The Constitution and history support Trump's rejection of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens

Source: "Supreme Court birthright citizenship case could change America forever | Fox News." April 2, 2026. www.foxnews.com

The Gist

The author argues that the Constitution doesn't actually require giving citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants. The Fourteenth Amendment has two requirements - being born here AND owing allegiance to the US - and illegal immigrants owe allegiance to their home countries instead.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court should uphold President Trump's executive order rejecting birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens because the Constitution's text and history do not require such citizenship

Premises

  1. The Fourteenth Amendment requires TWO conditions for birthright citizenship: being born in the US AND being 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'
  2. The phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' means owing allegiance to the United States, not to any foreign power, as explained by the amendment's author Senator Lyman Trumbull
  3. Illegal aliens are citizens of other countries who owe allegiance to those countries, not the United States, so they don't meet the jurisdiction requirement
  4. The Wong Kim Ark case only applies to children whose parents have 'permanent domicile and residence' in the US and owe allegiance only to the US, which illegal aliens lack
  5. Historical practice shows that secretaries of State denied passports to children of tourists and non-permanent residents after the Fourteenth Amendment
  6. A ruling favoring birthright citizenship would create catastrophic consequences including massive birth tourism and permanent dilution of citizenship's meaning

Assumptions

View this argument on LogicFirst.ai