Supreme Court rejects Trump order limiting birthright citizenship

I strongly agree with the dissenting opinions written by Thomas and Alito.

It is very sad ruling by SCOTUS. No other major nation is allowing illegal immigrants and tourists to give birth to children in their nation so their kids would be citizens. Birthright for illegal immigrants and tourists is not what the writers of the 14th Amendment intended.

Vambram said:

I strongly agree with the dissenting opinions written by Thomas and Alito.

Click to expand...

How, precisely? The two dissents, while disagreeing with the majority decision, have different approaches and their conclusions, while similar, are not quite the same. This is presumably why neither Thomas nor Alito joins the dissent of the other; the opinions are in tension with each other. I would hope you were familiar with what they were arguing if you claim you strongly agree with them. So how do you harmonize them enough to say you strongly agree with both? It seems to me one must pick one or the other.

Or someone, like me, could pick neither of them. I think the majority opinion is the one that has it right, even if I do wish it had gone a bit more into detail on some things and brought up some points it didn't.

Vambram said:

It is very sad ruling by SCOTUS. No other major nation is allowing illegal immigrants and tourists to give birth to children in their nation so their kids would be citizens.

Click to expand...

By what definition are Canada, Mexico, and Brazil not major nations?

Vambram said:

Birthright for illegal immigrants and tourists is not what the writers of the 14th Amendment intended.

Click to expand...

They may not have specifically called out tourists and illegal immigrants--though by the way, illegal immigration did exist then, although on a state level rather than a federal one--but I do not believe they intended any active exclusion. Perhaps if they had knowledge of modern technology they would have written things differently... but simultaneously, perhaps if those in the 18th century had knowledge of modern guns, they would have made the Second Amendment more restrictive, and I doubt you would agree with that assertion.

Incidentally, Thomas's dissent, which you claim to strongly agree with, said that at least some illegal immigrants could qualify under the Fourteenth Amendment in his view:

"That said, many others understandably have suggested that long-term resident illegal aliens satisfy the elements of domicile because they reside here with the intent to permanently remain. As JUSTICE GORSUCH explains, the children of such aliens may be domiciled here because they are “born here to parents who have long chosen to make this Nation their permanent home.” Post, at 3 (dissenting opinion). Such questions are best resolved in the context of as-applied challenges. See ibid.

As you have said you strongly agree with his opinion, you therefore agree with this remark, correct?

Vambram said:

It is very sad ruling by SCOTUS. No other major nation is allowing illegal immigrants and tourists to give birth to children in their nation so their kids would be citizens. Birthright for illegal immigrants and tourists is not what the writers of the 14th Amendment intended.

Click to expand...

Exactly. It's exploited to bypass obtaining legal citizenship. Come here illegally, have an anchor baby, and presto you're a citizen and you get gobs of free stuff.

From Google Gemini:

Birthright citizenship is broadly governed by two legal concepts: **jus soli** ("right of the soil," or citizenship by birthplace) and **jus sanguinis** ("right of blood," or citizenship inherited from parents).
Globally, roughly **33 to 35 countries** grant fully **unconditional** birthright citizenship (*jus soli*), meaning that if a child is born within the country's borders, they automatically become a citizen—regardless of their parents' nationality or immigration status. The only universal exception is usually made for the children of foreign diplomats.
The vast majority of these countries are heavily concentrated in the Americas and the Caribbean.
## 1. Unconditional Birthright Citizenship
If you are born on the soil of these nations, you are automatically a citizen:
### North America
* Canada
* Mexico
* United States
### Central America & The Caribbean
* Antigua and Barbuda
* Barbados
* Belize
* Costa Rica
* Cuba
* Dominica
* El Salvador
* Grenada
* Guatemala
* Honduras
* Jamaica
* Nicaragua
* Panama
* Saint Kitts and Nevis
* Saint Lucia
* Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
* Trinidad and Tobago
### South America
* Argentina
* Bolivia
* Brazil
* Chile
* Colombia
* Ecuador
* Guyana
* Paraguay
* Peru
* Uruguay
* Venezuela
### Rest of the World (Rare Exceptions)
Outside of the Western Hemisphere, unconditional *jus soli* is incredibly rare. Only a handful of nations maintain it:
* **Asia:** Pakistan
* **Africa:** Lesotho, Tanzania
* **Oceania:** Fiji, Tuvalu
## 2. Conditional Birthright Citizenship
Many other nations offer a *modified* or **conditional** version of *jus soli*. In these places, being born on the soil isn't enough on its own; certain parental or residency criteria must also be met.
Examples of countries with conditional frameworks include:
* **Germany:** A child born on German soil receives citizenship *if* at least one parent has held legal permanent residency for a specific duration (historically 8 years, recently shortened to 5 years).
* **United Kingdom:** Automatic citizenship at birth is only granted if at least one parent is a British citizen or has "settled status" (permanent residency) in the UK.
* **Australia & New Zealand:** Both countries ended unconditional birthright citizenship decades ago. Now, at least one parent must be a citizen or permanent resident at the time of the child's birth.
* **France:** Children born to foreign parents do not get automatic citizenship at birth, but they can claim it at age 18 if they have continuously resided in France for at least 5 years since age 11.
* **Portugal:** A child born to foreign parents automatically becomes a citizen if at least one parent has legally resided in Portugal for at least one year prior to the birth.

From Google Gemini:

Out of roughly 195 universally recognized nations in the world, **about 160 countries do not offer unconditional birthright citizenship** (historically known as *jus soli*, or "right of the soil").
The vast majority of the world relies instead on *jus sanguinis* ("right of blood"), meaning a child only gets citizenship if at least one parent is already a citizen of that country.
## The Global Breakdown
### 1. Unconditional Birthright Citizenship (Only ~33 to 35 Countries)
If you are born on the soil of these countries, you are automatically a citizen, regardless of your parents' legal status or nationality.
* **Where it exists:** This system is overwhelmingly concentrated in the Western Hemisphere. It includes the **United States, Canada, Mexico, and almost all of Central and South America** (like Brazil and Argentina).
* **Outside the Americas:** It is incredibly rare. Only a tiny handful of countries outside the Western Hemisphere offer it, such as Pakistan, Chad, and Tanzania.
### 2. Conditional Birthright Citizenship
Many countries that used to offer automatic citizenship have restricted their laws to curb "birth tourism" or manage illegal immigration. In these nations, being born on the soil is not enough; your parents must meet strict residency or legal status requirements.
* **The United Kingdom** ended unconditional birthright citizenship in 1983.
* **Australia** ended it in 1986.
* **India** ended it in 1987.
* **Ireland** was the last country in Europe to offer it unconditionally, ending the practice in 2005.
* **Germany and France** require foreign parents to have lived in the country legally for a specific number of years before a child born on their soil can claim citizenship.
### 3. No Birthright Citizenship at All
In the remainder of the world—predominantly across Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East—birthplace is completely irrelevant to legal status. If two foreigners have a child in Japan, South Korea, or Saudi Arabia, that child has zero claim to local citizenship at birth and must inherit the nationality of their parents.

Vambram said:

From Google Gemini:

Birthright citizenship is broadly governed by two legal concepts: **jus soli** ("right of the soil," or citizenship by birthplace) and **jus sanguinis** ("right of blood," or citizenship inherited from parents).
Globally, roughly **33 to 35 countries** grant fully **unconditional** birthright citizenship (*jus soli*), meaning that if a child is born within the country's borders, they automatically become a citizen—regardless of their parents' nationality or immigration status. The only universal exception is usually made for the children of foreign diplomats.
The vast majority of these countries are heavily concentrated in the Americas and the Caribbean.
## 1. Unconditional Birthright Citizenship
If you are born on the soil of these nations, you are automatically a citizen:
### North America
* Canada
* Mexico
* United States
### Central America & The Caribbean
* Antigua and Barbuda
* Barbados
* Belize
* Costa Rica
* Cuba
* Dominica
* El Salvador
* Grenada
* Guatemala
* Honduras
* Jamaica
* Nicaragua
* Panama
* Saint Kitts and Nevis
* Saint Lucia
* Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
* Trinidad and Tobago
### South America
* Argentina
* Bolivia
* Brazil
* Chile
* Colombia
* Ecuador
* Guyana
* Paraguay
* Peru
* Uruguay
* Venezuela
### Rest of the World (Rare Exceptions)
Outside of the Western Hemisphere, unconditional *jus soli* is incredibly rare. Only a handful of nations maintain it:
* **Asia:** Pakistan
* **Africa:** Lesotho, Tanzania
* **Oceania:** Fiji, Tuvalu
## 2. Conditional Birthright Citizenship
Many other nations offer a *modified* or **conditional** version of *jus soli*. In these places, being born on the soil isn't enough on its own; certain parental or residency criteria must also be met.
Examples of countries with conditional frameworks include:
* **Germany:** A child born on German soil receives citizenship *if* at least one parent has held legal permanent residency for a specific duration (historically 8 years, recently shortened to 5 years).
* **United Kingdom:** Automatic citizenship at birth is only granted if at least one parent is a British citizen or has "settled status" (permanent residency) in the UK.
* **Australia & New Zealand:** Both countries ended unconditional birthright citizenship decades ago. Now, at least one parent must be a citizen or permanent resident at the time of the child's birth.
* **France:** Children born to foreign parents do not get automatic citizenship at birth, but they can claim it at age 18 if they have continuously resided in France for at least 5 years since age 11.
* **Portugal:** A child born to foreign parents automatically becomes a citizen if at least one parent has legally resided in Portugal for at least one year prior to the birth.

‎Gemini - direct access to Google AI

Created with Gemini

share.gemini.google

Click to expand...

Vambram said:

From Google Gemini:

Out of roughly 195 universally recognized nations in the world, **about 160 countries do not offer unconditional birthright citizenship** (historically known as *jus soli*, or "right of the soil").
The vast majority of the world relies instead on *jus sanguinis* ("right of blood"), meaning a child only gets citizenship if at least one parent is already a citizen of that country.
## The Global Breakdown
### 1. Unconditional Birthright Citizenship (Only ~33 to 35 Countries)
If you are born on the soil of these countries, you are automatically a citizen, regardless of your parents' legal status or nationality.
* **Where it exists:** This system is overwhelmingly concentrated in the Western Hemisphere. It includes the **United States, Canada, Mexico, and almost all of Central and South America** (like Brazil and Argentina).
* **Outside the Americas:** It is incredibly rare. Only a tiny handful of countries outside the Western Hemisphere offer it, such as Pakistan, Chad, and Tanzania.
### 2. Conditional Birthright Citizenship
Many countries that used to offer automatic citizenship have restricted their laws to curb "birth tourism" or manage illegal immigration. In these nations, being born on the soil is not enough; your parents must meet strict residency or legal status requirements.
* **The United Kingdom** ended unconditional birthright citizenship in 1983.
* **Australia** ended it in 1986.
* **India** ended it in 1987.
* **Ireland** was the last country in Europe to offer it unconditionally, ending the practice in 2005.
* **Germany and France** require foreign parents to have lived in the country legally for a specific number of years before a child born on their soil can claim citizenship.
### 3. No Birthright Citizenship at All
In the remainder of the world—predominantly across Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East—birthplace is completely irrelevant to legal status. If two foreigners have a child in Japan, South Korea, or Saudi Arabia, that child has zero claim to local citizenship at birth and must inherit the nationality of their parents.

‎Gemini - direct access to Google AI

Created with Gemini

share.gemini.google

Click to expand...

That's a lot of AI slop that actually disproves your claim that "No other major nation is allowing illegal immigrants and tourists to give birth to children in their nation so their kids would be citizens" given it gives various examples of nations that do allow such a thing. I suppose someone could try to claim a lot don't count as a "major nation", but if Canada, Mexico, or Brazil--all identified on your list--don't qualify as a major nation, then the term seems to have lost any real meaning. (though I don't particularly see why whether a nation with the policy is "major" or not particularly matters)

Servus said:

Exactly. It's exploited to bypass obtaining legal citizenship. Come here illegally, have an anchor baby, and presto you're a citizen and you get gobs of free stuff.

Click to expand...

That is not at all how it works.

The Constitution still matters...to most of SCOTUS anyway.

seeking.IAM said:

That is not at all how it works.

Click to expand...

An estimated 250,000 to 320,000 babies are born in the U.S. annually to mothers who are unauthorized immigrants or hold temporary legal status.

Servus said:

Come here illegally, have an anchor baby, and presto you're a citizen and you get gobs of free stuff.

Click to expand...

seeking.IAM said:

That is not at all how it works.

Click to expand...

The assertion is false. Parents of so-called anchor babies must wait until their child turns 21 before their child can apply for a parent's green card. The parents must go through the same process as any other applicant and approval is not assured. There is no "presto you're a citizen." Most Americans have no idea how long, slow, and costly obtaining citizenship actually is.

From Google Gemini:

Because the U.S. government doesn't explicitly track the motivations of foreign nationals giving birth on American soil, there is no single, definitive official number. However, demographic research and proxy data point to **somewhere between 10,000 and 26,000 babies per year**.
To put that in perspective, this accounts for **less than 1%** (roughly 0.3% to 0.7%) of the roughly 3.5 to 3.7 million total births in the United States annually.
The breakdown of the primary data sources provides a clearer picture of these estimates:
### 1. The Hard Data Proxy (The CDC)
The closest hard statistical proxy comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
* **The Data:** The CDC analyzes annual birth certificate records. In recent years, they report around **9,600 to 10,000 babies** born in the U.S. and its territories to foreign mothers who listed their official permanent residence as being *outside* the United States.
* **The Catch:** This is an imperfect proxy. It likely *underestimates* the true total because many intentional birth tourists use temporary U.S. addresses (like rented apartments or specialized "maternity hotels"). On the flip side, it also includes women who had no intention of birth tourism but experienced unexpected premature labor while traveling or visiting family.
### 2. The Upper-Limit Estimates (Think Tanks)
Organizations that closely study immigration use data modeling to try and capture those who use temporary U.S. addresses on birth certificates.
* **The Data:** The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), a think tank that advocates for lower immigration levels, and the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) have analyzed U.S. Census Bureau data alongside CDC data. Their estimates generally range from **20,000 to 26,000 births annually** attributed to women on tourist visas.
* **The Catch:** These models are heavily debated by economists and researchers. Critics argue these methods accidentally sweep in foreign students, temporary workers, or long-term residents who have been in the country for years but simply aren't naturalized citizens yet.
Ultimately, while specialized "birth tourism" agencies do operate a lucrative cottage industry targeting wealthy families abroad, the practice remains a statistically rare fraction of overall U.S. births.

From Google Gemini:

According to demographic data and estimates from research organizations like the Pew Research Center and the Center for Immigration Studies, there are roughly **225,000 to 300,000 babies** born each year in the United States to unauthorized (undocumented) immigrant mothers.
Because official birth certificates do not record the immigration status of parents, these numbers are calculated using U.S. Census Bureau surveys and birth data from the National Center for Health Statistics.
Here is a breakdown of how those numbers look according to recent data:

* **Total Annual Births:** According to Pew Research data, in 2023, there were approximately **300,000 births** to unauthorized immigrant mothers. This accounted for roughly 8% to 9% of the 3.6 million total births in the U.S. that year.

* **Paternal Demographics:** Within that group, approximately **245,000** of those babies were born to mothers who were unauthorized immigrants *and* fathers who were also not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.

* **Historical Trends:** The annual number of births in this demographic peaked in 2006 and 2007 at around 380,000, steadily declined by over 40% down to 215,000 in 2019, and then rose markedly alongside broader increases in the total unauthorized immigrant population.

*(Note: These figures are distinct from "birth tourism," which tracks individuals traveling to the U.S. on short-term legal tourist visas specifically to give birth. The CDC records roughly 9,000 to 10,000 births annually to foreign mothers listing permanent addresses outside the United States.)*

This is an excellent article about birthright citizenship.

seeking.IAM said:

The assertion is false. Parents of so-called anchor babies must wait until their child turns 21 before their child can apply for a parent's green card. The parents must go through the same process as any other applicant and approval is not assured. There is no "presto you're a citizen."

Click to expand...

The baby they have here anchors them here. For 21 years according to you. They get lots of taxpayer benefits because the kid is a citizen. It's a really good deal.

seeking.IAM said:

Most Americans have no idea how long, slow, and costly obtaining citizenship actually is.

Click to expand...

Which is why millions illegally bypass it.

Vambram said:

1776, Not 1608: What the Supreme Court Got Wrong on Birthright Citizenship

The issue isn’t whether America inherited English legal language; it’s whether it inherited England’s understanding of political membership.

americanmind.org

This is an excellent article about birthright citizenship.

Click to expand...

This article doesn't actually address the points of the majority opinion; it mostly just flies past them.

First, it should be noted the author is disgraced lawyer John Eastman. Yes, the John Eastman who got himself disbarred (which is hard to do) and the one who came up with the goofy idea that a vice president could just more or less unilaterally throw out the results of an election.

But someone might claim that's ad hominem. While it is an immediate sign one should take everything it claims with a grain of salt, there are problems with the article that would be the case regardless of who wrote it. It actually says surprisingly little. Despite commenting on the case, it as noted basically flies past the arguments of the majority opinion. I have read Eastman's arguments on this subject before, and one thing I've noticed repeatedly is the degree to which he simply ignores counterarguments. His amicus brief in Trump v. Barbara was just the same tired arguments he's made that plenty of people have responded to, and in it he offers no response to the many people who have pointed out his problems.

Since this article ultimately says so little, there isn't that much to say to it. There are really only two paragraphs where he makes a coherent enough point that there's much point in responding to it, and they fail pretty hard. Here's the first:

The debates surrounding the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment repeatedly invoked the ideas of complete jurisdiction, complete allegiance, and undivided political obligation. Senator Lyman Trumbull, the principal author of the Civil Rights Act, explained that citizenship extended to those who were subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States—not merely to those temporarily answerable to its laws.

Notice how he characterizes Trumbull's statements, by saying he "explained that citizenship extended to those who were subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States—not merely to those temporarily answerable to its laws." Curiously, Eastman does not offer any actual quotation from Trumbull, just this summary statement. That is because he's not representing Trumbull accurately.

Now, it is true that Trumbull used the phrase "complete jurisdiction" several times during the Citizenship Clause debates. The way Eastman frames it, though, with his "not merely to those temporarily answerable to his laws", you would think he was talking about immigrants. But Trumbull wasn't. When he talked about "complete jurisdiction" he was talking about Native Americans, and explaining how they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Their status was fixed (I suppose they would be temporarily answerable if they were to leave the reservation, but that was not what Trumbull was talking about).

But since we're talking about Trumbull, here's a rather important quote from him during the debates:

"If they [Native Americans] are there and within the jurisdiction of Colorado, and subject to the laws of Colorado, they ought to be citizens; and that is all that is proposed. It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." Would the Senator from Wisconsin think for a moment of bringing a bill into Congress to subject these wild Indians with whom we have no treaty to the laws and regulations of civilized life? Would he think of punishing them for instituting among themselves their own tribal regulations? Does the Government of the United States pretend to take jurisdiction of murders and robberies and other crimes committed by one Indian upon another? Are they subject to our jurisdiction in any just sense? They are not subject to our jurisdiction. We do not exercise jurisdiction over them. It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens."

While he doesn't use "complete jurisdiction" in this particular quote, once again he used that only when talking about Native Americans. What is key is why he says they are not part of the jurisdiction. He does not say anything about temporariness vs permanence; his point is that the Native Americans are not "subject to the laws" (he uses this phrase twice) and as an example notes that the United States does not "take jurisdiction of murders and robberies and other crimes committed by one Indian upon another". (the United States would later do that, but it would be decades later)

So Eastman is simply misleading the reader in regards to Trumbull's statements by offering an inaccurate description of them, taking comments about Native Americans and claiming Trumbull was talking about those who were "temporarily answerable" to US laws when that wasn't the point he was making at all. He wasn't talking about those who were temporarily answerable... he was talking about those who were not answerable.

The other paragraph I thought merited a response comes after that:

Every foreign visitor is obliged to obey American law while here. So is every foreign student, every tourist, every diplomat’s driver, and every person who crosses the border unlawfully. But mere obedience to law is not the same thing as complete political allegiance. If it were, the jurisdictional language would add almost nothing to the constitutional text.

So his argument here appears to be that because "the jurisdictional language would add almost nothing to the constitutional text" under the interpretation the Supreme Court settled on, it's wrong. But this makes little sense. Remember that "add almost nothing" still means "add something." It still adds something. So this argument fails too.

Vambram said:

It is very sad ruling by SCOTUS. No other major nation is allowing illegal immigrants and tourists to give birth to children in their nation so their kids would be citizens. Birthright for illegal immigrants and tourists is not what the writers of the 14th Amendment intended.

Click to expand...

And you know this how?