The Court’s ruling won’t come immediately — oral arguments are the beginning of a deliberative process, with a decision likely by late June. Watch for how the justices’ questions during argument are characterized: skeptical questioning of the government’s position will be read as a signal the order may not survive. Track whether any Justice raises the 14th Amendment’s text directly (“subject to the jurisdiction thereof”), as that phrase is the crux of the case. The first detailed argument transcripts will be available within days and will show which legal theory the Court is actually wrestling with.
culman13 on
This will single handedly answer one of the biggest constitutional questions of the last 100 years: if foreign citizen parents come on a tourist visa and a child is born, is that child a citizen of the US?
Personally, I do not believe the location you were born means you are a citizen. If your parents have allegiance to another nation (primary citizenship), then you are a citizen of that nation and not the US.
DannyTannersFlow on
50 years too late.
Super_Mario_Luigi on
This should be an open-and-shut case to end birthright citizenship. The timing of the amendment was a clear solution to slavery. The wording has enough ambiguity. Wong Kim Ark is not a precedent to what is happening today. Illegal immigration wasn’t an issue, so it wasn’t worded to specifically quell Democrat 2026 political games. It surely also doesn’t welcome birth tourism and anchor babies either.
The problem is, it is such a mess and extremely radicalized. At worst, we go forward without recognizing new births.
4 Comments
The Court’s ruling won’t come immediately — oral arguments are the beginning of a deliberative process, with a decision likely by late June. Watch for how the justices’ questions during argument are characterized: skeptical questioning of the government’s position will be read as a signal the order may not survive. Track whether any Justice raises the 14th Amendment’s text directly (“subject to the jurisdiction thereof”), as that phrase is the crux of the case. The first detailed argument transcripts will be available within days and will show which legal theory the Court is actually wrestling with.
This will single handedly answer one of the biggest constitutional questions of the last 100 years: if foreign citizen parents come on a tourist visa and a child is born, is that child a citizen of the US?
Personally, I do not believe the location you were born means you are a citizen. If your parents have allegiance to another nation (primary citizenship), then you are a citizen of that nation and not the US.
50 years too late.
This should be an open-and-shut case to end birthright citizenship. The timing of the amendment was a clear solution to slavery. The wording has enough ambiguity. Wong Kim Ark is not a precedent to what is happening today. Illegal immigration wasn’t an issue, so it wasn’t worded to specifically quell Democrat 2026 political games. It surely also doesn’t welcome birth tourism and anchor babies either.
The problem is, it is such a mess and extremely radicalized. At worst, we go forward without recognizing new births.