Don’t Freak Out When We Lose the Birthright Citizenship Case

Town Hall ^ | 6 Apr 2026 | Kurt Schlichter

[Rummyfan]

Are you ready to be sad? Because I’m not going to sugarcoat it for you. I’m not going to whistle a happy tune as I blow sunshine up your Schumer. We are not going to win the birthright citizenship case at the US Supreme Court.

It’s not going to happen for a number of reasons. I wish it would happen. I also wish I could get a unicorn for my birthday. It’s not going to happen, and I want to let you know why so you don’t freak out. It’s not the result of a conspiracy. It’s not because everybody else is stupid, one justice notwithstanding. It’s because that’s how the legal system works. You don’t have to like it. You do have to understand it if you don’t want to be emotionally incontinent every time something in a courtroom doesn’t go your way.

I respect you enough to tell you how it’s going to be. And it’s not going to be what you hope.

First, I’m not going to rehash the arguments about birthright citizenship. I already agree with you. I think the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment is incorrect. I know all the reasons, and I’m familiar with the arguments. You don’t need to convince me. Please don’t fill the comments up with, “Well, Kurt, what about this particular bit of legislative history or that particular definition of ‘jurisdiction?’” We’re past all that. It doesn’t matter anymore. The Court is going to do what the Court is going to do, and I’m going to tell you below what the Court is going to do and why. You don’t have to like it, but you should try to understand it if only to be better prepared for the next fight.

---

TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: illegaltruth

[fruser1]

If the Constitutional "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" is what rules the day, then any child born overseas to US parents are NOT citizens. Any Statute trying to correct that would be unconstitutional.

[Ann Archy]

I will KNOW FOR SURE that America is OVER!

[Hot Tabasco]

but a child of people who are here illegally retains their allegiance to their parents’ homeland

To what country would the allegiance of the child be if the parents are from two different countries? Example, father from Honduras and mother from Canada?

[rdcbn1]

The Supreme Court is going to screw us on this one and you can count on it.
However, The Trump Administration has been dropping hints that it has the evidence that the mass migration has been part of a carefully planned and well organized invasion by a coalition of foreign and domestic enemies.

The Supreme Courts political decision is not going to be the end of the fight, it will be the kick off of the fight.

This is politically popular - nobody likes the Biden invaders, not even the legacy legal aliens.

[Vermont Lt]

When someone is 4 paragraphs into a story about what we “should do” and he hasn’t touched on what we “should do”…that writer is getting paid by the word.

[af_vet_1981]

So, here’s your spoiler. We’re going to lose this case, likely on procedural grounds rather than on the issue of birthright citizenship itself. What it is probably going to be is the justices somehow ruling that Trump‘s executive order banning birthright citizenship is procedurally flawed and unenforceable. The majority opinion is probably not even going to reach whether the 14th Amendment requires birthright citizenship. Now, the three leftist justices will probably write a concurrence to that effect, but that’s not going to be the holding of the case that creates precedent. Their avoiding a ruling on the constitutionality of Trump’s birthright citizenship ban is not necessarily because the other justices are cowardly, though it does provide a great excuse to avoid a great controversy. There is a principle in the law that courts will avoid ruling something unconstitutional if they can do so on some other ground. And they will be most happy to do so here.

[Highest Authority]

Regrettably it would lead to a full and complete breakdown of the entire country, followed shortly by an unimaginablly horrible civil war. I hope none of this happens!

[Jonty30]

I can lock and load with a calm mind.

[sipow]

The issue with that argument is that the 14th amendment does not say who is excluded from citizenship. It says that if you meet X requirements you are a citizen. But it does not explicit exclude anyone.

It is poorly written and is wide open to exploitation- as we know all too well.

[jeffc]

birthright citizenship will happen because SCOTUS is a corrupt Deep State organ.

[Melinda in TN]

I expect to lose it. The court has been threatened by Democrats and foreign countries like China and Russia. The SC knows that if they make the correct ruling that Democrats/Liberals will lose their minds and burn the country down. Democrats depend on the “illegal” vote since black voters are learning better. Without the new slave class (illegals), they will never win another election. We learned the original intent of the Amendment in Junior High School. The voting citizens of this country have been asleep at the wheel while Democrats slowly taught generations to believe what benefits Democrats. Parents slowly gave up rights to their own kids. Schools don’t teach real history anymore. Even young teachers of today don’t know the truth. When older generations like mine that know real history are gone, the country will be gone too.

I used to compare the liberals of today to the hippies of my generation but have come to the conclusion that today’s generation of lunatics are much worse because they are stupid.

[A_perfect_lady]

the existence of this unforeseen problem... does not change what the text of the Constitution says.

And yet, this "unforeseen problem" approach has been used extensively to erode gun rights, and was used for 50 years to protect abortion. So there is a precedent for the "unforeseen problem" fix.

[fruser1]

who is excluded

Then everyone on the planet is a citizen.

[A_perfect_lady]

To what country would the allegiance of the child be if the parents are from two different countries? Example, father from Honduras and mother from Canada?

To the mother's, because a.) we don't know if that is the father without a DNA test, and b.) what if the pregnancy is a result of rape?

[V_TWIN]

I’ve already got my mind right for that one.

[Psalm 73]

If asked last January if we would like Trumps DOJ to win 90% of it's cases at the Supreme Court we would all have been thrilled.

So we lose 10%, but live to fight another day - I'm with Kurt on this.

[A_perfect_lady]

What we may have to do is make a conscious effort to deny entry to women who are in the late-stages of pregnancy, and grant shorter visas to the rest, like 3 months instead of 6. And we might have to explicitly start denying entry to the Chinese. I don’t care if it’s “racist.”

[Bishop_Malachi]

The authors claim that the court likes to avoid “big rulings” is ludicrous. When the SCOTUS deems an issue important enough to be activists about it, they will create policy. Why is the author laying down cover fire for a group that is poised to make a particularly egregious decision?

[sten]

I’d like to see the legal gymnastics that allow for foreign citizens who cannot legally reside in the US nor are they under the jurisdiction of the US to somehow fall under the 14th Amendment.

It would require completely ignore not only the text of the Amendment but also all the discussions of those who wrote it... and yes, we have those records.

It would essentially require making sh*t up out of whole cloth.

and they would do it to save the democrat party.