By Douglas V. Gibbs
President Donald Trump sat in for a little over an hour as U.S. Supreme Court justices deliberated regarding Trump v. Barbara, a legal case against Executive Order 14160 issued on January 20, 2025. The plaintiff’s case serves as an attempt to stop the president’s endeavor to halt the practice of granting citizenship to “anchor babies” born in the United States to illegal alien parents. Supporters of Birthright Citizenship claim the modern interpretation is guaranteed by the Citizenship Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. The President’s order was blocked by lower courts in an attempt by the progressive left to defend the mainstream definition of Birthright Citizenship, which simply means from their point of view that if someone is born on American Soil they are automatically a citizen of this country. Now that the case is before the U.S. Supreme Court, it will provide an opportunity for the High Court justices to answer a number of questions regarding if a President can take such an action with an executive order, or does it require Congress to pass a new law; and what the true definition of the words “subject to the jurisdiction” from the Fourteenth Amendment is.
Automatic citizenship is not something that largely exists elsewhere in the world under other governments, but here in America it operates as a powerful incentive for illegal migration into this country. The Democrats put out a perception that they are the party that is for the poor (even though their policies ultimately hurt the very groups they claim to stand for) and they know that the “poor and huddled masses” that come to America (especially through dubious means like birth tourism) will likely ultimately vote for them. The whole Birthright Citizenship thing for the Democrats is not about being fair or kind as much as it is about preserving their power through the voting booth and apportionment as it applies to the number of representatives given to a state based on population.
About 8 percent of all births in the United States in 2023 were to illegal immigrants and legal temporary visitors. The Center for Immigration Studies estimated in February 2025 that in 2023, up to 250,000 babies were born to illegal immigrants, and about 70,000 babies were born to legal temporary visitors. Slightly under 4 million births took place in the United States in 2023, the Centers for Disease Control estimated. China, in particular, has abused the clause alarmingly, with possibly as many as over a million Chinese born in the United States but raised in China currently approaching adulthood at this time.
The defenders of the establishment’s definition of Birthright Citizenship claim the foundation of their argument comes from the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. While the language of the clause in question was specifically designed to ensure that the children of newly emancipated former slaves were seen as citizens of the United States in order to nullify a judicial opinion disallowing citizenship to former slaves (Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1856), the authors of the clause also realized it would be used as a constitutional definition regarding citizenship. While citizenship is mentioned in prior clauses of the Constitution, a definition had never truly been included. Recognizing the potential immensity of the Citizenship Clause, Congress spent a significant amount of time discussing the clause with the authors during congressional sessions. In testimony the authors of the clause, Senators Trumbull and Howard, gave clear and precise explanations regarding the meaning of the clause, and the definitions of the terms they used.
The clause reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” The word “and” after “born or naturalized in the United States” signifies that birth on American Soil or naturalization are not enough to satisfy the requirements for citizenship. One must also be “subject to the jurisdiction.” The whole case before the Supreme Court relies upon what “subject to the jurisdiction” means – not based on a modern reading of the text, but based on the original intent by its authors, the Congress that approved it, and the states who ratified it. In the simplest terms, the question is simply if the original intent of “subject to the jurisdiction” applies to political jurisdiction, or territorial jurisdiction.
Mere presence, according to the original authors, is not enough. The language, they explained in congressional testimony, was drawn from the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which stated that the children of those subject to a foreign power would not be considered citizens. There must be some kind of political allegiance.
Proponents of Birthright Citizenship argue that 1898’s Wong Kim Ark case supports their definition of the Citizenship Clause, but if one reads the ruling, it is realized that the young Chinese man was not granted citizenship by the ruling simply because he was born on American Soil, but because prior to his birth his parents became “permanent residents,” satisfying the “subject to the jurisdiction” part of the Citizenship Clause. That is also why, when someone naturalizes, they are required to renounce their allegiance to their former country. It is to satisfy the “subject to the jurisdiction” language in the Citizenship Clause which means that one must not be subject to a foreign power in order to be a citizen.
Some reporting of the Supreme Court’s opinion regarding the case claims that the justices seem to be skeptical of Trump’s bid to limit Birthright Citizenship. I don’t believe the skepticism is as much about the interpretation of the Citizenship Clause as much as it is about if President Trump may enforce his understanding of the definition with an executive order.
Executive orders are instruments a President may use for proclamations, and executing federal law. If an executive order has no connection to existing federal law, then it is nothing more than a proclamation, and holds no legal force. In the case of Executive Order 14160, the law that supports it is the Civil Rights Act of 1866. In fact, there is no contradicting law on the books that supports the claim that birth on American Soil guarantees citizenship.
If the High Court is to follow the Constitution, it will rule in favor of President Trump, which would have an incredible tsunami effect on immigration and the legal handling of “anchor babies” and those the mainstream press labels as “Dreamers.” Illegal aliens, by definition, have no allegiance to the United States because their very presence in this country is in defiance of American Law. Their children at birth are unable to articulate their allegiance, so that determination must be made based on their parent’s allegiance – and by breaking American Law to be in the country they are signaling that they are still subject to a foreign power.
A final decision by the Supreme Court is not expected for at least a couple months. Those who stand against President Trump have already indicated if they don’t start getting their way in the Supreme Court, their next move should they regain political power through the White House and Congress will be to pack the court – an issue they are already offering as the midterm elections approach.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
