Supreme Court rejects Trump order limiting birthright citizenship

Vambram · Jul 1, 2026

Yarddog said:
And you know this how?

I've read what the writers of the 14th Amendment have said about it.

A New Dawn · Jul 1, 2026

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.

I agree with the decision the current administration made of sending the illegal parent home and let them choose to either bring the baby with a choice to return to the US later when they are of age, or to let them stay with a relative.

Servus · Jul 1, 2026

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.

I should have said presto you're a de facto citizen.

Arcangl86 · Jul 2, 2026

Servus said:
The baby they have here anchors them here.

That's not true. While having a us citizen child can be used as a defense for deportation, it a) requires the parent to have been here for at least 10 years and b) only 4000 a year can benefit from that. Most parents of US citizens can be deported instantly

Servus said:
For 21 years according to you.

Not what was said. They have to wait 21 years before their child can sponsor them for a green card. It still takes years from that point and you do not qualify if you are living in the US illegally.

Servus said:
They get lots of taxpayer benefits because the kid is a citizen.

The child gets those benefits regardless of the immigration status of the parent. But I strongly suspect you have never lived on government safety net, because it's not easy. That's especially true if you are caring for young children. It's not a good deal at all.

Servus said:
It's a really good deal.

Which is why millions illegally bypass it.

Only about 260,000 babies are born per year to non permanent resident aliens. So I suppose it is millions if you add it up over the years. But notably, that number includes both authorized and unauthorized aliens. And even with that number, only works out to about 7% of yearly births, so the impact isn't huge.

Servus · Jul 2, 2026

Arcangl86 said:
That's not true. While having a us citizen child can be used as a defense for deportation, it a) requires the parent to have been here for at least 10 years and b) only 4000 a year can benefit from that. Most parents of US citizens can be deported instantly.

Really? What percentage have been deported?

Arcangl86 said:
Not what was said. They have to wait 21 years before their child can sponsor them for a green card. It still takes years from that point and you do not qualify if you are living in the US illegally.

If their 21 year old children can't get them a green card then that's the part that's incorrect.

Arcangl86 said:
The child gets those benefits regardless of the immigration status of the parent. But I strongly suspect you have never lived on government safety net, because it's not easy. That's especially true if you are caring for young children. It's not a good deal at all.

Then why is there so much welfare fraud in the US?

Arcangl86 said:
Only about 260,000 babies are born per year to non permanent resident aliens. So I suppose it is millions if you add it up over the years. But notably, that number includes both authorized and unauthorized aliens. And even with that number, only works out to about 7% of yearly births, so the impact isn't huge.

I was talking about the millions overall who skip obtaining legal citizenship, not just the anchor baby parents.

RDKirk · Jul 2, 2026

Servus said:
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.

It doesn't make the mothers citizens, which is what you claimed.

RDKirk · Jul 2, 2026

Servus said:
I should have said presto you're a de facto citizen.

The mothers can't vote, so, no.

RDKirk · Jul 2, 2026

It's pretty clear that the SCOTUS decision was not intended to establish an answer to the question, but was actually just slapping Trump's hand for reaching for other players' cards.

If Congress properly passes a bill, and Trump signs it, that does the same thing as Trump's Executive Order, the Court might very well let it stand.

Arcangl86 · Jul 2, 2026

Servus said:
Really? What percentage have been deported?

No idea. Try Google. But they aren't legally protected the way you are stating.

Servus said:
If their 21 year old children can't get them a green card then that's the part that's incorrect.

Their 21 year old child can sponsor them for a IR5 visa, but they still have to qualify. One of the key to qualifications is not being unlawfully present in the US for a certain time period. They also aren't prete Ted from deportation for that time period.

Servus said:
Then why is there so much welfare fraud in the US?

Welfare fraud. As in they don't qualify for it and are getting money they aren't supposed to.

Servus said:
I was talking about the millions overall who skip obtaining legal citizenship, not just the anchor baby parents.

You listed a bunch of things that are only true of parents of US citizens and then said that's why millions bypass the legal process. That's ridiculous.

Servus · Jul 2, 2026

Arcangl86 said:
No idea. Try Google. But they aren't legally protected the way you are stating.

Okay you have no idea regarding what you said.

Arcangl86 said:
Their 21 year old child can sponsor them for a IR5 visa, but they still have to qualify. One of the key to qualifications is not being unlawfully present in the US for a certain time period. They also aren't prete Ted from deportation for that time period.

You seem to be going back and forth on this.

Arcangl86 said:
Welfare fraud. As in they don't qualify for it and are getting money they aren't supposed to.

You said welfare is not a good deal at all. So I asked why is there's so much welfare fraud when getting welfare is a bad deal.

Arcangl86 said:
You listed a bunch of things that are only true of parents of US citizens and then said that's why millions bypass the legal process. That's ridiculous.

I replied to a specific comment someone made about obtaining legal citizenship. If you apply that to something else, you're taking it out of context.

Servus · Jul 2, 2026

RDKirk said:
The mothers can't vote, so, no.

It's debatable as to how many have even though they legally can't. Also I'm assuming these anchor babies also have fathers? Or is it all single mothers?

RDKirk said:
It doesn't make the mothers citizens, which is what you claimed.

Not legally. But the parents live here the same as if they were citizens. Getting the benefits of being a citizen even though they're not. Millions overall don't pour into the US illegally because there's no benefits to be gained from it.

Vambram · Jul 2, 2026

Trump's 'hero' justice offers roadmap after Supreme Court rejects birthright order

Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence outlines how Congress could legislatively restrict birthright citizenship, sparking immediate Republican action.

www.foxnews.com

JSRG · Jul 2, 2026

RDKirk said:
It's pretty clear that the SCOTUS decision was not intended to establish an answer to the question, but was actually just slapping Trump's hand for reaching for other players' cards.

If Congress properly passes a bill, and Trump signs it, that does the same thing as Trump's Executive Order, the Court might very well let it stand.

The SCOTUS decision absolutely established an answer to the question. They ruled--correctly, I believe--that almost everyone born in the United States is a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. You can't overrule the Constitution with a law, you can only do it with an amendment.

Now, one Justice (Kavanaugh) did take the position that Trump's executive order did not violate the Constitution, but did violate federal law. That means that if his executive order had been a law passed by Congress, it would have passed muster. However, that was just his opinion; the majority opinion (again, correctly I think) said that wouldn't fly, and nothing short of a Constitutional amendment would change things in regards to this.

Vambram · Jul 2, 2026

3 left wing liberal and 2 moderate justices ruled incorrectly and illogically, in my opinion. Justice Thomas and Justice Alito ruled correctly.

JSRG · Jul 2, 2026

Vambram said:
3 left wing liberal and 2 moderate justices ruled incorrectly and illogically, in my opinion. Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia ruled correctly.

While I have much respect for Justice Scalia, I question how he was capable of ruling on Trump v. Barbara given he had died a decade prior.

Vambram · Jul 2, 2026

JSRG said:
While I have much respect for Justice Scalia, I question how he was capable of ruling on Trump v. Barbara given he had died a decade prior.

My apologies. I meant Justice Alito.

JSRG · Jul 3, 2026

Vambram said:
My apologies. I meant Justice Alito.

So you meant to say that "Justice Thomas and Justice Alito ruled correctly." But that doesn't make sense. As I pointed out earlier in this very topic, that can't be true. While both disagree with the majority, they disagree with each other also, coming to different conclusions.

So would you mind answering the question (which I asked earlier in the linked post, albeit in slightly different form), which is how you can say they both ruled correctly when that's not actually possible given the differences between their opinions? If Thomas ruled correctly, then Alito did not; if Alito ruled correctly, Thomas did not.

throughfierytrial · Jul 3, 2026

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

The US is in crisis due to current interpretation of birthright citizenship! It is very clear something is currently morally and [should be] legally wrong. Citizens of other nations are taking “birthing holiday” trips to lavish US hotels and resorts set up for this very purpose.
I guess we have lost our discernment to the extent of losing all human reason.We are now a nation with big government programs to benefit citizens at taxpayer expense. We cannot look to precedent , case law and the like… those government policies and actions were undertaken while we were a young nation w/o government welfare programs and the many, many other expensive entitlement programs now in place. That’s comparing apples to oranges.
The biggest injustice is a SCOTUS decision which doesn’t care to examine and take under consideration the recorded, historical congressional dialogue in forming the laws. This decision was based on politics and by cowardly justices.
Very, very damaging to the country!

Christ's Bride · Jul 3, 2026

FreeinChrist said:
View attachment 380898

Amen! They stuck with precedent. Per Google AI mode:

Upholding Legal Precedent: The Court's ruling relied heavily on historical bedrock, including the 1898 landmark case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which established that children born to non-citizens on American soil are citizens. The Court reasoned that decades of governance and legal practice could not be upended without contradicting well-settled law.

Preventing a Permanent Underclass: The majority opinion concluded that birthright citizenship aligns with the nation's foundational promise that the U.S. has no permanent underclass of people. It ensures equal rights and protection for all who are born in the country.

Trump overreached yet again.

thus continuing the flood of gentiles in to America, that hate us.

A New Dawn · Jul 3, 2026

Christ's Bride said:
thus continuing the flood of gentiles in to America, that hate us.

I have to question your use of “gentile” in this manner.

Supreme Court rejects Trump order limiting birthright citizenship

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative

Bind my wandering heart to thee!

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative

Well-Known Member

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative

Well-Known Member

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative

Well-Known Member

Truth-Lover

Active Member

Bind my wandering heart to thee!

Similar threads