The Supreme Court cheapens citizenship

In 1973, seven black-robed justices decreed that unborn children have no right to life.

In 2026, five black-robed justices decreed that Americans have no right to a country.

In his 5-4 majority opinion in Trump v. Barbara, Chief Justice Roberts ruled that “children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States and are citizens at birth under the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.” Roberts argued that American citizenship is based on jus soli, or right of the soil, a medieval and feudal notion in which children owed allegiance to the sovereign upon whose lands they were born. According to Roberts (along with Barrett, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson), mere presence on American soil at the time of birth confers the full rights of citizenship, regardless of whether the parents are in the country legally or permanently. Illegal aliens, birth tourists, Chinese spies—all of them are able to confer automatic citizenship on their children.

Rejecting the more moderate position represented by Justice Kavanaugh (who dissented from the Constitutional question and instead argued that Congress is able to more fully clarify the meaning and exceptions to the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”), Roberts concluded his opinion by waxing eloquently: “Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ … We keep that promise today.”

In doing so, Roberts took the radical step of placing the question of citizenship not only beyond the reach of Trump’s executive order, but beyond the reach of congressional legislation as well.

Thomas and Alito both wrote substantial dissents, showing in painstaking detail the historical inaccuracy and logical incoherence of the majority opinion. Both agreed on the basic history and original meaning of the Citizenship Clause. The 14th Amendment was designed to secure citizenship for freed slaves and their descendants. It conceives two paths to citizenship: birth or naturalization, both of which entail being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. The latter phrase refers to full political jurisdiction and allegiance, as the drafter of the Constitutional language clearly argued during debate over the Amendment. “The word ‘jurisdiction,’ as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, … that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”

Thomas’ dissent emphasized that the term “jurisdiction” throughout American history had to do with permanent legal residence, or where you were “domiciled.” “The Citizenship Clause requires domicile. That conclusion is supported by the constitutional text, contemporaneous evidence, early executive practice, early legislative practice, judicial precedent, and all of the other indicators of original public meaning.” Alito emphasized the centrality of allegiance. As one of the amendment’s supporters put it at the time, “What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

In the 19th century, this meant that certain types of persons—the children of foreign diplomats, Native Americans who owed allegiance to their tribes as sovereign powers—were not born citizens of the United States simply because they were born on this soil. Their allegiance was elsewhere. The same was true of strangers or travelers passing through, who were not “domiciled” in America. How much more would such reasoning apply to those who willfully violate our nation’s immigration laws?

But, as with Obamacare, the Roberts Court has once again ignored the original intent of the Constitution and twisted the meaning in order to secure temporary respectability in the eyes of progressives. As a result, they have effectively ruled that the 14th Amendment is a national suicide pact.

According to the Court’s majority, it is impossible to stop birth tourism from foreign powers such as China without a constitutional amendment. Every child of every tourist or illegal alien now has the same rights as Americans, no matter how they arrived or whether they ever take up residence here.

For the last 50 years, the Court has weighed in on fundamental questions of human existence and society. What is a human being? What is marriage? What are parents? What are children? What is a man? What is a woman? And the Court has too often answered, “Whatever you want it to be.” Or rather, whatever powerful elites and their wealthy client classes want it to be. A child is a child if his mother wants him. If not, he’s a clump of cells. Marriage is a contract between consenting adults, not a lifelong covenant between one man and one woman for the sake of mutual comfort and fruitfulness. Parenthood is not a basic, natural relationship of responsibility and obligation, but simply a matter of paperwork and contracts.

In each case, the Court has cheapened whatever it touches. Roe cheapened human life and value. Obergefell cheapened marriage, children, manhood, and womanhood. And now in Trump v. Barbara, the Court has cheapened citizenship and nationhood. Our national inheritance can be legally stolen, aided and abetted by the Roberts Court and a Democratic party that sees mass immigration of ethnic cartels as its path to permanent political power.

More than that, by imposing their historically inaccurate and unjust interpretation on the country, they have removed a pressing political and moral question from the democratic process. As with Roe before it, Roberts has ensured that immigration will dominate our politics. And perhaps that’s just as well. The stakes have once again been clarified.

As Justice Alito put it, “This is one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court, and in my judgment, the Court has made a serious mistake.”

At least for the near future, Americans will be forced to live with the consequences of that mistake.