Category: Birthright citizenship
This Supreme Court case could decide the future of American citizenship
The Supreme Court recently heard more than two hours of argument in Trump v. Barbara, the case testing the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.
Trump himself sat in the courtroom for part of the session, the first time a sitting president has done so. The moment was striking not for its symbolism alone but for what it revealed: a fundamental challenge to a 150-year-old interpretation of American identity.
The American ‘exception’ was built on a conscious break from notions of blood and soil.
The executive order, issued on Trump’s first day back in office in January 2025, directs federal agencies not to recognize automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are undocumented or present on temporary visas. It turns on the opening words of the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
The administration’s core argument — one rooted in a “consensualist” theory of citizenship — is that “subject to the jurisdiction” requires more than mere presence on the soil. They argue it requires full and exclusive political allegiance, a condition that undocumented immigrants and short-term visa holders, who remain subjects of their home countries, cannot meet.
The challengers, led by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a plaintiff identified as Barbara, insist the clause was meant to be a simple, sweeping geographical rule. They point to the common-law tradition of jus soli — citizenship by place of birth — that they argue the framers of the amendment endorsed.
Constitutional history, however, is rarely so settled. While the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 — to overturn the Dred Scott decision — scholars on the right point to the intent of the amendment’s authors, like Sen. Jacob Howard, who suggested the clause excluded those who owed allegiance to a foreign power.
While the Court applied the clause to children of legal residents in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the administration argues that case never explicitly addressed the children of those present in violation of federal law.
Lower courts have struck down the executive order, but the justices’ questions on Wednesday showed they are wrestling with the modern reality of mass migration. Several asked how a “narrow” jurisdiction rule would work in a hospital delivery room. Chief Justice John Roberts reminded the solicitor general that the Constitution is not a “living” document that changes with the wind, but conservative justices also pressed the government on whether this executive action bypasses the legislative role of Congress.
The skepticism was notable because the case arrives after the Court’s 2025 ruling that limited the scope of nationwide injunctions, ensuring the policy reached the high court on its merits.
This debate is not abstract. Birthright citizenship has long set the United States apart from the “Old World.” Most countries grant citizenship primarily by descent — jus sanguinis. In Pakistan, as in India and much of Europe, a child acquires citizenship through a parent’s nationality.
The American “exception” was built on a conscious break from notions of blood and soil, but critics argue that the exception has become an unintended magnet for illegal entry and birth tourism.
RELATED: A birthright citizenship fix is more important than the SAVE Act
PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images
The executive order does not seek to formally amend the Constitution, but rather to correct what its supporters see as a century of judicial and administrative drift. It would not strip citizenship from anyone already born; it applies prospectively.
Still a decision to uphold it would effectively align the United States with the legislative models of Britain, Australia, and Ireland, all of which moved away from pure jus soli to better manage migration pressures.
The Court’s eventual ruling — expected by early summer — matters profoundly. If the justices narrow the clause, they will have restored what originalists believe was the 14th Amendment’s true meaning: that citizenship is a mutual contract between a sovereign and a subject.
If they preserve the status quo, they will affirm that the 14th Amendment’s promise remains a geographical absolute.
The hearing did not settle the question, but it forced a reckoning. In an age of porous borders, the United States must decide whether its rule of soil remains a pillar of strength or an outdated incentive that undermines the very concept of national sovereignty.
The Court’s answer will help determine the terms on which future generations enter the American story.
Chinese nationals arrested after their children are linked to bomb found at US Air Force base
Chinese illegal aliens were arrested by the Department of Homeland Security after their son allegedly brought an explosive device to an Air Force base and their daughter allegedly helped him cover his tracks.
Qiu Qin Zou and Jia Zhang Zheng were denied asylum and were residing illegally in the United States. Their children Ann Mary Zheng and Alen Zheng are U.S. citizens.
‘Her brother … had attempted to damage government property by fire or explosion,’ the DOJ alleges.
The Department of Justice charged Ann Mary for allegedly assisting Alen after he allegedly planted the explosive device at MacDill Air Force Base visitor center in Tampa.
Alen has been charged with attempted damage of government property by fire or explosion, unlawful making of a destructive device, and possession of an unregistered destructive device. Ann Mary has been charged with evidence tampering and assisting after the fact.
Ann Mary and Alen fled to China on March 12. Ann Mary was arrested when she returned to the United States on March 17, while her brother is believed to still be in China.
The DHS arrested their parents on March 18 for illegal entry, and they remain in ICE custody, according to the Daily Wire.
RELATED: Trump makes history at SCOTUS birthright citizenship hearing
Ann Mary Zheng. DHS
“Ann Mary Zheng, knowing that her brother, Alen Zheng, had attempted to damage government property by fire or explosion, assisted him in order to hinder and prevent his apprehension, trial, and punishment,” a DOJ press release reads.
“The indictment also charges Ann Mary Zheng with corruptly altering, destroying, mutilating, and concealing a 2010 black Mercedes-Benz GLK 350 with the intent to impair its integrity and availability for use in the federal prosecution of Alen Zheng.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
A birthright citizenship fix is more important than the SAVE Act
The Supreme Court just heard arguments in a case (Trump v. Barbara) to determine whether we are a sovereign nation or whether any invaders can trespass in our nation and unilaterally assert jurisdiction to grab citizenship for their children.
Shockingly, there is no legal scholar alive who believes we have five votes against the maniacal theory that the 14th Amendment codifies anchor-baby citizenship of illegal aliens.
To eliminate the ability of the people to even debate the future membership of their society will spell the end of our country as a sovereign entity.
Rather than submitting to the Supreme Court, Trump must stake his presidency on the notion that Congress, not SCOTUS, has the final say on citizenship, and every fiber of his messaging and political capital should be expended toward shaming Republicans into passing a clarification of the law.
President Trump has already shown that he is willing to focus his attention singularly on one issue with his push for the SAVE Act. However, to the extent that we can’t walk and chew gum at the same time, fixing the debasement of citizenship itself is exponentially more important than preventing noncitizens from voting.
Although voting by noncitizens does unfortunately occur, it is relatively small compared to those who are given citizenship and vote legally when they should be disqualified.
According to the Center for Immigration Studies, there were 225,000 to 250,000 births to illegal immigrants just in 2023. That is close to 7% of all births in the country and could account for several million new citizens over a decade. In addition, the CIS estimates that roughly 500,000 kids were born to temporary visa-holders over the past decade. Thus, fake citizens voting “legally” is a much graver concern than noncitizen voting.
This loophole is a sovereignty and security problem. The Chinese espionage machine exploits this loophole to bring in pregnant women, drop a baby, and grab citizenship on behalf of an enemy nation. Would we allow invading armies to bring their wives along for the ride and obtain citizenship too?
Whenever I challenge some friends to make broader immigration reform more important than the SAVE Act, which the right has chosen as its final hill to die on, the retort I get is that SAVE has simplicity of messaging. However, nothing beats the message that illegal invaders should not be able to come here against the national will and steal citizenship from the nation.
An immigration reform bill to stop granting citizenship to those here illegally and those born to temporary visa-holders should be coupled with a bill to ensure that illegal aliens are not counted in the Census. Some estimates project that counting noncitizens in the Census has shifted 17 House seats.
This is a much more consequential form of voter fraud. And unlike voter registration, it’s fully under federal control. I’m all for the SAVE Act, but let’s be honest: Blue states will not enforce it in the long run, especially under a Democrat president.
So what should the president do? He must preemptively build the case that even to the extent one agrees with the Wong Kim Ark decision on birthright citizenship, it can only apply to those domiciled here on a permanent basis, not illegal aliens or temporary visitors. And to the extent that there is a dispute, it is up to Congress, not SCOTUS, to decide.
It’s important to remember that the 14th Amendment itself, under Section 5, grants Congress the power to enforce the provisions of the amendment. To interpret it in a superfluous fashion that would void an entire enumerated power is absurd in light of the power of Congress to interpret the amendment itself.
Certainly, in any case of ambiguity, we must err on the side of caution not to strip the consent to citizenship away from the society and its representatives.
Congress clearly has the authority to interpret the scope of jurisdiction any given class of immigrants have and can pass laws clarifying in which instances their children are entitled to citizenship. After all, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress plenary power over naturalizations.
RELATED: My friend survived the Global War on Terror. Leftist immigration policies got him killed.
Kendall Warner/The Virginian-Pilot/Tribune News Service/Getty Images
Unless there would be no way to read the plain language of the 14th Amendment other than a mandate based upon territorial jurisdiction instead of political jurisdiction (before 1898, nobody read it this way), it is simply imprudent to interpret it in the most stringent way. Doing so would have the effect of almost completely voiding an enumerated power of the people’s representatives.
If Congress is powerless to prevent people from coming here and stealing citizenship, that would mean Congress does not control the power over naturalization.
The operative paragraph of the Ark opinion establishing birthright citizenship for children born to immigrant parents qualifies that they “are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States,” but only “so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here.” If they are not permitted to reside here, which is the subject addressed in Trump’s birthright order, then all bets are off.
We will always have social disagreements on immigration as a matter of policy, but to eliminate the ability of the people to even debate the future membership of their society will spell the end of our country as a sovereign entity. To create an affirmative right to immigrate and remain in the country against the national will represents that most profound usurpation of a nation’s sovereignty.
During the debate over the 14th Amendment in 1866, Rep. James F. Wilson (R-Iowa) emphasized that the amendment was “establishing no new right, declaring no new principle.” He reiterated, “It is not the object of this bill to establish new rights, but to protect and enforce those which belong to every citizen.” How tragic for us to now create the ultimate novel right for foreigners that strips the sovereignty from every citizen.
If SCOTUS Upholds ‘Birthright Citizenship,’ It Will Do So At Its Own Peril
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday on the Trump administration’s challenge to the decades-long practice of interpreting the 14th Amendment to allow foreigners to obtain American citizenship simply by being born within the boundaries of the country. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of this view, allowing any foreigner circumstantially (or intentionally) […]
Dear Justice Roberts: The ‘Same Constitution’ Would Never Authorize Anchor Babies
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ “same Constitution” line during Wednesday’s oral arguments over birthright citizenship at first sounded like a defense of originalism. But in fact, it was the exact opposite. The high court heard oral arguments Wednesday in Trump v. Barbara, a case challenging the president’s 2025 executive order restricting birthright citizenship. U.S. […]
Foul-mouthed Democrat congresswoman doubles down on now-deleted profane tirade
Democrat Rep. Susie Lee of Nevada took to social media earlier this week to post an ill-tempered tirade filled with profanity.
Lee let out a flurry of F-words in response to an article detailing President Donald Trump’s plans to attend the Supreme Court’s oral arguments on a landmark birthright citizenship case. Notably, Lee’s profile banner on X brands her as “America’ #1 Most Bipartisan Member of Congress.”
‘Clearly my language touched a nerve.’
“So f**king f**ked up,” Lee said in a now-deleted post with a timestamp of 1:03 a.m. Wednesday. “I’ll pray they f**k him to his face. Sorry, I say f**k a lot these days.”
Rather than apologizing for her low impulse control, Lee doubled down and defended her incoherent rant, claiming Trump has violated the Constitution and its separation of powers.
RELATED: SCOTUS asks pointed questions as fate of Trump’s birthright citizenship order hangs in the balance
Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc./Getty Images
“Clearly my language touched a nerve — my nerve was touched by the attacks on our Constitution and its separation of powers,” Lee said in a post later that morning. “I took an oath to protect and defend it.”
Administration officials and allies of the president mocked Lee’s lack of professionalism, insinuating she has a drinking problem that contributed to her lack of online inhibition.
Brandon Herrera, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, piled on to the ratio on Lee’s childish follow-up post.
“I’m gonna need you to take an oath to stop swearing until you get good at it,” Herrera said in a post on X. “Currently you sound like a 9 year old trying to impress the older kids.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
