I disagree with this decision, although my opinion doesn't matter. It's my view that granting U.S. citizenship to *anyone* born on U.S. soil was not the intent of the framers of our Constitution.
Example: A pregnant Chinese woman is flying to Russia. She speaks no English, has never been to the U.S., and had no intention of visiting.
She goes into labor on the flight & it diverts to Alaska, where her baby is born. Under current interpretation, that child is a U.S. Citizen. I don't believe that was the intent of our Founding Fathers.
https://www.npr.org/2026/06/30/nx-s1-5839358/birthright-citizenship-decision-scotus-trump
Posted by Stockjock1
12 Comments
Yup, in how it is being applied it is unconstitutional. But Democrats and the Left hate the Constitution, so go figure
It means a negative pregnancy test is going to be required for a foreign woman to get on that flight.
It’s going to get awkward.
It was passed to give former slaves and their children citizenship now it’s just a loophole
It was clearly not intended to work this way. The conservative party needs to nominate better justices in the future
The two usual suspects are behind it, including the worst conservative nomination ever in Barrett. She runs on raw emotion on the immigration issue and couldn’t formulate a logical thought based on consequential thinking if she tried. She’s an absolute traitor, poison pill, cancer, and Trojan Horse. Buds with Jackson. A closeted liberal.
Trump should just write another EO worded a little different, like how California does every time one of their unconstitutional gun bans gets thrown out since that’s how business is done nowadays.
Democrats also want open borders. Where is that in the constitution?
It was the correct decision. The way the 14th amendment is written makes it very clear that all people born in the United States soil, as long as they are subject to US laws, are born with citizenship. If Trump or Republicans don’t like this, then they need to pass an amendment to correct it. It is not the role of the Supreme Court to create new law through creative interpretation.
One can forgive the ‘happen-chance’ instances as you describe. Sure it’s not great but if the person had no intention of abusing the system, then whatever.
It’s the abuse of the system via birthing tourism that is the issue obviously and why the SC can’t or won’t understand that in the modern age it cannot be allowed that someone who is merely born within the borders does not instantly make them a citizen of that country is astonishing.
I’m far less concerned about a one off odd case that may happen compared to the hundreds of thousands of real things actually happening.
Birth tourism has been a thing in the US for many years. Large ports of entry such as LA and Miami. Women come over about 7-8 months pregnant and stay at customized hotels, give birth to a now US citizen, and then go back to their home country.
>don’t believe that was the intent of our Founding Fathers.
PSA: left is anti-founders on all topics.