Birthright citizenship is upheld.

In a sharp rebuke to President Trump, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Constitution guarantees automatic birthright citizenship to virtually all children born in the United States.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the court’s 6-3 opinion.

The decision firmly rejected the executive order that Trump issued on the first day of his second term. It sought to bar citizenship for babies born in the U.S. to parents who either entered the country illegally or who are living and working here legally with temporary visas. The executive order never went into effect because every lower court judge who reviewed it concluded, in the words of one judge, that it was “blatantly unconstitutional.”
....

Detailed report:
https://www.npr.org/2026/06/30/nx-s1-583...otus-trump

(06-30-2026 01:24 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(06-30-2026 11:49 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Other than the USA, very few prominent countries allow birthright citizenship. The silver lining in the damaging ruling is Dem Soc/Com’s are forced to admit the reality of America exceptionalism.

NO OTHER COUNTRY in the world provides birthright citizenship. Not one.

You do realize anyone go give birth on Guam and the kid is now an American citizen????


F'U "Lying *****" ACB and John Kevorkian Roberts.

No other country? From what I read, most countries in North and South America have unconditional jus soli.

(06-30-2026 01:24 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(06-30-2026 11:49 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Other than the USA, very few prominent countries allow birthright citizenship. The silver lining in the damaging ruling is Dem Soc/Com’s are forced to admit the reality of America exceptionalism.

NO OTHER COUNTRY in the world provides birthright citizenship. Not one.

You do realize anyone go give birth on Guam and the kid is now an American citizen????

F'U "Lying *****" ACB and John Kevorkian Roberts.

Not a fan at all of birthright citizenship but this is false. There's 30+ countries with birthright citizenship.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/...the-world/

Where did you hear that no other country has it?

I've been reading up since this came about and some of those countries on the pew list, state they DO not recognize birthright citizenship, specificalyi some of the S. American countries... I"ll have to go find the article again.

So there's some definite misleading information out there then...

(06-30-2026 01:29 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  IDIOT. it was _MEANT_ TO apply to slaves
Oh my god, please learn your history, B0JO.

Otherwise we would have to have shipped back millions of slaves who were now free men, send them back to whatever country they were enslaved in, just so they could be come slaves again!

READ the statement by Senator Howard, and he will tell you EXACTLY what that amendment was for, because he WROTE THE ******* THING.

This is a complete and total F--- up by Kevorkian Roberts and Amy "Lyin'" Barrett. (and no , i do not apologize for any of my language the filter catches, because this is the "death of America" and it was done in by 2 people.

Here is the text you claim reads on it -- ""This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

He seems to be describing one class of folks -- people "who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers".

You might have noticed there is zero conjunctive or linking language there -- he is simply describing one class of persons.

Had he meant what you claim, there would have been some sort of 'and' in the list.

Finally, as author, he had every opportunity to amend and make clear his language. He didnt. And the Congressional Record is clear that there was a lot of discussion on that point. And even when that discrepancy was pointed out, he still didnt tighten that language.

Finally, the original phrase as submitted was simply "subject to the jurisdiction". That phrase exists as it is stood 160 years ago. The simple, bald, "persons" subject to the jurisdiction.

Given the amount of debate on the issue, Howard had ample opportunity to fix the clarification between what you say he meant, and what the language says. That was brought home to him explicitly. But the language remained the simple, broad 'persons'.

Further, the history is explicit and deep to the other point of view:

President Lincoln’s Attorney General Edward Bates categorically declared that children born in the United States of alien parents, who have never been naturalized, are native-born citizens of the United States.”

Lincoln’s Secretary of State William Seward, said the same thing: “[T]he children of foreigners born here are citizens of the United States.”

Ditto for Lincoln’s Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase, who would soon become chief justice: “[A]ll free persons born in the United States or naturalized of whatever color, are citizens of the United States.”

In the 39th Congress, when asked whether the American-born children of itinerant (that is, non-domiciliary) non-citizen Gypsies would be birthright citizens under a precursor statute to the amendment, Senator Lyman Trumbull replied, “Undoubtedly.”

Representative John Bingham used similarly robust language on the campaign trail in 1867: “If a man is not a citizen of the country in which he was born, in God’s name of what country is he a citizen?”

And if all that were not enough, consider the following exchange that unfolded on the floor of the Senate on May 23, 1866. Senator William Pitt Fessenden posed a hypothetical. “Suppose a person is born here of parents from abroad, temporarily in this country.” Senator Benjamin Franklin Wade answered unequivocally: “Most assuredly they would be citizens of the United States unless they went to another country and expatriated.”

Sorry the mass of Congressional and governmental comments simply dont jive with your viewpoint.

(06-30-2026 01:42 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I've been reading up since this came about and some of those countries on the pew list, state they DO not recognize birthright citizenship, specificalyi some of the S. American countries... I"ll have to go find the article again.

So there's some definite misleading information out there then...

There a DEFINITELY and ABSOLUTELY countries that recognize birthright citizenship.

Your comment that no country observes it is simply and unequivocally false.

(06-30-2026 01:32 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(06-30-2026 01:24 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  NO OTHER COUNTRY in the world provides birthright citizenship. Not one.

You do realize anyone go give birth on Guam and the kid is now an American citizen????

F'U "Lying *****" ACB and John Kevorkian Roberts.

No other country? From what I read, most countries in North and South America have unconditional jus soli.

Correct. Around 35 countries honour birthright citizenship. New World nations, as you observe, lead on this.

Most of these nations adopted birthright citizenship during the 19th and early 20th centuries to absorb waves of immigration and build national identity in newly independent states.

https://legalclarity.org/countries-with-...full-list/

As a city, New Orleans would be nowhere without immigration and birthright citizenship. Where yat, Saints fans.

(06-30-2026 02:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-30-2026 01:29 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  IDIOT. it was _MEANT_ TO apply to slaves
Oh my god, please learn your history, B0JO.

Otherwise we would have to have shipped back millions of slaves who were now free men, send them back to whatever country they were enslaved in, just so they could be come slaves again!

READ the statement by Senator Howard, and he will tell you EXACTLY what that amendment was for, because he WROTE THE ******* THING.

This is a complete and total F--- up by Kevorkian Roberts and Amy "Lyin'" Barrett. (and no , i do not apologize for any of my language the filter catches, because this is the "death of America" and it was done in by 2 people.

Here is the text you claim reads on it -- ""This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

He seems to be describing one class of folks -- people "who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers".

You might have noticed there is zero conjunctive or linking language there -- he is simply describing one class of persons.

Had he meant what you claim, there would have been some sort of 'and' in the list.

Finally, as author, he had every opportunity to amend and make clear his language. He didnt. And the Congressional Record is clear that there was a lot of discussion on that point. And even when that discrepancy was pointed out, he still didnt tighten that language.

Finally, the original phrase as submitted was simply "subject to the jurisdiction". That phrase exists as it is stood 160 years ago. The simple, bald, "persons" subject to the jurisdiction.

Given the amount of debate on the issue, Howard had ample opportunity to fix the clarification between what you say he meant, and what the language says. That was brought home to him explicitly. But the language remained the simple, broad 'persons'.

Further, the history is explicit and deep to the other point of view:

President Lincoln’s Attorney General Edward Bates categorically declared that children born in the United States of alien parents, who have never been naturalized, are native-born citizens of the United States.”

Lincoln’s Secretary of State William Seward, said the same thing: “[T]he children of foreigners born here are citizens of the United States.”

Ditto for Lincoln’s Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase, who would soon become chief justice: “[A]ll free persons born in the United States or naturalized of whatever color, are citizens of the United States.”

In the 39th Congress, when asked whether the American-born children of itinerant (that is, non-domiciliary) non-citizen Gypsies would be birthright citizens under a precursor statute to the amendment, Senator Lyman Trumbull replied, “Undoubtedly.”

Representative John Bingham used similarly robust language on the campaign trail in 1867: “If a man is not a citizen of the country in which he was born, in God’s name of what country is he a citizen?”

And if all that were not enough, consider the following exchange that unfolded on the floor of the Senate on May 23, 1866. Senator William Pitt Fessenden posed a hypothetical. “Suppose a person is born here of parents from abroad, temporarily in this country.” Senator Benjamin Franklin Wade answered unequivocally: “Most assuredly they would be citizens of the United States unless they went to another country and expatriated.”

Sorry the mass of Congressional and governmental comments simply dont jive with your viewpoint.

No one then knew our country would become retarded.

(06-30-2026 01:30 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(06-30-2026 11:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-30-2026 11:23 AM)solohawks Wrote:  The author of the 14th amendment plainly stated it did not apply to illegal aliens.

Nope. Cite please. You are misinformed.

Look at Senator Jacob Howards speech about the amendment. The intent was to mirror the 1866 Civil Rights Act which specifically stated "That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States"
It's only logical to conclude that is what the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means

The above, in no way, states the bolded. They are different in scope.

And Howards speech seems to only carve out one group of people - ambassadors and consul.

Further, when the breadth of the term 'persons' was pointed out in Congress, Howard made no move to amend the phrase 'persons' to the limitations you claim.

Quote:

Quote:The Court should have limited itself to an EO being the improper vehicle for this change

That wasnt the issue brought before the court. It was structured to address this issue directly and head on. And they addressed it head on. Bummer.

The proper judicial restraint would have been to allow the people to legislate this idea via their representatives - which is what Kavanaugh did.
[/quote]

One cannot legislate an issue that is a Constitutional issue. At its abse, the issue is what 'persons' means in the 14th. End of story. There is no role for a legislature to legislate on that issue.

Kind of why there is a Constitutional framework and definition of what an 'arm' is under the 2nd.

Quote:

Quote:Instead, they took at major political topic and stated you cannot change what they just said barring a new amendment.

They stated that the reasoning and legal basis the last time they ruled was the exact same reasoning and legal basis for this one -- and came down with the exact same result.

And yes, the issue actually is embedded in the Constitution. In the words of the Constitution. If folks wish to change that, then they should work to change it.

It all comes down to what one thinks of the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

If we wanted birthright citizenship the amendment should have specifically said that. [/quote]

It does. And it carves out the very well known groupo that *arent* "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States while in the United States. It is obviously plain.

'All persons born in the United States' are citizens. Except children of ambassadors or foreign ministers who enjoy diplomatic immunity, and foreign soldiers in occupied segments of the United States.

That is -- the standard setting that has existed in most of the world on 'subject to the jurisdiction' for about 400 years.

Quote:It did not which means there was always meant to be limits and thus Congress should be able to define what "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" since there is confusion - not 5 people in black robes

There really isnt confusion on this.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:They have and would never prohibited congress from regulating firearms like they just did with citizenship

I guess you never read Heller. Or any of the other 2nd amendment cases that followed. They have said that the plain words in the 2nd control. Just like they did here. And they have very continuously backed the Heller and McDonald rulings to a massive degree.

So no -- your statement above is simply false.

So i'm allowed to own a machine gun?

Yes, yes you are. So am I.

Quote:Or is Congress allowed to pass sensible restrictions that do not clash with the intent of the amendment?

Sensible restriction <> wholly abandoning the plain language.

Congress can pass whatever their little heart desires. Hopefully they understand the framework of the 14th when they do so. And if the act substantially interferes with the intent and language of the 14th -- it will be struck down.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:So I stand my statement, in Roe V Wade the SC stated that abortion could not be regulated by Congress and we all paid a political price for that

And ungermane to this issue. Yes there was a political price, when a previous Court created a right with no basis, and no plain language to support it.

In this case, the right exists, and the plain language is the plain language. I guess how dare they actually stick to the plain language in the birthright case? Really?

Again - it really does not - the plain language of the amendment carves out a vague exception that the judicial branch should allow the people via its representatives to clarify

'vague exception'? Not really. 'Not subject to the jurisdiction' is kind of hard to cast as vague. Even more so with Congressional record on exactly who that is during the legislative process that led to passage of the Amendment.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:We are now going to pay a political price for this decision as well because the people and their representatives have no avenue for change

Sure there is. Its a hard one. Its the same one that 2nd Amendment opponents face.

The anti 2nd amendment folks are allowed to regulate firearms - which is why we have 50+ different laws and regulations

They are allowed to regulate "arms" (a fairly defined matter and definition) in a manner that doesnt substantially impair the right so defined.

The right in the 2nd is directed to 'arms'. And regulations, so long as they dont substantially impair the core precept of owning, carrying, or bearing 'arms' are allowable.

Quote:The citizenship protection folks have no recourse other than the insurmountable bar of "pass an amendment"

Because the core fundamental right is 'all persons born in the United States' are 'citizens'.

Kind of hard to legislate that issue or parse that issue in a manner that *doesnt* substantially impair the core right defined.

Quote:They are being treated the same way pro life advocates were and again all this will do is drive a hard wedge where there is no room for legislative compromise because 5 black robes have spoken

Yes, how dare judges define plain English as plain English. The sheer horror.

The moral outrage of the pro life advocates sprang because the Court created a fundamental right out of smoke and mirrors. And that outrage is justified when there isnt a breath of English language that could create that right out of smoke and mirrors.

Im sorry the authors of the 14th wrote the Amendment to cover all 'persons', and clearly and distinctly excluded those not subject to the jurisdiction -- and that *you* disagree with that plain English.

Go join an advocacy group to change it. And no - fundamental rights are deserving of NO legislative compromises. Kind of defeats the idea of fundamental rights as a whole, mind you.

In America, you get rewarded with a child that is a US citizen for breaking the law by entering the country illegally while pregnant. Brilliant. There is no telling how many Chinese and North Korean U.S. citizens are being taught how bad the U.S. is and are and will be coming to the U.S. to get a FREE college education on the taxpayers' dime. Then run for office. They will fit in nicely with the Democrats. They will hide their history from the voters just like they did Obama.

(06-30-2026 02:39 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  In America, you get rewarded with a child that is a US citizen for breaking the law by entering the country illegally while pregnant. Brilliant. There is no telling how many Chinese and North Korean U.S. citizens are being taught how bad the U.S. is and are and will be coming to the U.S. to get a FREE college education on the taxpayers' dime. Then run for office. They will fit in nicely with the Democrats. They will hide their history from the voters just like they did Obama.

And this is the biggest problem. They can be a citizen, go back to China or where ever... have kids and their kids become US citizens via birth abroad and the problem compounds.

(06-30-2026 01:18 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(06-30-2026 10:46 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(06-30-2026 09:45 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship.

Disaster.

bullet Wrote:As for "under the jurisdiction," its been discussed on here what some of the authors intended with that phrase. But the majority is going with how it has been applied the last 150 years.

Here you go Bullet from the mans' mouth himself...

They can even READ the words of the man who WROTE The amendment and they still get this wrong.

This is national suicide by the Supreme Court.

The intent is clear. The Supreme Court caved to a precedent without a foundation of validity. Shameful.

(06-30-2026 02:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-30-2026 01:29 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

Here is the text you claim reads on it -- ""This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

He seems to be describing one class of folks -- people "who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers".

Quote:foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class

You are so wrong on the reading of this...

A) Foreigners
B) Aliens
c) Families of ambassadors/foreign ministers (Which would never be referred to on the floor as Foreigners or Aliens)
d) and every other class of persons

(the wording of his statement on "d', means he must have been referring to multiple classes of people previously, not 1 individual class of persons.)

In fact, he Did clear up what he said:

Howard clarified his statement during the original congressional debate over the amendment describing the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, which reads: “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States”. He said of the exclusion of Native Americans who maintain their tribal ties:

In fact the fact he added Indians as another CLASS of persons to whom he would not grant authority even though they were born on US soil.

As children of foreign parents, birthright children were subject to a foreign power (through their parents).

Which further clears up this thoughts on birthright citizenship.

Quote:BREAKING: Justice Clarence Thomas pens a scathing dissent after the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship.

Thomas accuses the majority of “repurposing” the 14th Amendment “to protect its own set of preferred rights that the Reconstruction Congress never contemplated and that cannot find support in its text.”

“Today, the Court does so again by recognizing a constitutional right to citizenship for the children of all foreign birth tourists and illegal aliens.”

“I am not sure that today’s opinion will stand the test of time. The Citizenship Clause ‘added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship.’ Today’s opinion devalues that citizenship.”

“I respectfully dissent.”

The only good thing about this is that it doesn't create a permanent category of underclass with the illegals. There are several generations of Palestinians who have been living in Lebanon or Syria since 1948 who will never be citizens. But that issue doesn't apply to various temporary visa holders and the birth tourists.

One possible solution is to require every hospital and every health care professional receiving federal funds to add a space to their voluminous forms where the pregnant mother and father (if known) must state they are American citizens before admission and medical care. It will be the hospital or health care professional responsibility to verify with proper ID (something they already do in my experience). No one will be turned away regardless of their answer.

A “no” answer results in an ICE investigation and upon completion of required steps the mother and/or father would be deported and the child placed in foster care. Alternatively, the parents may take their baby with them if they wish.

A “yes” answer does not necessarily end the matter because targeted and random audits would verify. Hospitals and health care professional
failure to follow federal rules will be subject to punishment. Illegal aliens discovered during the audits would be handed over to ICE or other appropriate agency.

For those concerned about separating parents from their kids keep in mind all illegal aliens are criminals. American citizens when found guilty are separated from family while they do their time. Illegal aliens should not be given more favor than American citizens. In fact, illegal aliens have no rights other than to be treated humanely (eg, given food and water).

(06-30-2026 03:31 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:BREAKING: Justice Clarence Thomas pens a scathing dissent after the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship.

Thomas accuses the majority of “repurposing” the 14th Amendment “to protect its own set of preferred rights that the Reconstruction Congress never contemplated and that cannot find support in its text.”

“Today, the Court does so again by recognizing a constitutional right to citizenship for the children of all foreign birth tourists and illegal aliens.”

“I am not sure that today’s opinion will stand the test of time. The Citizenship Clause ‘added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship.’ Today’s opinion devalues that citizenship.”

“I respectfully dissent.”

He is right you know.

Time to enforce all our immigration laws harshly.

In response to Tanq

1. Howard made no move to amend it because they just passed legislation in the Civil Rights Act that stated their intent

2. When there is a significant split on what the constitution says it is unwise to cut off any realistic avenue of change. This was not a unanimous decision. It was 5-4 on this particular issue about the 14th amendment. Thus sayeth 5 people in robes now no one can alter

3. You are wrong and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 shows the Congressional intent

4. You can buy a newly created machine gun?
https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/...0-caliber/

Quote:Federal law prohibits the possession of newly manufactured machine guns but permits the transfer of machine guns lawfully owned prior to May 19, 1986, if the transfer is approved by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives. As a result, a substantial number of machine guns are still in circulation

So it's almost like the amendment has limitations even though they are not spelled out - crazy!

5. The Supreme Court with their ruling has prevented the legislature from regulating citizenship just like the did with abortion - When courts cut off legitimate legislative paths nothing good happens

6. You talk of fundamental rights - 4 of the Justices disagreed on that point - so is a right fundamental because 5 black robes say it is?

Our Supreme Court is brutal when it comes to letting things play out.

They did this with Dred Scott and it led to a Civil War

They did this with prayer in schools and abortion and it led to what has become an insurmountable cultural divide

They are doing it now with the definition of citizenship and it will lead to more polarization and strife

The whole point of this country was to let the people decide. I absolutely despise the fact that our country is basically what 5 people in robes think. Its not supposed to be this way

(06-30-2026 03:36 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  One possible solution is to require every hospital and every health care professional receiving federal funds to add a space to their voluminous forms where the pregnant mother and father (if known) must state they are American citizens before admission and medical care.

The issue with that Tiger, you only need one American parent for admission as American

I have an American Father, British Mother. born on an American Air Force Base.

By all rights, because of my American Father, I am American
By all rights, because of my English Mother, I could claim to be English.

(At any time i could claim dual-citizenship legally).

And being born on a US Air Force Base.. well, that's US property, so I can't really claim to be Icelandic...

Although according to the left, and "birthright citizenshippers', being born in Iceland makes me Icelandic, regardless of where in the country I was born - which means I could claim tri-citizenship?

Nah, somehow I doubt that last line seriously.

I’m actually happy we got the decision on men in women’s sports. Not to concerned about the birthright citizenship decision. Nothing has changed and the decision can be overcome with legislation.

I thought this was funny.