SCOTUS Says Babies Of Illegal Aliens, CCP Birth Tourists Are US Citizens Because Of Magic Dirt
Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett joined the liberals in ruling that children of illegal aliens born on U.S. soil are American citizens under the 14th Amendment.
In a major blow to American sovereignty, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that children born to illegal aliens and foreign “birth tourists” on U.S. soil are citizens under the 14th Amendment. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred in the court’s judgement and dissented in part.
The case known as Trump v. Barbara came to fruition last year, when Trump signed an executive order barring the federal government from producing or accepting certain documents purporting to recognize these birthplace citizens. The directive was immediately challenged in court by proponents of granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens born on U.S. soil.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that the children born to parents “unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States” “satisfy both elements” of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause: “they are ‘born . . . in the United States’ and ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'” Therefore, he reasoned, “they are citizens at birth” under the Constitution.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ … We keep that promise today,” Roberts wrote.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a concurring opinion, which Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined in part. The Biden appointee specifically criticized Thomas’ dissenting opinion and the government’s position as one that “propose[s] a return” to the “core tenet” of the Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, which held that black Americans — whether freed or enslaved — were not U.S. citizens.
In his concurrence, Kavanaugh said that Trump’s executive order violated federal law, but not the 14th Amendment. In agreeing with the dissent that there is no constitutional “birthplace citizenship” right, he argued that “Congress could — consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment — amend [the law] or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country.”
In his blistering dissent, Thomas (while joined by Gorsuch) blasted the majority’s account for not being “historically accurate.” He emphasized that the court’s Barbara decision “adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support.” --->READ MORE HERE
14th Amendment: Birthright Ruling Won’t Stand ‘Test of Time,’ Thomas Says:
The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a decisive blow to President Donald Trump’s effort to restrict birthright citizenship on Tuesday, ruling that his executive order could not override the Constitution’s guarantee of citizenship to those born on U.S. soil.
The 6-3 decision in Trump v. Barbara, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, marked a major check of presidential power and reaffirms long-standing interpretations of the 14th Amendment. It also has sweeping implications for immigration policy, affecting potentially hundreds of thousands of children born in the United States each year.
"Citizenship, then and now," Roberts wrote, "was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to 'every free-born person in this land.' We keep that promise today."
Legal experts have said the ruling underscores that any fundamental change to citizenship rules would require a constitutional amendment, not executive action.
Trump had publicly signaled doubts about whether his push to restrict birthright citizenship would survive in court, at times acknowledging the legal headwinds his policy faces. In May, he said he would “probably” lose the case at the Supreme Court following a string of lower-court setbacks, while elsewhere warning justices would “find a way to come to the wrong conclusion” on the issue.
In response to a question ahead of the ruling, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Monday that he would "accept" any Supreme Court ruling but "No other nation does birthright citizenship [like America does it]. It's tremendously destructive. It's extremely costly. It's up to them. But in terms of, for the good of the country, it would be great if they didn't allow it.” --->READ MORE HERE
If you like what you see, please "Like" and/or Follow us on FACEBOOK
here, GETTR
here, and TWITTER
here.
No comments:
Post a Comment