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.
Posted on 11/21/2025 2:13:01 PM PST by SharpRightTurn
The battle over who qualifies as an American at birth has officially reached the highest court in the land.
On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the historic challenge to President Donald Trump’s 2025 executive order restricting birthright citizenship, setting the stage for what could be the most consequential interpretation of the 14th Amendment in more than a century.
Trump’s order—one of the signature actions of his America First immigration agenda—asserts that children born to illegal aliens on U.S. soil do not automatically receive citizenship, countering decades of bureaucratic interpretation and closing what critics call one of the most abused loopholes in American law.
A Constitutional Clash Long Overdue
For years, immigration hawks have argued that the federal government’s interpretation of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment has been twisted far beyond the intent of its authors—who were focused on guaranteeing citizenship to formerly enslaved Americans, not incentivizing mass illegal migration.
Trump’s team says the amendment was never meant to serve as a magnet for “birth tourism,” chain migration, or criminal cartels exploiting the maternity pipeline.
Opponents—including a coalition of progressive attorneys general—claim Trump has overstepped his authority, insisting that the 14th Amendment grants automatic citizenship regardless of immigration status.
But the Supreme Court’s originalist majority signaled deep skepticism Friday toward the idea that Congress or the courts must blindly accept a loophole that never existed in the amendment’s historical context.
Justices Zero In on 14th Amendment Text & Intent
During arguments, several justices pressed the challengers to explain why the United States should reward citizenship to individuals whose parents entered the country illegally or temporarily.
Justice Gorsuch questioned whether the Court has ever explicitly held that children of illegal aliens are guaranteed citizenship: “Show me the case where we have decided this question.”
Justice Thomas focused on Reconstruction-era debates showing overwhelming evidence that the authors did not intend universal, unconditional birth citizenship.
Meanwhile, the Court’s liberal bloc attempted to frame Trump’s order as discriminatory and destabilizing, warning of “statelessness” and “harm to families.”
But even Justice Kagan conceded that the Court was entering “largely uncharted” legal territory—an admission that the Left’s claims of settled law are far from accurate.
America First Leaders Rally Behind Trump
Conservatives blasted the lawsuit as yet another attempt to preserve the mass-migration system that enriches corporate donors and shifts political power to sanctuary regions.
Rep. Matt Gaetz said the case “will determine whether the United States has borders or not.”
Sen. J.D. Vance called birthright citizenship “the holy grail of the open-borders Left.”
Grassroots activists note that ending automatic citizenship for illegal aliens would remove one of the key incentives driving millions toward the southern border.
A Ruling That Could Reshape the Nation
The Court is expected to issue a decision by early summer 2026. If Trump prevails, the ruling could:
End birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens Reduce chain migration Reduce taxpayer obligations for benefits and entitlements Dismantle the “anchor baby” loophole Strengthen U.S. sovereignty and immigration enforcement
America First supporters argue that restoring constitutional clarity is essential for securing the borders and preventing foreign nationals from gaining automatic political footholds through exploitation.
For now, the country awaits a ruling that could redefine what it means to be an American in the modern era — and whether the Constitution protects U.S. sovereignty or the interests of globalist migration networks.
|
|
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. |
This court is worthless. They’ll vote 6-3 to keep it.
Children of invading armies were never granted automatic citizenship. How are children of illegal aliens different from that category?
I think I know how the squishy weaklings like Roberts and Barrett are going to rule. I’m bracing myself for a disappointment on this one. It seems we’re not allowed to have a country of sensible laws anymore when it comes to immigration. America’s become a nightmare of globalism.
I hope to God I’m wrong.
Any word on how Prof. Amy’s questioning went?
It would be much better if Congress drafted and passed an amendment which clearly defines who becomes a citizen when born in the U.S.
...my studied response......”Don’t hold yer breath.....” the SCOTUS will find arguments to support the idea that if you are here illegally but drop a baby on American soil, that child is PRESTO!!! a citizen of the United States....there will be way too much pressure on them to do otherwise.....jus’ sayin’ ....
Like the Dems would ever let that out of committee.
Our youngest daughter was born in Japan while I was working there. The U.S. embassy in Tokyo told us we had 60 days to register her birth and apply for a passport or she would be stateless. So the boo-hooing about illegal aliens who come here for the specific purpose of popping out an anchor baby is pointless.
Trump is right but the RINOs on the court will not have the courage.
We need the justices to adhere to originalism. If originalism is the guiding light, illegal aliens birthright will be rejected.
The Civil War was not fought over the following issues:
1) School Prayer. That’s not why 600k+ Americans died.
2) Gay marriage. That’s not why 600k+ Americans died.
3) Illegal aliens. That’s not why 600k+ Americans died.
4) Abortion. That’s not why 600k+ Americans died.
The 14th Amendment is a narrow amendment according to scholars like Raoul Berger that applies pretty much only/exclusively to slaves/former slaves/black people/african americans.(pick your preference, it matters none.)
Roberts is waiting for his satchel full of cash.
Summary on natural born citizen (NBC):
NBC is a legal issue. The U.S. Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that someone who is born on U.S. soil is an NBC if at the time of his birth, his parents were in the U.S. legally but not U.S. citizens.
Detailed argument
Since around 1900, (SC) rulings have become less and less valid because SC has gradually moved away from basing their decisions on the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended. But their ruling on NBC appear to be based on sound application of the Constitution.
In Perkins v. Elg, 99 F. 2d 408, Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit 1938, the Court of Appeals noted as part of the basis for their decision that...
In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890, 1898 [the Court found that] [W]hen the Constitution was adopted, the people of the United States were the citizens of the several States for whom and for whose posterity the government was established. Each of them was a citizen of the United States at the adoption of the Constitution, and all free persons thereafter born within one of the several States became by birth citizens of the State and of the United States.
It appears the Court of Appeals in Elg (1939) agrees with Ark (1898) decison.
(Both Marie Elizabeth Elg and Wong Kim Ark were born on U.S. soil to parents who were here legally but not U.S. citizens. )
Again, the Constitution is properly applied as written and ORIGINALLY UNDERSTOOD and intended. What matters is what the ratifiers of the Constitution considered an NBC was. The Supreme Court decisions based on the good-faith and sound finding of original understanding of NBC in the Constitution is, therefore, legal precedent concerning NBC.
Some argue that the term "NBC" is not specifically used in Ark or Elg, but these cases revolve around citizenship based on birth on U.S. soil, which is exactly what NBC is. An NBC is a citizen automatically because he was born on U.S. soil. He is “naturally” and automatically a citizen needing no further processing to become a U.S. citizen. He becomes a citizen under “natural” (birth) circumstances, exactly as Elg, Ark.
The logic is simple, one cannot be rewarded for breaking a law.
THE single biggest decision to save the Republic. If current interpretation is allowed to stand the country as we knew it is over. You simply cannot allow this magnet for the world to come over and plop out US citizens. It should be removed for those working here on visas, too, quite frankly.
With a view to this last object, I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense.
James Madison to Henry Lee, 25 June 1824 (Text)
James Madison describes "Originalism".
(Audio):
Short Nonfiction Collection Vol. 021
https://www.archive.org/download/nonfiction021_librivox/snf021_lettertohenrylee_madison.mp3
Wong Kim Ark is irrelevant. It never addressed illegal aliens.
Mail-in Voting has destroyed any semblance of actual U.S. Citizens having votes that mean anything, compared to the FRAUD from law-breaking "parasites".
Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett concerns me in this decision. The three amigo women will obviously vote against Trump and what’s good for the American people on this one and if it goes down, considering the 40 million Muslims that have flooded this country, the future of the US would be doomed.
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.