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 07/01/2026 10:02:24 AM PDT by MikelTackNailer
The Supreme Court delivered a stunning blow to President Trump's birthright citizenship executive order, which sought to declare that babies born in the U.S. to mothers unlawfully present or in the United States on temporary visas would no longer automatically receive U.S. citizenship.
The ruling in Trump v. Barbara was 6-3, with Justices Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberal justices in striking down the order. The ruling was exceptionally long, nearly 200 pages.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a scathing dissent, grounding his reasoning in the view that the 14th Amendment was meant to apply narrowly to the children of slaves, and that the disputed phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” applied only to those owing no allegiance to a foreign power and residing permanently in the United States. He described the majority's decision as adding "to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment."
"The Court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President’s Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens," Justice Thomas wrote. "In doing so, the Court adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support. Because many potential applications of the President’s Order are consistent with the original public meaning of the Citizenship Clause, I respectfully dissent."
In his dissent, Justice Thomas argues that Dred Scott-era critics rejected the idea that citizenship hinged solely on birthplace, emphasizing instead domicile, permanent residence, as the key standard. Under that framework, he suggests, citizenship would not extend to children of illegal aliens or temporary visa holders who give birth in the United States.
He also pointed to the 14th Amendment’s original understanding, asserting it applied only to those “not subject to any foreign power,” and lamented the fact that today’s ruling expands birthright citizenship well beyond what the 14th Amendment’s framers intended.
"I am not sure that today’s opinion will stand the test of time," he wrote. "The Citizenship Clause 'added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship.' Today’s opinion devalues that citizenship."
In a separate dissent, Justice Alito argues that the 14th Amendment was intended to align with the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which explicitly excluded children of foreign diplomats and Native Americans to preserve the principle of exclusive allegiance. He contends these exceptions demonstrate that birthright citizenship was never meant to apply to children of those who are non-domiciled or illegal aliens.
"The Court’s interpretation preserves a powerful incentive to enter or remain in this country illegally. Immigrants naturally prefer affluent countries where economic opportunities are available. Other than Canada, the United States will be the only affluent nation where birth alone is enough to establish citizenship," Justice Alito wrote. "If the Fourteenth Amendment required these results, the country would have to live with them or amend the Constitution. But the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the rule the Court now imposes on the country. In my judgment, the Court has made a mistake that will seriously affect the country’s future. For that reason, I respectfully dissent."
|
|
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. |
Thomas is correct that this bad ruling will have to be corrected. Hopefully that won't take a long as Roe vs. Wade to get there. Now the ball's back in Congress's lap. TN Rep. Randy Ogles is introducing an "Anchors Away Act".
From 'Townhall.com:
The bill would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit the admission into the United States of pregnant women who are seeking to give birth to their child for the purpose of acquiring citizenship. The announcement was met with resounding support from conservatives.
“Today, the Supreme Court cheapened the most valuable thing on planet Earth: U.S. citizenship,” Ogles told Townhall. “Not only is birthright citizenship clearly not in the U.S. Constitution, but this broken system has allowed foreign nationals to take advantage of our country, our benefits, and our generosity. These foreigners have embedded themselves into our society and are being trained by foreign governments to corrupt our culture. I refuse to let these anchor babies colonize our country. Save our sovereignty. Anchors away!” Ogles added.
Ogles’ new bill is one of a few being pushed by the most conservative members of Congress. Sen. Eric Schmitt announced a similar bill and stated that he would begin pursuing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to put the issue of citizenship to rest.
President Trump has instructed Congress to act quickly to codify the now-defeated order into law.
It is cowards who refuse to admit that the 14th amendment is a slavery amendment and nothing but a narrow slavery amendment.
Clarence Thomas FTW!
Bkmk
The problem with the “anchors away” act is that it’s unenforceable. You can NOT as a parent sign away any rights for your children. Ask any lawyer in any state of this country. Once born, the child in question is a US citizen, and NO ONE can sign his “rights”. You guys are whistling past the graveyard.
unfortunately, it’s moot now. Amy shoved a machete in our back. We are stuck with the dreadful consequences now. Every hellhole in the world can send a pregnant woman across the border for a few hours, make a citizen and start collecting.
That “Non-Biologist” Supreme Justice has been sort of quiet here lately. Just a matter of time before she expresses her
‘outrage’ most livid at a court decision favoring the President.
Maybe she’s in costume playing Make Believe in another Broadway production for The Woke and Deluded.
I looked up a few articles to get more details on the anchors away bill. Unfortunately I couldn’t find much.
In the article found at the link below, Andy’s bill will ban pregnant women from coming to the United States.
“We are literally going to be dropping Anchors Away, which really pushes back against the Supreme Court, this idea that if you are pregnant and you are from a foreign nation, you know what, it is time for Congress to pass a law that says you cannot come here. You cannot have a baby on U.S. Soil and exploit this loophole,” Ogles said.
I don’t see this happening at all. Not sure how the law can be enforced. I imagine there will be a way listed in the bill. The Democrats will have a field day with this.
Really now? One Supreme Court justice apparently wasn't too certain of that:
Kavanaugh leaves backdoor for Congress to pass law saying babies born to foreigners temporarily in US are NOT citizens
And I don't see anything anywhere about rights being 'signed away'. The only legitimate cases where that's the norm is when someone joins the service or as a condition for early parole.
*Congress has been silent on dual citizenship for over 200 years with a handful of SCOTUS case rulings that it is up to Congress to act.
“...in the view that the 14th Amendment was meant to apply narrowly”
I don’t disagree but that ship left the docks awhile back.
Subject indeed.
If the authors of the 14th amendment wanted birthright citizenship, why didn’t they just state “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Why did they specifically add “ and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” within that phrase?
Here’s what Congress said...
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-globe/congress-40-session-2-part-1.pdf
This SCOTUS has some serious issues with history. I suspect... on purpose.
And the 14th Amendment may not be valid at all according to this hyper-intelligent ranter Razorfist (who injects cursing for emphasis' sake so toughen up).
Don't Stack The Supreme Court. NEUTER It.
Other than his defending Michael Jackson I've not found him wrong about anything else. Hoo hoo.
What was “stunning” about this ruling?
It has been obvious for years that the Constitution would have to be amended to correct this problem - the only surprise was that there were two dissents.
The Fourteenth Amendment was puprosely badly written so these kinds of trevsties could be undertaken.
What matters is what the RATIFIERS thought it meant and the ratifiers thought it meant that is was a Civil War Reconstruction amendment that reinstated former slaves to citizenship. That is all it was ratified to do.
Why do I say that? Because there is not a scintilla of a record of any debate about giving the federal gov’t sweeping powers to enforce the first ten amendments and things like what is natural born citizen.
This is a bogus Supreme Court decision. It is not supported by the Constitution or case precedent and needs to be ignored and nullified.
Jurisdiction is a constitutionally paramount issue. Especially in light of slavery.
The framers were making a very important choice with that phrasing. We as Americans in 2026 don’t have a concept of why that was important because all of us were indoctrinated in government schools.
Most Americans don’t have a clue about the concept of jurisdiction even when it comes to the U.S.’s 51 Constitutions. Most Americans don’t even know about the 50 state constitutions at all.
The schools did this to us. Americans used to know what this meant. We didn’t argue about this years ago. We all knew. So there wasn’t a reason to argue about it.
It isn’t really moot, not with several of the justices openly making noise about it. The justices are keeping it alive because its important for this concept to be alive.
Everybody is lying about the 14th amendment. Well not Clarence Thomas. Everybody else is lying about the 14th Amendment if they imply that its a Santa Claus amendment.
It’s just only a narrow slavery amendment. If we could nail that truth to the floor we would be in a much better place.
That is why when Thomas brings up Dred Scott in the context of the 14th amendment, he is shoving garlic down these vampires’ throats. They absolutely do not want people thinking of the 14th amendment as a slavery amendment. They need it to not be that.
They need lies.
They thrive on lies.
And we thought Dred Scott was bad!
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.