SCOTUS Should Rule Against Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal Aliens
Source: Samuel Kimzey. "National Sovereignty Is At Stake In Imminent SCOTUS Ruling." May 20, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that the Supreme Court should rule that children born to illegal immigrants in the U.S. shouldn't automatically become citizens. He claims this wasn't what the 14th Amendment was meant to do originally, and that allowing it weakens America's control over its own citizenship.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court should rule that the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to children of illegal aliens born within U.S. territory
Premises
- The original intention of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to former slaves and their children, not all persons born on U.S. soil
- The phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' in the 14th Amendment excludes illegal aliens because they owe allegiance to their foreign nations of origin
- The U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) precedent involved lawful permanent residents, not illegal aliens, so it doesn't apply to children of illegal aliens
- Granting birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens undermines national sovereignty and makes the U.S. unique among nations in this costly practice
- Historical evidence from ratification debates, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and other sources supports the narrower interpretation of birthright citizenship
- Even preserving Wong Kim Ark precedent, the Court can distinguish between children of lawful residents and children of illegal aliens or tourists
Assumptions
- National sovereignty requires control over who becomes a citizen
- The founders' original intent should guide constitutional interpretation
- Illegal aliens are not fully subject to U.S. jurisdiction due to their foreign allegiance
- Current birthright citizenship practices are economically and socially harmful
- Legal precedent can be distinguished based on factual differences in cases