You are here > Home > News Columns HOME > NEWSPAPER COLUMNS>The Supreme Court Decision on Birthright Citizenship
|
Krauthammer: Trump is a Pragmatist | Supreme Court Decision |
Continuing the Dialogue The SCOTUS Ruling | |
 Published by The Galveston County Daily NewsPublished: July 9, 2026 | |||
| The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order -- which stopped children born to those illegally in, or temporarily visiting, our country from obtaining U.S. citizenship -- is unconstitutional. The Court ruled 6-3 to strike down the executive order. They may have decided correctly that a president doesn’t have this authority, but Congress certainly does. The Court’s decision left America in a terrible mess, one a politically-charged Congress could fix but probably won’t. In 2023 ten percent of births in America were to parents here illegally. China sent pregnant women on “temporary vacations;” long enough for a birth on our soil. Then the parents and child returned to communist China. Potentially, the child could return to America 18 years later and vote or even run for Congress 25 years later. The question is to whom does such a child have allegiance? To America or to China? Especially if the child has been indoctrinated in anti-American ideology for 18 years? China has always employed long-term strategies in its quest for world domination, something that’s foreign to our way of thinking. The Biden Administration allowed at least fifteen million illegals to enter the U.S. Again, to whom do they have allegiance? The communist/socialist principles now being embraced by New York City and other leftist Democrat strongholds could expand intolerably if the birthright citizenship issue isn’t fixed. The Court’s 5-4 ruling assumes that if a woman gives birth in America, she’s “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” They seem to have forgotten or disregarded the parents are here illegally. Here's an analogy. If parents who are in the country illegally rob a bank and give the money to their child, can the child keep the money? Using the same logic used by the Court, the child could keep the money. Illegal activity shouldn’t allow benefits – in this case U.S. citizenship – to flow their children. When the 14th amendment was passed both its author and President US Grant specially stated the intent was too free and grant valid citizenship to slaves residing in the U.S.; not to those who find themselves within its boundaries and give birth. It’s been a long-standing practice that there are limits to Constitutional Amendments. For example, the First Amendment doesn’t protect a person to yell “Fire” in a crowded movie theater. The Court’s majority said there’s no exception, thereby including all children born on U.S. soil. Consequently, the Court ended up legislating, a function vested only to Congress not the judiciary. When the 14th amendment was adopted, Congress excluded members of Indian tribes because they owed allegiance to their tribes, not the U.S. Additionally, Michigan Senator Jacob Howard who was the Senate manager of the 14th Amendment said, “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens [or] who belonged to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers” are excluded. The Court was wrong. The long-term impact could be extremely dangerous as enemy nations could use the Court’s misinterpretation to circumvent our freedoms moving us further left to radial socialism; something that has proven itself time-after-time a failure (i.e., Cuba, Venezuela). Congress must act to clarify that children born to women who are here illegally and those who are here temporarily, are not U.S. citizens under the 14th amendment or any other legal theory. |
|||
About the Authors/Columnists 2026 Bill and Mark have written over 300 guest columns and editorials together over the last ten years for numerous publications across the country and they continue to do so. Bill lives in Texas and Mark in Idaho. Both gentlemen ran against each other in the 2012 Republican Primary for Texas Congressional District 14. Since then they have become close friends and colleagues | |||
 
Feedback from a former federal law enforcement official residing in North Carolina:In your example of a Chinese baby being born in the US and raised in China, under this ruling this Communist-propagandized child could also later seek the U.S. presidency, not just a seat in Congress. I have not seen where Congress could unilaterally do something to change the current situation with birthright citizenship, other than initiate actions to amend the Constitution, which is unlikely to be ultimately successful. Birthright citizenship is critical to the Democrat great replacement plan, which is based on overwhelming the numbers of existing Americans over time with foreigners, and watering down the votes of those Americans in favor of the Democrat Party. Trump needs to immediately massively limit visas, so that anyone pregnant either is automatically denied a visa or the visa is issued for a very short time of validity, in the early stage of such pregnancy. Then we need to ensure that those who are pregnant don’t overstay their visas. Additionally, an even more severe border shutdown is needed, to reduce even further the illegal alien invasion. Question raised by a retired school teacher in Pennsylvania:“I noticed your guest commentary said the Supreme Court’s decision on the Birthright Citizenship case was 5-4 but I am seeing it was 6-3. Did you get it wrong? I’m confused.” Our Response: Thanks for your comment and for holding our feet to the fire. The Editor of the paper raised the same question. We needed to be more precise. Both the 5-4 and 6-3 are accurate. Only five Justices found that Donald Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order “violated the Constitution,” specifically the language of Section I of the 14th Amendment which 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.” Those Justices were Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Brett Kavanaugh – the sixth vote to overturn the President’s Executive Order – did so saying the order violated current law, not the Constitution. So, while the vote to strike the President’s executive order was 6-3, only five said the order was “unconstitutional.” We are writing a more detailed response and submitting it to the Post Newspaper for publication. You will find it here once it is published. Feedback from a politically active woman in California:I recently read story on the Internet that claims Justice Kavanaugh has pointed the way for Congress to fix this problem without requiring the enactment of a constitutional amendment. The report says Kavanaugh wrote that the order did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment at all. In his view, the order failed for one reason only. It conflicted with a federal statute, Section 1401 of the immigration code, that Congress passed and Congress can change. Then he spelled out the path. Kavanaugh wrote that Congress could amend that statute or pass new legislation. Lawmakers could create exceptions to automatic citizenship for children born to parents who are in this country unlawfully or only temporarily. Of course, our gutless Congress – and particularly the GOP Senate leadership – seems woefully unable to get important legislation across the goal line.
| |||