Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

Trump and his cronies were never going to win that battle. Like many things he does, it serves as a dog whistle to nationalists and allows him to paint anyone who opposes him as somehow un-American and an enemy of the ‘people’.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#4

Post by 999900000999 » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 2:57 PM UTC

Thank God.

If only because this would open up people born here to having their citizenship retroactively revoked.

The constitution is pretty clear. If you don't like it amend it.

If anything we need to expand it to include anyone who gives birth in this country. If you're willing to deal with our horrible maternity care system and help keep up our declining population, you deserve a blue passport.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#5

Post by Varelion » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 3:08 PM UTC

xvxvx wrote: post #3

Trump and his cronies were never going to win that battle. Like many things he does, it serves as a dog whistle to nationalists and allows him to paint anyone who opposes him as somehow un-American and an enemy of the ‘people’.

White nationalists, specifically, yeah. Colloquially known as Nazi wannabes.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#6

Post by ryandrake » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 3:09 PM UTC

5-4 though, yikes! This shouldn't have even been close. With an impassioned 91 page dissent by Thomas. What a chode.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#7

Post by jjallen » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 3:10 PM UTC

You can be pro/fine with legal immigration (and moderate/non-partisan) and still not think birthright citizenship is a good idea (like I do).

Also ~95% of countries don't have unconditional birthright citizenship. It creates perverse incentives.

Reminds me of legal abortion: practically everywhere in the world has it. If you are not in that vast majority you should be taking a very close look at yourself/things.

So yes, let's amend the constitution. It's been a while and we do it on average every ten years or so. I have personally not ever been involved in one.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#8

Post by goatlover » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 3:11 PM UTC

jjallen wrote: post #7

You can be pro/fine with legal immigration (and moderate/non-partisan) and still not think birthright citizenship is a good idea (like I do). Also ~95% of countries don't have unconditional birthright citizenship. It creates perverse incentives. Reminds me of legal abortion: practically everywhere in the world has it. If you are not in that vast majority you should be taking a very close look at yourself/things. So y…

Why do you think it's not a good idea?

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#9

Post by newaccount670 » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 3:12 PM UTC

[flagged]

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#10

Post by jfengel » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 3:13 PM UTC

jjallen wrote: post #7

You can be pro/fine with legal immigration (and moderate/non-partisan) and still not think birthright citizenship is a good idea (like I do). Also ~95% of countries don't have unconditional birthright citizenship. It creates perverse incentives. Reminds me of legal abortion: practically everywhere in the world has it. If you are not in that vast majority you should be taking a very close look at yourself/things. So y…

It's not really a question of what's a good idea. It is in the text of the Constitution, about as plain as it can possibly be. If you want to change it, you have to change the Constitition.

Ironically, the same Court members who most often claim the plain text of the Constitution to support their ideas are the ones who put the most effort into finding a tortured reading of the 14th Amendment.