The Supreme Court hears arguments about Trump’s birthright

At the core of our sovereignty is the right to determine who is entitled to citizenship. The Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship to people born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, a case about the legality of President Trump’s common-sense executive order restoring the original concept of birthright citizenship. Joe Biden imported millions of illegal immigrants en masse, but these individuals are not entitled to citizenship at birth. The text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment make that clear, and the Supreme Court should rule accordingly.

Leftists have wrongly argued that the issue before the Court was settled a century ago in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). The Chinese parents in that case were legal permanent residents of the United States, and the Court ruled that their children were entitled to citizenship. The case had nothing to do with temporary visitors to the United States, nor with children of illegal immigrants. After Wong Kim Ark, the legal community’s view of the company was, as Justice Neil Gorsuch put it, “a mess.” Many scholars, including, for example, a dozen papers, agreed with the position taken by Solicitor General John Sauer; that is, Wong Kim Ark never decided the issue of the birthright of illegal immigrants or temporary residents.

The debates and original public understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment also support the Trump administration’s view of birthright citizenship. For example, Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois stated that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” did not simply mean regulatory jurisdiction, such as being subject to the laws of the United States while here. Instead, Senator Trumbull explained, the phrase meant having no loyalty to anyone else, that is, to any foreign power. This explanation is consistent with the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The same Congress that sent the Fourteenth Amendment to the states for ratification passed the Civil Rights Act. For years after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, secretaries of various departments have also adopted the same view of the Fourteenth Amendment as the Trump administration.

Supreme Court precedent also supports the government’s interpretation. In Elk v. Wilkins (1884), the Court ruled that Indians born in the United States were not entitled to birthright citizenship. Congress granted them birthright citizenship in 1924. This is the way the political process should work. Judges are not politicians; they wear robes, not capes. They play a crucial, but limited role. The Elk Court has clearly understood this modest role, and the current crop of judges should follow suit.

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch speaks at the Nixon Presidential Library and Museum in Yorba Linda, California, on Friday, August 9, 2024. (Paul Bersebach/MediaNews Group/Orange County Register via Getty Images)

INSIDE THE SUPREME COURT: HOW TRUMP HEARD ARGUMENTS FOR BIRTH RIGHT CITIZENSHIP

Birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants and children of tourists (so-called birth tourism) poses a huge threat to our sovereignty. Thanks to this loophole, well over a million Chinese nationals living in China are American citizens, even though they have no ties whatsoever to our Republic. China has about 500 birth tourism companies that transport women from China to, for example, the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands for the purpose of giving birth to children who will become U.S. citizens and thus eligible to vote in U.S. elections once they turn 18. Through this plan, China will be able to exert enormous influence on American policy, because the number of these birth tourism citizens will increase significantly.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS ADVICE

During her argument against the government, ACLU attorney Cecillia Wang, under questioning by Judge Brett Kavanaugh, asserted that even Congress cannot prevent birthright children, tourists and illegal immigrants, from receiving birthright rights, even if both Houses unanimously agree. This statement is appalling because it prevents our leaders from exercising the most basic sovereign power of deciding who is and is not a citizen. The government’s position is much more modest. If there is political support for birth tourism and citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, Congress could easily pass a statute to that effect. However, the Supreme Court should not constitutionalize such a seemingly absurd rule.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Illegal immigration is a social scourge and their children’s birthright only encourages more illegal immigration. Leftists want: (1) open borders; (2) little or no enforcement of our immigration laws regarding illegals already here, hence the refusal to fund the Department of Homeland Security; and (3) a reward for illegals in the form of automatic citizenship for their children born here. This plan, designed to produce Democratic voters, threatens America and is in no way what the Framers or the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment intended.

Police stand outside the US Supreme Court ahead of US President Donald Trump’s expected arrival in Washington, DC on April 1, 2026. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Trump v. Barbara to determine whether President Trump’s executive order ending birthright rights is constitutional. According to historians and the Court, this is the first time a sitting president has attended oral arguments at the nation’s highest court. (Heather Diehl/Getty Images)

This is an easy case. The law was not established over a century ago, contrary to what left-wing so-called legal analysts claim. For the sake of our sovereignty, the Supreme Court must show courage and follow the law. The judges took a solemn oath to defend the Constitution, even if it is politically unpopular. Enforcing President Trump’s executive order would honor that oath and preserve our sovereignty.

CLICK FOR MORE FROM MIKE DAVIS