the FF never predicted this could happen, when they take the exact opposite view on 2D Amendment and anything else that went their way.
When the US controls it’s boarders, as Trump is doing, this is moot.
They’re not ‘boarders’ they’re ‘illegal aliens’.
(Sarcasm).
1866 isn’t 2026. Almost a completely different universe. It is foolish to believe that documents written and legal decisions made hundreds of years in the past can be logically twisted into being applicable in today’s world.
What is the value to the US for offering unconditional birthright citizenship? I don’t see any.
You sound like the very repulsive Ezra Klein. “The constitution? It’s over 100 years old!”
90% of the left in America would agree with your first paragraph, especially if you changed 1866 to 1783, the date the Constitution was ratified. I didn’t realize you were such a hardcore Democrat!
The US Constitution was designed as a dynamic document. At the time the 14th Amendment was written, the US still wanted to grow the population as a way to provide strength. Technology has largely reduced the need to accept more immigrants.
Yes, a “dynamic” document that is nearly impossible to make more restrictive, if that is what needs to be done.
Hey Mish, you ever notice how many names show up in these comments that never post here otherwise, just to complain about brown people? Curious, really curious. And yet next time you post I guarantee mmj, “neil meliment”, “mark tichnor’, DennisAOK, Volfan, goldguy. Almost all of them won’t be here. Make a post about immigration and they’re suddenly back.
If you don’t believe me go look on the other posts you’ve made on this, same story every time.
Creamer – are you asserting that I hate “brown” people and are thus racist? Just trying to clarify.
I am fairly certain those “names” belong to some of the regulars here who are too ashamed to use their own regular name to post nasty comments. You could also correlate that with all the regular names that suddenly disappear around the same time.
I could use some forensic analysis matching software to give you who’s who but what’s the point? Racists, bigots and morons will still be racists, bigots and morons.
I’m positive the website S/W Mish is using can easily provide the IP address of all posters and/or what country they are posting from.
Sure, some can use a VPN but I bet way fewer people know how to use one than you think.
Being against open borders is not racism. It’s a policy issue. Equating that position to racism is a political talking point and it is stupid.
So many many issues.
Do I understand this one?
Citizenship is automatically granted to the offspring of illegal invaders?
?????
if you’re not indigenous to this hemisphere, you’re the illegal invader. Case closed.
Are you suggesting that we return to flooding the United States with illegal invaders? Is that what you favor? I don’t understand.
There was NEVER a time the border was closed. WTF do you get that nonsense from? Did you come from an alternate history universe?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBz_NrtwrTQ
There are millions of creatures that move between “countries” on any given day from Canada to Mexico and beyond and they always will regardless of what you think should happen.
Bwahahaha! I can see the bigots and racists are triggered in the comments. Sorry fools, you’re gonna have to eat it now and there’s nothing you can do about it, absolutely nothing!
And don’t forget this was Trump appointees that “86’d” his executive order. Tired of winning yet? Lol. I guess somebody must have told SCOTUS about the demographic death spiral.
And now you just need to wait for a democratic congress and president and it’s Déjà vu open borders all over again.
Based on how the US is currently viewed around the world I am not sure there will be lines of people rushing for the border.
After all at some point another Republican president / congress etc will get in and close the borders as Trump has done. Do you really want to risk getting here and having ICE show at your door in 5 or 10 years?
If people want to come here is best to come the legal immigration route.
copium, MAGA is cooked, just like the GOP before them.
Tim, you’re going to watch in a few years politicians begging for immigrants to take care of the 80 million geezers needing walkers, nurses, orderlies and all sorts of other workers to take care of them.
There will be begging, just wait a few more years.
I’ve not yet read the opinion and dissent but I shall. In the meantime, here is another view of all this that seems (also?) reasonable. In fact, I have to agree with it…for now.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/are-we-subjects-or-citizens-birthright-citizenship-and-the-constitution/
Agree – Wong Kim Ark is stretched beyond limits today.
meanwhile: Farm bankruptcies were up 46 per cent between 2024 and 2025, reaching levels last seen in the Farm Aid era of the 1980’s American agriculture is broken
Willie Nelson is still alive! Get him quick for the next Farm Aid!
Yep FAFO it always happens to stupid people.
Terrible policy. Babies hould have the same citizenship as their parents, as in most of the world.
Why do you look at the rest of the world when the USA is the tits? Sounds so defeatist. Plus, much of the rest of the world IS black or never enslaved black humans.
No surprise on the ruling Mish but I wonder if coming attractions will be travel bans on foreign national “pregnant people” traveling to or trying to enter the United States? I’m thinking of Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act…Any President has broad authority to define classes of Aliens to exclude based on “National Interest”.
No surprise on the ruling Mish but I wonder if coming attractions will be travel bans on foreign national “pregnant people” traveling to or trying to enter the United States? I’m thinking of Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act…Any President has broad authority to define classes of Aliens to exclude based on “National Interest”.
Congress would fail.
Not 60 votes.
I do not know about an EO on “national Security” grounds
Here’s the salient point of the law, which was upheld by SCOTUS in TRUMP v. HAWAII in 2018 “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens…”
Dang. I was hoping we could deport Rubio.
we are all anchor babies in the eyes of the iroquois and navajo…….
In the real world your property rights flow from being capable of defending those property rights.
Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social.
“No long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary! Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship. They will have my Complete and Total Support!”
… Thereby demonstrating his utter ignorance and stupidity. Read the ruling Taco … Congress gets no say, that was Kavanaugh’s who wrote that he would have left the door open for Congress to narrow the Birthright citizenship right. Without a Constitutional amendment, or a reversal of precedent by the Court, this ruling will stand.
I’m more disappointed senators debating the 14th Amendment AND the DoJ didn’t argue children born in the US by illegal aliens are benefiting from an illegal action; therefore, the benefit must be relinquished. One of the foundations of the justice system is 3rd parties cannot benefit from illegal actions by others.
Maybe Senators were too naive to think simple birthright could never be used as a weapon, that immigrants would always want to assimilate, and that only good people would come to the US.
Now there is every incentive for people to enter the US illegally to have children.
Maybe the Senators debating the 14th Amendment after the Civil War were too embarrassed to limit the amendment to children born of slaves.
Well a baby born here is not a weapon (it’s a baby), will always assimilate, and should be assumed to be good. It’s hard for them to do something bad, because they’re babies. However, nothing stops the government from deporting the parents of the baby, who will likely want to take their child with them.
and: SCOTUS Agrees To Hear Argument Over Second Amendment And Semiautomatic Weapons
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in its next term over whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a semiautomatic gun.
The case, Viramontes v. Cook County, was originally filed in 2021 after the plaintiffs weren’t allowed to buy AR-15-style weapons because of an ordinance in Cook County. The plaintiffs said they want to purchase semiautomatic weapons for self-defense.
Well I can tell you how that case rules. Six to three in favor of Viramontes.
Interestingly, the 14th amendment is as critical to gun rights as it is to birthright citizenship. The second amendment was written to keep the federal government from disarming state militias and forcing its will on individual states. But states had every right to regulate gun ownership within its boundaries (and most did). The 14th amendment got rid of that original purpose by making the federal constitution supreme over state constitutions.
Even more interesting is that enforcing the 2nd amendment was what created the need for the 14th amendment in the first place. Southern whites were passing laws to take away gun rights from freed slaves so they could intimidate them into taking their land without getting a load of buckshot in their asses. The 14th amendment made those laws invalid.
Legitimate question: what the [censored] is wrong with Alito and Thomas that they are universally contrarian [censored]?
My legitimate question is how Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch could have been the ONLY justices willing to review the New York firing of health care workers after the “Governor” eliminated the religious exemption on her own for the “Science Shots”? I would have thought the case more than merited court review but the other 6 said nope. Happened yesterday.
Ask Trump’s many other appointees to the bench
Under this decision, we can infer that BHO was a natural-born U.S. citizen, (along with being a natural-born subject of Britain’s HRH QEII, through his Kenyan father). This settles the Court’s view of whether or not BHO was eligible to be President.
Not if he was born outside of the US in, say, British Columbia.
Weren’t the tin foil hat brigade saying he was really born in Kenya? Jesus lord, fifteen years later and you need to dig this drivel up again (speaking to CK)?
The Supreme Court has never ruled on where Obama was born – and it never will. And it never ruled on whether Obama was eligible – and it never will. Therefore we can’t use this decision to infer that Obama is a natural born citizen. That’s all. Ted Cruz isn’t a natural born citizen. He might not even be human.
Awesome. I love that low skilled laborers can sneak into the country, have children, and be eligible for generous social benefits borne by the taxpayer. What a win for America!
Filthy Micks, amirite?
You can’t have open borders and a welfare program. The two are incompatible. It was a very different time when the Irish immigrated here.
“i-it was different when my family came over!”
uh…because it actually was different.
What wasn’t different?
There was no US welfare state when most Irish/European immigrants arrived in the 19th/early 20th centuries. Either you assimilated and earned or you self deported and/or starved. Not so today…
And don’t get me started on the Italians.
If you like your family pasta, you can keep it!
Way too many immigrants working in nursing homes, ‘mericans should be wiping grandpas ass themselves!
There ought to be a broad overhaul of the immigration laws but don’t expect it any time soon.
One of the many “jobs Americans don’t want to do”.
Welfare benefits do not extend to illegal immigrants. The best they can get is healthcare for their baby in most states. Some (California I know) does grant the mother extended benefits to care for the baby. But I’m happy to let each state deal with their own however they want.
Correct. In fact those illegals will be sent home immediately if they are caught. With their US citizen baby who will grow up in a foreign country.
Kids can’t sponsor parents.
Those laborers will be going home if they have no legal reason to stay here. Having an American kid is not a legal reason to stay. You can’t sponsor your parents until you reach 21.
https://www.uscis.gov/family/family-of-us-citizens/bringing-parents-to-live-in-the-united-states-as-permanent-residents
So no, they won’t get betting any benefits. What will happen is that American kid will be growing up in a Foreign country with their parents.
Should have been 9-0. Of course, we know Thomas and Alito are well-paid for their dissent. Not a surprise!
Wonderful, now a communist from china can pop out a baby here, go back live his or her life in China, collect benefits, vote when coming of age, come back and run for President, what could go wrong?
To combat this, Visa restriction is required; no one has a right to enter USA without a Visa.
Visa restrictions on whom? That child will have a US passport (as a citizen), you can’t restrict him.
The part that upsets people is that the generosity of the Constitution is being abused. Everyone who knows a pregnant woman (or pays a woman to get pregnant for that purpose) can bring her in and declare himself “the father”. No marriage is required.
Those who wrote the 14th amendment did not predict that entire maternity tourism operations will begin in other countries. Google says “Approximately 250,000 to 340,000 children are born in the U.S. each year to unauthorized or temporary immigrant parents.”
PS. The business opportunity on the other hand, is probably maternity clinics right outside the airports. Which the advocates of “GDP is everything” will celebrate, while turning the country into a messy international bus station, before it ever had the opportunity of becoming a society.
So how may of those 250,000 to 340,000 children return home with their parents?
To give the (expensive) birth here and then just go back home, without exploiting any benefits from it, wouldn’t make any sense. Especially considering how peculiar it is to register foreign citizens in schools in other countries. If you were Chinese or Senegalese, would you like your school-age child to be a US citizen in China or Senegal?
What benefit is there? If you are on a temporary visa, you have to go home. If you are an illegal, you get no benefits.
The visa requirement sNarayana was speaking of was for the original pregnant mother, not her kid born here (then it’s too late). The idea is to deny pregnant women visas for visiting America for the purposes of having kids here.
Also kids born here can’t ‘import’ their parents. Sponsorship only happens once the kid reaches 21. Prior to that if the parents have to leave because they aren’t citizens then the kid will go with them even though that kid is a US citizen.
Ok, got it. But how would you deny a Visa though… a tourist Visa can be issued by the US Embassy in January, and it’s still in force in April (if April is when you’re travelling). Unless they check every woman that enters for pregnancy, which cannot happen. And you can’t even refuse entry on the basis of pregnancy now.
Essentially the SC gave a constitutional right to any woman on earth to give birth to a full US citizen, by just taking a trip.
Customer and border control can deny anyone entrance for just about anything. You can later contest it but you are unlikely to win and by then you will have been sent back.
As a Canadian working here on a VISA for 30 years I’ve often run into agents who aren’t too keen to let you in even with the VISA in hand.
Its entirely up to the agent whether they do and you have little recourse so it would be easy to have an unofficial policy of denying pregnant women.
This rabbit hole is what keeps you up a night and not that our President is a lying, pedophile who is making Billions grifting?
You can’t be that stupid can you?
Collect what benefits back in China?
And of hundreds of millions of people, even if your assertion was true we are talking about how many people given the border is effectively shut
Does this mean the issue is settled in perpetuity? No other challenges will threaten the legal status of children born to illegals?
Perpetuity is by definition a long time.
But there are only 2 paths
1) Constitutional Amendment
2) Court reverses itself
#1 has no chance, probably forever
#2 no chance for a decade or longer if not much longer
This was a 5-4 case with Kavanaugh signing on with a caveat to Congress to address accordingly. So, this was a split decision at best (certainly not the 9-0 result that some were predicting) and as such could more readily be revisited in coming terms. Remember, Roe was sacrosanct too (and much more contentious than this case)…until Dobbs came along and it wasn’t.
show me one person who predicted 9-0.
I followed this case more than anyone I know and I nave never seen such a prediction, I did say it would not surprise me, a vastly different thing. My stated call was 7-2. I missed Gorsuch. But his dissent reads like an apology. Yes, roe was overturned after decades. Wake me up in 20 years,
Yes, but they are so minor relative to the other issues facing this country that the answer might as well be no.
Birthright citizenship has been law since 1866. Since that time, surely you can point to thousands of elected officials who were born as anchor babies, and whose parents went back home after giving birth to live it up while collecting benefits, amirite?
A moron named Trump became President twice, so anything is possible. Silver lining, at least the Chinese communist President will likely be able to do advanced mathematics, chemistry, biology, physics, etc.
If you’re trying to make a point, at least make one that connects to the actual issue.
Whether you personally like or dislike any past president has nothing to do with the long‑term consequences of birthright citizenship. That’s just a distraction.
The concern I raised is simple: a policy that automatically grants full U.S. citizenship to anyone born here — regardless of the parents’ ties to the country — creates downstream political and legal effects.
That’s not about intelligence, math skills, or who you think should be president. It’s about how citizenship law works and what it allows decades later.
If you want to debate the policy, debate the policy. If all you’ve got is “Trump bad” and a joke about chemistry class, then you’re not actually addressing the argument.
Won’t they be creating the exact same issues they’ve been creating all along? And, if so, isn’t just an existing part of our national fabric?
You get a Mishelin star. This country is about to celebrate 250 years with most of it under the birthright citizenship right but now suddenly it is a problem.
Well I have a simple solution to a complex problem. We DNA test every person in the United States, if you don’t have native American blood in your DNA, you are deported to your DNA point of origin. The general continent is fine, no need to be specific.
This would align with the idea that people only “belong” to certain groups/regions/races.
“My argument is simple: a policy designed for a completely different era can produce very different outcomes when global mobility, dual citizenship norms, and geopolitical dynamics evolve.”
Well when the second amendment was created people only had single fire muskets not 100 round mags and high powered armor piercing automatic rifles nor bazookas for that matter.
You could methodically go through each amendment to the constitution and nit pick issues. Freedom of speech? Tell that to Trump on his ongoing war with media outlets.
But I get your point and the Constitution has a process to change it. If there are enough people that feel the same way you do then your movement should gain momentum and you should have the votes to ratify change. The fact that this has gone nowhere in decades/centuries means you’re on an island called Sour Grapes.
I discussed that in several of my posts on this topic.
So you have to define what issues are created, what levels of risk they entail in reality, and what are the range of mechanisms that can mitigate that risk. That is a starting point for a discussion. Going with “the world has changed” isn’t. The world is always going to change.
what exactly is your arguement?
it seems to be beware the long term consequences.
its been policy for 175 or so years. I would think the long term consequences would already be here.
Longevity doesn’t equal immunity. A policy can exist for 175 years and still produce new consequences as circumstances change.
The argument isn’t “beware the long‑term consequences someday in the distant future.” It’s that the downstream effects of birthright citizenship depend on the geopolitical, economic, and migration realities of the era — and those realities are not static.
A policy created in the 1800s didn’t anticipate modern global mobility, dual‑citizenship dynamics, foreign influence concerns, or the scale of today’s migration patterns.
So yes, the policy is old. That doesn’t mean the consequences are fully realized, or that new ones can’t emerge as the world changes.
Saying “it’s been around a long time, therefore it’s settled” isn’t an argument — it’s just assuming the past automatically justifies the present.
– A policy created in the 1800s didn’t anticipate… Nope, but that doesn’t automatically allow for change.
We have a whole lot of useless, old, outdated, meaningless etc. Laws on the books. Most have not been changed and some may never be changed. This falls under the “It is what it is” category, which many things in life fall under.
Some examples for you, could be > Men playing against Woman in sports. > Updated Voter Roles. > Drinking age. > School Lunches etc.
– Saying “it’s been around a long time, therefore it’s settled” isn’t an argument. > Maybe not, but it is the reality just the same…
It creates nothing new.
The law of the land was upheld as we knew it.
No Change!
Recent Open-boarder policy and birth-tourism changes the downstream.
That said, those policies are controllable w/o Constitutional modifications.
I’ll take my chances with the high IQ American citizen by birth Commie versus a radical low IQ rightwing extremist who had parents who were radical low IQ rightwing extremist citizens.
“…a communist from china can pop out a baby here…”
Because everyone knows that citizenship, voting and elected office are reserved for white people who subscribe to goldguy’s view, amirite?