Posted on 04/02/2026 8:48:34 AM PDT by MtnClimber
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday on the Trump administration’s challenge to the decades-long practice of interpreting the 14th Amendment to allow foreigners to obtain American citizenship simply by being born within the boundaries of the country. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of this view, allowing any foreigner circumstantially (or intentionally) born on U.S. soil to be automatically adopted into the Union as a citizen, it will mean the end of actual American citizens taking the high court seriously.
As Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out, the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to black people and freed slaves after the Civil War. Making the point further, Thomas asked, “How much of the debates around the 14th Amendment had anything to do with immigration?” U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer noted that there was very little, if any, which suggests that the intent of the 14th Amendment was never to be the international migration boondoggle it has become.
While Thomas appeared to recognize that reality, it was difficult to tell where the rest of the court stood on the issue at times — except for the other reliable conservative, Justice Samuel Alito.
But if the justices harbor any consideration of keeping the 14th Amendment migration train running by upholding the current bastardization of the amendment, it will signal to the American people the illegitimacy of even the highest legal authority in the land, ostensibly with a 6-3 conservative majority.
A SCOTUS decision to uphold birthright citizenship as currently applied would communicate that it means to follow in the footsteps of successive presidential administrations and Congresses, selling Americans’ jobs, land, and promises of freedom to the highest bidder, or simply giving them away to foreigners who cross the border illegally. Whereas many view the head of the judicial branch as a safeguard, upholding the Constitution when the executive branch and Congress overstep their bounds, a majority decision affirming unbounded birthright citizenship would suggest they too have no regard for the people who have a right to be here, and whose futures depend on the end of mass migration.
In his opening remarks, Sauer brought up the reality of “birth tourism,” pregnant foreigners coming to the United States in order to give birth on American soil and obtain citizenship with an anchor baby, who is automatically granted full citizenship under the current 14th Amendment framework. The issue is prominent in China, where there are actual businesses — reportedly more than 1,000 — that exist for achieving that goal, as Sauer pointed out.
Sauer’s introduction of the issue of birth tourism led to a potentially telling exchange with Chief Justice John Roberts, where Roberts asked about birth tourism’s prominence. Sauer cited the high number of such operations, stating,” No one knows for sure,” adding, “We are in a new world now.” Roberts seemed to reply flippantly: “It’s a new world, it’s the same Constitution.”
Roberts has consistently postured himself as the chief justice most intent on preserving the institution of the Supreme Court. He is suspected to have sided with majorities he may not actually agree with, in order to make the ruling more acceptable to the American people (a 6-3 decision is more convincing than a 5-4 decision, as the argument goes).
That is what makes his line of questioning both confusing and concerning, because it suggests he believes the proper constitutional interpretation of the 14th Amendment would continue to allow these birthright farms to send foreigners to the United States so their babies can receive rubber-stamp citizenship.
If the conclusion from the Supreme Court is that any country on earth can lay claim to the American homeland, so long as they send enough people to give birth here, then Americans will have no choice but to reject that notion out of hand. Such a decision would further deteriorate confidence in the Supreme Court, leading the American people to reject it as a legitimate authority on the Constitution altogether.
“ Republican voters should ensure that they do.”
Except a lot of Republican voters are not opposed to birthright citizenship.
“ Republican voters should ensure that they do.” was the the tail end of batazoid’s post number 35 comments, not mine.
However, I do agree with the comment. We have a better chance of getting legislation through now, even with some wishy washy Republicans, than we would if we wait for another Congress to take it up, get a definition, and get a vote on it. We know damn well that the Dems have no interest in getting a legal definition of citizenship in place. They will just ride the ambiguity train. It needs to be legislated, even with all of the fighting back and forth. Even with all of the lower courts that will challenge it. That’s the only way to make the SC actually rule on it one way or the other, instead of kicking the can down the road like they have in the past.
“all babies” ... I stand corrected.
In your post 66, what do you mean when you state that the 14th amendment has zero relation to the topic?
If it’s being misapplied, which the President claims, it certainly ‘relates’.
*
You said that 60% was a few years back, so it was probably when Biden was in office. I can't believe that it's that high since Trump got back in office. He ran on getting rid of illegals. To reach 60%, that would mean that a large number of Republicans support birthright citizenship too, and they don't.
My father and the rest of the family came through Ellis Island in 1913. They had to have a sponsor, someone who had already come to this country and been here for a while, to vouch for them, and be responsible for them.
Abortion has gotten more acceptable rather than less.
Illegal immigration has gotten more acceptable rather than less.
Atheism has gotten more acceptable rather than less.
Tribalism has gotten more acceptable rather than less.
Stupidity has gotten more acceptable rather than less.
We have remedies available for some of that.
Trump has done pretty well with illegal immigration (I still want to hear on the progress of ‘The Wall’.)
The Supremes have already done the right thing within their purview with regard to abortion.
Now they have to deal with ‘birth citizenship’.
(I doubt the rest of your list can be dealt with through either judicial or legislative means...you can’t coerce belief in God, refusal of tribalism, or pursuit of intelligence.)
It will be the end of the United States of America. Period.
You haven't even heard of The Equal Rights Amendment I imagine. It withered on the vine, just like an amendment like this would.
All that counts is if it is Unconstitutional.
Let me be clear about one thing here: If the USSC rules "birthright citizenship" exists for ANY REASON all hell better damn' well break loose.
Such a decision would further deteriorate confidence in the Supreme Court, leading the American people to reject it as a legitimate authority on the Constitution altogether.
That's putting it mildly. I'll say it more directly: The US Supreme Court will CEASE TO EXIST in at least 51% of the country's view and trust when I say this: Roberts, etc.. do NOT want to see that happen. There will be consequences of which even I probably can't properly articulate, as severe as they may be.
We will definitely be a country divided, even more than today. It will be common to say "That's your ruling, good luck enforcing it."
Law and order will cease to exist. The USSC will usher in complete and total disdain for the institution of Government and when that happens, all bets are off as to what happens next.
I, for one, want to see the Court explicate the 14th amendment once and for all. I will perceive anything else as cowardice.
We don’t need it kicked to the Legislative branch, we don’t need a Constitutional Amendment. There is plenty of evidence as to why the 14th was brought, and what it was intended to address.
I happened to see this link to an ‘X’ post today:
https://x.com/willricci/status/2039763907800154132
-PJ
I think your posts were very good.
More ignorance.
AJ Barrett has been in the majority on multiple landmark decisions:
Free exercise of religion (Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 2021)…
And religious schools eligible for state funding (Carson v. Makin, 2022)...
And gun rights (NY State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen, 2022)...
And affirmative action (Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard/UNC, 2023)...
And Chevron deference (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 2024)...
And presidential immunity (Trump v. United States, 2024)...
I don't post on social media, I don't have any accounts on social media.
I am exclusively on Free Republic.
I watch and read the media to see if my thoughts propogate outward, and over the decades I have seen many cases where my words were taken verbatim, where my ideas showed up three days later in columinst essays, and most recently my analysis of RFK Jr's taking of Trump's 2024 poll points and my call for RFK to drop out and endorse Trump (which happened a month later after Clay Travis repeated my call on the radio two days after my poll post).
But my logic is sound here: Wong was narrowly ruled on the specifics of the case -- which supports limited birthright citizenship for children of green card holders -- but not for anyone else. Everyone took the wrongly concluded dicta in section 93, and that's what became the basis for birthight citizenship tourism and Justice Jackson's questions.
But sections 3 and 118-119 are the only parts of the Wong ruling that count, and that denies birthright citizenship. Chief Justice Roberts just needs to affirm Wong and disavow section 93, and he's good to go. He doesn't need to create any new ground with a new controversial ruling.
-PJ
I hope the Court are among those reading you :-)
“I don’t post on social media, I don’t have any accounts on social media.”
This site is social media.
I’ve made that point before, but most people here don’t view FR as ‘social media’ in the sense that they consider ‘X’ or Facebook to be.
“but most people here don’t view FR as ‘social media’ in the sense that they consider ‘X’ or Facebook to be.”
They are fooling themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.