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.
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
You know the NewsMax legal commentator Napolitano, brought up a very interesting point today about the 14th Amendment. No one has pointed out that in one of the sections accompanying the Amendment, in what in legal drafting is generally referred to as the residuary clause, sits section 5. Section 5 says: “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” Now, what do you make of that? Here in the 14th Amendment sits the ambiguous words: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” seemingly screaming for Congressional clarification, waiting of definition and enforcement. So whose job is it, the Judiciary or Legislative Branch, to ‘enforce’ the 14th Amendment?
> Why are we the only country to do this? <
Interestingly enough, quite a few countries do this stupid thing. I guess it wasn’t such a big deal in the old days, when it was difficult to reach the country.
But now, the pregnant woman can hop on a plane, and off she goes.
Here’s a country list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli#Unrestricted_jus_soli
Everyone has heard the term "diplomatic immunity" and knows how it works.
What you are saying makes no sense...subject to and following are not the same thing.
“When you have 20 or 30 million in the country, on government stipends ...”
That’s the difference between now and way back when. Today, many of our immigrants become expenses for the rest of us.
“...it will mean the end of actual American citizens taking the high court seriously.”
And your mother wears army boots. SCOTUS judges are appointed for life. Supreme Court justices can be impeached and removed from office according to the U.S. Constitution, subject to removal for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”. But for making a decision that doesn’t go with the majority of US citizen’s...sorry, at the moment, game over. As long as they can parallel their decisions to the Constitution, they can’t be overruled at that time.
Supreme Court justice decision can be overruled. While the Court’s decisions are final in specific cases, they can be reversed by a future Supreme Court overruling its own precedent, by a constitutional amendment, or by congress creating a new law.
wy69
Section 5 cannot be used to limit the other sections. It is for enforcement of those provisions.
They are not going to overturn birthright citizenship. And they don’t face any peril over it either.
I don’t like it but that’s reality.
that’s why they got ‘gay marriage’ through a tactic I call ‘repeal to a third position’
The usual definition of repealing something means you take it away and go back to the way it used to be.
But the democrats figured out a new way.
They knew gay marriage would never be passed by voters, so they wrote a new law BANNING gay marriage.
This was already the default position. Because no one was giving marriage licenses to anyone except a male and female.
But they wrote the law in such a way and with bad wording so they knew it could be overturned in court.
So, the court rejected the new law but interpreted it to mean that if you can’t ban it, you must approve it.
Which is not the previously held position but a new position by judicial fiat.
See how nice?
"I'm sorry, that position requires you to be a U.S. citizen and you just entered Costa Rica on vacation, making you a citizen of Costa Rica according to the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition, you cannot reenter the United States without a Costa Rican passport."
Heard it on Fox news yesterday, an earlier opinion poll from a few years ago had around 45% of Americans accepting birthright citizenship, now it’s over 60%.
Every generation gets dumber. Might have something to do with schooling. /s
People will hear most any absurd proposal and shrug. “Sure, why not?”
All my ancestors were legal immigrants, and they got nothing when they arrived except a physical. Now an illegal can get all sorts of loot.
This one decision will decide the fate of America and if it upholds bc, our fate won’t be long in coming.
The poltroons in Congress could do something, but they won’t.
What matters is 8 U.S. Code § 1401, which is prospective (”shall”) and its term “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
In 1952, which I understand is the date of its passage, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” would have effectively meant the IRS (and the birthing hospital) could get money (from mom & dad).
If mom or dad had a TIN or two and paid what was due or close it on it, then you’re go to stay.
“subject to the jurisdiction thereof....excluding Indians not taxed”
Kids whose moms welched out on a hospital bill for which a court couldn’t get payment in full on should not expect a passport.
Yes it’s sad about Barrett. She has the same emotional weakness as the three stooges of the left. Allows her limbic system to overrule her cortex. We can only hope on this one, where she is likely to be thinking about ‘the chirren.’
Context and original intention have to be taken into account. If not, why would we even need the Court?
“Barrett” wrote a very nice book.
However, I fear “emotional weakness” too.
The only power the Supreme Court has is the respect given to it by the American people and under the Robert’s Court, that respect that it once had is almost gone. The convoluted ruling by Roberts in Obama care and his complete lack of holding judges to account for obvious political rulings is fast destroying any respect that is left. Roberts will go down in history as the worst Chief Justice the Court has ever had AND Barrett will go down as the weakest Justice the Court has ever had.
The chances of a constitutional amendment ending birthright citizenship passing both houses and a majority of state legislatures for ratification is about the same as the chance of Joe Biden being a champion on Jeopardy.
The quickest fix for the problem - i.e. a literal rather than original intent interpretation of the 14th amendment - is to deport the illegal parents of anchor babies. Technically under the current interpretation of the 14th, the anchor baby can in theory stay under most jurisdictions, but given that choice, 99% of parents will take the anchor baby with them when they're deported, quibbles over the interpretation of the 14th be damned.
Might as well just start adding Labor And Delivery wings and Express departure to All US international airports.
“The quickest fix for the problem...is to deport the illegal parents of anchor babies.”
Yup, and the best.
Subject to the jurisdiction” means being under the authority of a legal system or government
Actually, if you read the arguments when this was adopted...and subject to the jurisdiction meant to them....no foreign influence. I’d say a citizen of another country has foreign influence. They have twisted that line to mean what they want it to mean. Just read the original transcripts.
There are currently five Supreme Court Justices who are full fledged liberal minded “deep state” loyalists. I could be wrong but I believe they will see to it that the US anchor baby industry survives. SCOTUS’ lifetime appointments should be subject to the approval of the American people.
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.