Supreme Court Preserves Birthright Citizenship. I Am Relieved

It is rare that I disagree with President Trump, this may be the first time I have written for that purpose. In my opinion Trump has done more for America than any President since Roosevelt protected us from Nazi Germany. Trump has made substantial changes, bold and targeted, that, in my opinion, have saved this country from decay and depravity, and I cannot begin to express the gratitude I feel for his contributions.

But this is one issue where I am glad he failed.

Birthright citizenship has represented hope for generations of people around the world. It sends a simple message. If you come to America, work hard, obey the law, support yourself, and build a life here, your children can become a Americans. That promise has helped make the United States a beacon of hope, generosity and opportunity for more than a century.

When I first heard that the Supreme Court had rejected President Donald Trump’s attempt to limit birthright citizenship, my first reaction was relief. That may surprise some people because I also believe our immigration system has serious problems that need to be fixed. We absolutely need to address abuses of birthright citizenship, including birth tourism and illegal immigration. But I do not believe the answer is to give political parties the power to redefine who becomes an American citizen with the stroke of a pen. This needs to stay that beacon of hope.

And yes, this is 99% an emotional thing, pride for an American generosity and welcoming that has been a been a part of us for a long time.

What Trump Proposed

President Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his second term that would have denied automatic citizenship to children born in the United States if their mothers were in the country illegally or only temporarily. That would have included not only illegal immigrants but also many people who were legally present, including students, temporary workers, and even some applicants seeking permanent residency.

Trump argued that these children were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States as required by the Fourteenth Amendment. His administration claimed that because their parents did not have permanent legal status, the children should not automatically receive citizenship.

The concerns behind the proposal are not imaginary. Birth tourism has become a real business in some parts of the world. Some pregnant women travel to the United States specifically so their children will receive American citizenship. Others remain in the country illegally, knowing that a child born here will become a citizen under current law. These practices understandably frustrate many Americans who believe the immigration system is being manipulated.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court rejected Trump’s executive order by a 6 to 3 vote. Five justices concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment itself guarantees citizenship to nearly everyone born on American soil, with only very limited exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats or occupying military forces. Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed that Trump’s order could not stand, although he based his decision on existing federal law rather than the Constitution itself.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that, “Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights, to freely participate in our political community.” He continued, “The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”

The majority relied on the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, the historical debates surrounding its adoption after the Civil War, and the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in Wong Kim Ark, which recognized citizenship for a child born in the United States to Chinese parents. According to the majority, the Constitution has long been understood to provide citizenship to nearly everyone born here regardless of their parents’ immigration status.

The Arguments on Both Sides

The dissenting justices saw the issue very differently.

Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the Court had misunderstood the original purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment. He wrote that the amendment “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.” He believed Trump’s restrictions should have been upheld. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch joined that view.

Supporters of Trump’s position argued that automatic citizenship creates incentives for illegal immigration and birth tourism. They pointed to women who travel to the United States solely to give birth and then return home with an American citizen child. They also argued that children born to temporary visitors should not automatically become citizens because their parents do not owe permanent allegiance to the United States.

Those defending birthright citizenship responded that the Fourteenth Amendment established a bright line rule that has provided certainty for more than 150 years. They argued that allowing presidents or Congress to redefine citizenship would create confusion, legal battles, and uncertainty for countless families. They also warned that changing the rule could eventually call into question the citizenship of millions of Americans.

Why I Believe the Court Got It Right

I understand why many Americans are frustrated with illegal immigration. I also understand why birth tourism strikes people as unfair. Those are real issues that deserve real solutions.

But I believe the solution is to fix immigration policy, not weaken one of America’s oldest promises.

If we allow the government to decide, from one administration to the next, which babies qualify for citizenship, we replace a clear constitutional principle with political uncertainty. That changes how the world sees America. Instead of a nation governed by enduring constitutional principles, we begin to look like a country where fundamental rights can change whenever political power changes hands.

And with the right to grant citizenship could come the right to strip citizenship – a brutal and callous measure that could be applied for political purposes. From my perspective, once citizenship is bestowed, the Constitution applies and we hold Constitutional responsibilities for them whether we like them or not.

For generations, immigrants have believed that America offered something unique. If you came here, built a life, contributed to your community, and raised your family, your children would have opportunities that many people around the world could only dream about. That belief has helped attract hardworking people from every corner of the globe.

I do not want America to lose that identity.

But by preserving birthright citizenship, I believe the Court preserved something more important. It preserved an enduring promise that America remains a nation where opportunity is protected by law rather than subject to changing political winds. And that America is still a land of promise and fairness and if you can get here and work hard enough, your children will be Americans.

For that reason, I am relieved.