"Suppose the child hates the US: Justice Alito's dissent as Supreme Cort upholds birthright citizenship, whoever is born in the US is a citizen
Category: News & Politics
Via: vic-eldred • 4 months ago • 75 commentsBy: TOI World Desk / TIMESOFINDIA.COM
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld birthright citizenship in a 6-3 decision, striking down President Donald Trump's executive order to end it. Trump issued the executive order at the center of the case on January 20, 2025, shortly after he was sworn into office for a second term. It said that babies who are born in the United States to parents who are in this country either illegally or temporarily are not automatically entitled to citizenship. The Supreme Court ended the year-long debate and said whoever is born in the US is a citizen.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito called the ruling both “one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court” and “a serious mistake.” Apart from Justice Alito, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch also dissented from today's decision. "Suppose that a person's only connection to this country is that he was born here to a mother who was present just long enough to give birth and then quickly return to her native country," Justice Alito said. "Suppose that country is a strategic adversary or enemy of the United States. Suppose the child never visited the United States while growing up and was inculcated with hatred of this country. According to this court, now, that person is a citizen of the United States.
He can enter and leave the country as he pleases. He can travel the world on a United States passport. Even if he plots to harm this country, he cannot be deprived of his status as a citizen, at least under current precedent," Justice Alito said. Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined five others in upholding birthright citizenship, but his reasoning was different. "In my view, the Executive Order does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment," he wrote in an opinion explaining his divergence. "The constitutional issue is not straightforward, much as we might want it to be."
Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, and the architect of Trump's anti-immigration policies, called the ruling destructive and outrageous. "American citizenship is not the birthright of the world. It belongs only and solely to Americans. No provision of the Constitution can be read to require our national self-obliteration," Miller said.
"The Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship decision is wrong, dangerous, and disastrous for American sovereignty and the American people,” wrote GOP Senator Eric Schmitt. “If we can’t fix it with ordinary legislation, then we must do what the Constitution commands in moments of national crisis: We must amend the Constitution and restore American citizenship. We must again put ‘We the People’ first. … This ruling is the final alarm bell. ” We are supposed to be a country, not an orphanage.
You can’t jump our fence, give birth, cheat the system, and expect our taxpayers to raise your baby,” right-wing influencer and Charlie Kirk disciple Brilyn Hollyhand chimed. “We will be a country again one day. Illegals will be deported and birthright citizenship will end. If you’re a legal immigrant and won’t assimilate you will be denaturalized. If we want to last another 250 years we can’t be trampled on anymore.”
Tags
Who is online
95 visitors
The 3 radicals combined with the 3 fools to produce the worst-case scenario on birthplace citizenship case.
An indefensibly bad decision.
... it's another sad day for white supremacists. bummer ...
The SCotUS is supposed to interpret the law, not make it.
It does not matter if Jus Soli is bad (or good). What matters is the meaning of the 14th amendment.
This amendment is 157 years old, and the Wong Kim Ark decision of 1898 remains the dominant legal precedent.
It is expected and sensible for a rational, responsible SCotUS to NOT try to change the 14th amendment.
Bottom line, even if every justice believes as Alito does, they should NOT try to change the CotUS. That is not their role.
This was a very broad interpretation, one that many legal scholars disagree with.
You mention "legal precedent." If you recall that is how "Roe v Wade" was defended. Not by the merits of whether it was Constitutional, but by "precedent."
There is hope for the nation as the Vice Precedent just pointed out:
Vance argues there is a ‘big silver lining’ in Supreme Court's ‘preposterous ruling’ in birthright citizenship case
You see, the split decision indicates that a future SCOTUS may one day (sooner rather than later) revisit this case.
And a future court can now go back and reverse the Dobbs decision. It's not like it slowed down access to abortion for anyone but the poorest, least educated people.
Good luck with that. A new case would have to be altered enough this decision wouldn't apply.
Oh bullshit, Vic. You are merely making an unsupported claim implying that the SCotUS offered a radical interpretation.
From what I can tell, the opponents of birthright citizenship can point to a handful of scholars and policy advocates. They cannot fairly claim that American constitutional scholarship broadly rejects jus soli under the 14th Amendment. Precedent, constitutional text, and mainstream scholarship seems to agree with the SCotUS ruling substantially.
You can hold the opinion that jus soli should NOT be a constitutional right. That is fine. But changing that requires a constitutional Amendment, and the SCotUS does NOT have that authority.
This is how Trump would operate. A perceived bad decision and now name-calling.
But you did not think these justices fools when they granted Trump extra-constitutional immunity. Do human beings go from brilliant to 'fools' this quickly?
Good grief man, step back from the cultish support of Trump and look at reality objectively.
It isn't Trump who is looking to pack the Court.
But you did not think these justices fools when they granted Trump extra-constitutional immunity.
I think they are fools if they believe this birthright citizenship interpretation will not continue to be abused.
Trump already packed the court. Hello?
This suggests that you do not understand the purpose and role of the SCotUS. They are not supposed to decide constitutional questions based on policy preferences or disliked consequences; they are to interpret the law. Interpret, Vic, not make it!
It is also telling that you are echoing Trump’s style by resorting to calling justices “fools” simply because you disagree with their decision. It is disturbing to see Trump’s crassness seep so deeply into the way his supporters talk about decisions they dislike.
When the SCotUS violated the CotUS by expanding presidential immunity, I did not call them "fools" nor did I suggest that they were stupid or anything like that. My argument was that the court surpassed its bounds and engaged in activism.
It is clear that Trump's damage to this nation also includes opening the doors to more divisiveness and emotive language. That he has influenced not only politicians (who will be even bolder in their abuse of power for personal gain) but his supporters (who have seen that lying works, deception works, crassness works, etc.). I predict that Saul Alinsky references will be replaced with Trump references when criticizing slimy tactics.
it's funny when maga warns us about things that trump has already done ...
FALSE. He appointed Justices that he had every right to do. He never increased the size of the Court like FDR and democrats want to do. That is what packing the Court means, btw.
They are not supposed to decide constitutional questions based on policy preferences or disliked consequences; they are to interpret the law. Interpret, Vic, not make it!
Correct and there is that now famous part of the law which excludes foreign nationals which you and democrats refuse to acknowledge. I am certain that this issue will one day be revisited by a SCOTUS in the future and there may not be a Chief Justice looking for a political consensus.
It is clear that Trump's damage to this nation also includes opening the doors to more divisiveness and emotive language.
You see TiG, Trump was elected by the people. He said he was for the people of America. The democrats said they were for "they/them."
He had the right to do so. That established, he packed the court. So ... TRUE!
Strawman. I made no such claim. Focus.
You are conflating foreign nationals with foreign diplomats . Two very different categories. The children of foreign diplomats are excluded, not the children of foreign nationals . The Wong Kim Ark case was specifically focused on a child of foreign nationals .
You write this as if being elected means whatever Trump does is right. That is utter absurdity.
Trump has demonstrated clearly that he is using the presidency to benefit himself (and his family). Clearly, Vic, this is what is taking place. How can you support such a person??
Is that shirt specially made for Trump supporters?
Absolutely!
Still FALSE. No, he didn't.
Strawman. I made no such claim. Focus.
You are projecting. It is democrats who under FDR tried to pack the court and now propose to do it again. Packing the Court means increasing the number of justices over the traditional limit of 9 in order to get ideological outcomes.
You are conflating foreign nationals with foreign diplomats . Two very different categories. The children of foreign diplomats are excluded, not the children of foreign nationals . The Wong Kim Ark case was specifically focused on a child of foreign nationals .
Here is the part of the law that you continue to avoid:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Many legal scholars read that to mean (in example) if you are a citizen of China visiting the country you are subject to the jurisdiction of China, and therefore you are excluded from the birthright provision. Just because foreign diplomats were mentioned because they are somewhat subject to US law it would not mean only them.
You write this as if being elected means whatever Trump does is right. That is utter absurdity.
Projection again. You write as if opposed to everything Trump does.
I'll say it again, Alito has written a dissent which gives a future Court reason to reinterpret this case. I hope I live to see that day.
You are again denying reality. Trump is responsible for 3 justices. He did it legally (as I noted upfront), but there is no denying that he packed the court and made it an activist conservative court.
Packing the court also means using nominations to shift the court to ideological outcomes. Again, I stated upfront that Trump did it legally. I never stated that he increased the number of justices.
You are trying to spin that language. The SCotUS disagrees with your spin. Legal precedent disagrees with your spin. The vast majority of legal scholars disagree with your spin. So maybe you should accept the fact that you are wrong.
I am opposed to most everything Trump does; for cause!! What is sickening is that people like you defend his corruption, incompetence, irrationality, vindictiveness, lawlessness, psychopathy, greed, unpresidential behavior, trolling, lying, and criminality.
When Trump does something right (e.g. shore up the border, attempts to reduce drug prices, ...) I give him credit. Thus far what he has done good is overwhelmingly overshadowed by his bad. So naturally, my criticism will follow suit.
If Trump were a D, you would be all over his horrific words and deeds. And I would have the same criticism of him as I do today.
That would be wrong. The SCotUS does not have the authority to change the CotUS. Alito makes good points which should be considered, but if a future court agrees with his position that jus soli law should be modified for the good of the nation, this is not to be done by the SCotUS!
A constitutional change requires a constitutional Amendment, Vic!
It shouldn't, but you have tried to make a truth, the truth. You like to read the balance of the 14th Amendment clause while consistently ignoring the line I keep posting:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
It was inserted for a reason, and many legal scholars firmly believe it excludes all foreign nationals.
Alito makes good points which should be considered, but if a future court agrees with his position that jus soli law should be modified for the good of the nation, this is not to be done by the SCotUS!
You are correct on the substance of his dissent. It shows what is wrong with the US incredibly unrestricted version of birthright citizenship, but it does not take on the merits of whether the Congress in the aftermath of the Civil War intended to extend birthright citizenship to anyone who stepped into the US. A future Court must tackle the merits and not base it on precedent.
A constitutional change requires a constitutional Amendment, Vic!
That is what legal experts of the left keep saying. We all know the chances of a Constitutional Amendment these days.
We should remember that the SCOTUS has gotten it wrong in the past and succeeding Courts had to reverse them. The most notable examples would be The Dred Scott Decision and Roe v Wade.
I'm optimistic.
Again, Vic, I am not ignoring that. You continuing to post this bullshit allegation regardless of any rebuttal is dishonest. You are reading your own interpretation of 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' in an attempt to exclude the children of foreign nationals.
You continue to be wrong in terms of Wong Kim Ark and over 125 years of precedent.
ChatGPT explanation:
It is not for a court to change the CotUS based on disagreement. A court is to interpret law, not create it!
Because that is reality. How can you not recognize this? And it is bullshit to claim that this is a result of ideology ('only the left').
ChatGPT affirmation:
Your post suggests 'unrealistic'.
Sadly, this is what happens when a leftwing programed chatbot as a substitute for debate.
Did anyone notice the egregious error that ChatGPT made?
It forgot all about the parents. If they are foreign nationals, they are clearly not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
The stage is set for a post Roberts Court to reinterpret what was meant by congress in the late 1860s.
More dishonesty from you Vic. I used ChatGPT to provide a summary explanation, not provide a debate point. I made the debate point.
First, you continue to illustrate that you do not understand how LLMs like ChatGPT work. They are not 'programmed', they learn — and they learn from an unimaginably large corpus of information. Fundamentally different concept from conventional programming.
Here is a very simple, very basic but very good introduction to LLMs and helps you understand the difference between conventionally programmed technology and technology that is an emergent result of learning.
Here is another good one. It would serve you well to watch these videos and carefully try to understand what they are describing.
Another:
Second, you object to ChatGPT, et. al. because they continue to consistently expose the partisan/ideological bullshit content in your comments.
This is pathetic. It is just laughable. How could you even think to pen this nonsense?
His parents were not granted citizenship. The 'subject to the jurisdiction' clause refers to the child born on US soil, not to the parents. The whole point of the Wong Kim Ark case was that his parents were foreign nationals! The operative question is: 'Was the person born in the United States subject to U.S. jurisdiction at birth?'.
It would be activist.
It is programmed to go through legacy news media, which is skewed left.
As for activist judges, I have never heard you complain about them in the past.
More bullshit from you! Show us your evidence.
The typical fallback crap when you have no rebuttal.
How on Earth did you miss my many comments on presidential immunity, for example? Here, Vic, let me make my position crystal clear for you: I am against judges legislating from the bench. I am even more against justices amending the CotUS.
Don't need no stinkin evidence, the man just knows what he believes.
/S
I am sure that all of the foreign nationals will be relieved to know that the US and State Governments have no authority over them. What you are saying means that any of the people whom you (MAGA, other Trump-suckers) are trying to deport actually are free to do whatever the fuck they want. If the Government has no jurisdiction over them, then they are free to plunder at will.
Of course not. Anyone in the US is subject to both our laws and our very generous legal protections, but overall else, they are subject to the nations where they hold citizenship.
You seem confused.
No. It is you who are confused. Just because you wish for a thing to be true does not make it so.
Everyone except foreign officials (and their families) here conducting work on behalf of their nation. They enjoy diplomatic immunity. That is what 'subject to the jurisdiction of the US." means and has meant for well over a century. It was made clear by the author of the particular clause himself. But, of course and unsurprisingly, you misread that to.
It is time to stop fantasizing and come back to the real world, with real words and real meanings.
Is "Love it or leave it" supposed to be an American credo?
Seems pretty universal..
Maybe so, but it's usually not considered mandatory.
Depends on where you live, doesn't it?
What's unfortunate is where it seems to be becoming mandatory.
I'm with most of the world on this one. Birthright citizenship = suicide for a nation.
Another unsubstantiated claim.
A correct claim is that while 33 nations support birthright citizenship (and another 50 support a more restrictive version), the remaining 110 nations do not. So you can claim that the majority of nations (110 vs. 83) do NOT support birthright citizenship. That, Vic, would be a fact.
The unsubstantiated claim (i.e. not an established fact) is that these 110 nations hold that birthright citizenship is suicide for a nation.
The fact is that it is national suicide
Now that Roberts has led us to another very stupid situation, we have to get creative. I think the President should urge states to stop issuing birth certificates to women entering the county to have an anchor baby. Let Roberts deal with nullification from the states.
An even better idea might just be to refuse entry to any pregnant non-citizen.
Right from the guy who authored the law
False, that is not a fact.
A better idea is to follow the law!
It is up to Congress to make new law.
An unsubstantiated claim is equivalent to bullshit.
there is no logical response to this part of Thomas’s dissent either.
Of course, not.
It was all very simple. At the end of the Civil War, congress sought to solve the problem of citizenship for the newly freed slaves and Native Americans. They explicitly excluded foreign nationals even without knowing how such people would abuse the law in the 21st century. Just about everyone knows it whether they want to admit it or not.
But for every literalist, who tend to be those conservatives who only see black or white, no gray area, the language is quite clear and Alito and Thomas only do themselves a disservice when after these long, long careers as extreme literalists, now want to inject how they think the Amendment was intended to do as opposed to the written word.
That shit won't fly on it's own, not to mention the prior SCOTUS cases that established the basic principle of Jus Soli, a concept that precedes English law, probably left over from the Roman Empire.
LMFAO.
Doublethink much?
The text of the statement you picture and highlight is exactly the opposite of the meaning you foist upon it.
I provide a transcription of the text by Chat GPT. As you can see it is literal and exact in every aspect.:
Clearly stated is that only officials acting in a governmental capacity who are foreigners, diplomats, Foreign dignitaries and other persons who are not subject to the laws of the United States due to diplomatic immunity are to be exempted from the amendment. Nothing but a willful misreading can lead to anything but that conclusion. That is what that passage says. In plain, ordinary if somewhat archaic and clunky, nonetheless easily understood English.
Here are some more that were generated by chat GPT using the same format:
If Thomas used that quoted paragraph and your apparent reasoning in his dissent, he deserves to be removed from the SCotUS. It is an example which in the best light can be seen as totally illogical. People might also think him dishonest or even call him a big, fat, liar.
... and maga can inspect their genitalia at the same time and issue the appropriate restroom gender pass with their visa ... /s
Hahahahahahahahahaha
Alito is the worst Supreme Court justice, besides Thomas.
Make sure you are specific here
That tells me they are probably the finest Justices in history.
That is a terrible way to form an opinion. Form opinions based on facts and reason, not reflexive contrarianism.
You are giving that advise to the wrong person.
No, you are the one who is engaging in reflexive contrarianism.
Yes it's a complete waste of time, lol.
Can you translate this into English ?
I think it means only citizens can produce other citizens just like in every other freaking country on the planet....
... except for Canada, Mexico and more than 30 other countries that allow unrestricted birthright citizenship, including all but 2 countries in South America.
Thanks G2, I stand corrected although your wrong as well. 20"ish" countries have unrestricted jus soli, all "new world" countries... hmmm.
According to Wikipedia, there are 35 countries that have unrestricted jus soli.
According to the article I linked in Comment 3.1.1 above, there are more than 30, and an additional 50 countries have some form of "limited" birthright citizenship.
What source tells you otherwise?
As opposed to the 40 or more countries in the rest of the world which require rational requirements such as at least one parent meeting specific criteria, such as being a citizen, permanent resident, or having lived in the country for a set period.
A hallmark of Trumpism is opposition to the Constitution.
No, that opposition comes from the left. Have you noticed the 3 leftwing ideologues on the Court who always march in lock step? If one of them ever dares go against progressive doctrine, they will be derided in the media, and all their speaking engagements will be cancelled.
No, that opposition is totally and completely from right wingers. There doesn't seem to be any part of the Constitution they don't vehemently oppose.
That comment is reactionary speak for the sane and rational justices who support the Constitution.
Rational justices?
You mean the one who said that a "wise Latina woman" could reach a "better" decision than a white male, or the one who couldn't define a woman?
I thought this was America First?
America First doesn't need any other countries because it is by definition, first. So, regardless of international norms or conventions.
This statement fits the pathology, no?
Consequently, it matters not what other nations do, it matters only what the USA does. The rest of the world can go hang.
We do not need, value or benefit from any trade, civil or defense relationships with these lesser nations. We are the United States of America! We can go it alone and watch Iran just give up their territorial advantage of the Straight of Hormuz. They must! Because we say so!... What? They are not doing it?
We can shout at their walls, "Neener! Neener! Neener!" and it will be just as affective as "Nanu! Nanu! Nanu! Mork calling Orson. Come in, Orson." or "Bring me a shrubbery"...
Irrational justices who do not support the Constitution are the ones engaged in active doublethink to define and delineate a path into the beautiful Fascist future: that is Justices Thomas, Alito, and most especially Kavanaugh.
I mean, this wouldn't be so bad if they actually knew what they were doing and where they were going. But maybe they like the concept of hell. It must seem somehow comforting to know that other souls, whom they know and admire, will be there with them.
It means that the clause referring to birthrights in the 14th Amendment referred to the newly freed slaves.
I know it burns MAGA's black heart that a hundred and fifty years of precedent and this current court decision reject that.
Tribal Indians are not constitutional citizens but children born to terrorists on holiday are. It makes no sense and distorts then plain meaning of the amendment.
Prove that they are terrorists on holiday
What are you talking about? Did you not read the decision?
Your two paragraphs up the page don't really help you much, either.
To answer your question: No, I have not read the entire decision. I have read the facts around the decision and am not mired in the pretense that this case should have ever been heard by the SCotUS.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The bolded portion is the selection of the text under argument and, more specifically, the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
So one merely has to ask:
If yes, then they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Apply this rule to terrorists. What do you get?
You get yes for an answer.
Undocumented immigrants? Yes.
Every "class" of people.
Per Howard:
The only way you can make this sentence by Howard, the Senator who introduced the Citizenship Clause language, mean anything else besides what I have clearly stated in this response is by tying a rubber bat across your fanny and running around the table screaming "I am an airplane make me take off!" and then it only works while you are doing that.
And before you go there...
Indigenous peoples occupied a distinct legal category at the time because tribes were treated as separate political communities, with tribal members owing immediate allegiance to their tribes. Congress later changed that status by statute. That is not the same thing as saying ordinary foreign nationals inside the United States are outside United States jurisdiction. There is not enough time and this is not the place to discuss this further here.
Specious and pretextual argumentation is the core of what people in support of this reimagining of the Fourteenth Amendment have to support their arguments. It, very unfortunately, was enough to yield something other than a unanimous upholding of more than 100 years of judicial precedent.
Per Chat GPT:
You can beat a dead horse if you want to, but you cannot make it think.