Right.... So someone in your family a certain number of generations back had a child and established citizenship for the child. Why is your family more special than a family who just came here?
Supreme Court upholds principle that almost all born on U.S. soil are American
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Stupid decision practically but may or may not be justified legally. Premised on old English law, since rejected by English courts, that people are serfs (they belong to the land where they are born). Virtually all countries reject this stupid policy.
We elected Trump twice and may elect a non resident to be governor of Iowa….why not let an international resident be POTUS? seems about right…
I don’t have any problem with it at this point. Standards went out the window a long time ago.
". If they were constitutionalists, it should have been 9-0." The greatest Justice of the latter half of the 19th century, Justice Harlan dissented from the original decision. There are many, many reasons that can be argued as to why this decision is constitutionally wrong and it is clearly wrong on practical grounds.
You are only in the US after you are processed through customs. People who fly from Mexico straight to Canada over US airspace do not “enter” the US. They don’t need a US visa, etc.
I don’t think that is much of an issue here.
My primary ancestor from Germany became a naturalized citizen shortly after his arrival in the US, so birthright citizenship didn't really come into play with any of his offspring,... Doesn't make it special.
Totally agree. Should have been 9-0. I expected 7-2 with uncle Clarence Thomas and Alito voting against.
You know the exact date your ancestors became citizens vs when their children were born? You must have some pretty detailed family records. How do you know?
I come from German stock too (among others). I have no idea if the first kids born here were born to citizens or if they were still in the citizenship pipeline.
Well crap, I guess I better cancel the planes I just ordered...
I do, but given that my naturalized ancestor came to the US just as the Civil War was winding down we didn't have to reach very far back to locate records...
There are a whole lot of immigrants that came here and had children before they were citizens themselves. I bet at least one of you ancestors was born on American soil before their parents were American citizens.
How did the US Citizen's they demonstrated their direct lineage to, get their citizenship?
lol fair. It felt weird typing it as well, threw in a bad grammar comma just so it could be read more logically.
But there are people who someone in their lineage was a naturalized citizen. But I would guess 90%+ people are just citizen's because they were born to citizens. And can't trace back to someone naturalized.
Very good read on just how egregious the three justices who did not side with the majority are behaving:
Jun 30, 2026
This is nice in the same way that it is nice when a person walking past you on the street doesn’t pull out a gun and shoot you.
The Court’s majority followed the Constitution. Yay. Let the celebrations begin. Give each of the six justices in the majority a cookie.
On the other hand: The fact that three justices took the anti-constitutional side of this fight is evidence that the Court itself cries out for reform.
Let’s not play make-believe. There was no “case” here. The Trump administration has lost this argument at every single level. The lower-court judges who heard the case were gobsmacked that the Trump administration would even try to end birthright citizenship via executive order.
It started in January 2025 when a district court judge granted a temporary restraining order blocking implementation of the policy.
“This is a blatantly unconstitutional [executive] order,” Judge John Coughenour said. He was not done:
Six months later, in July 2025, Judge Joseph Laplante, a George W. Bush appointee in the District Court of New Hampshire, granted certification for the class-action lawsuit that would challenge the administration’s policy.
Another version of the case, State of Washington v. Trump, was heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It ruled against Trump as well.1
The majority, upholding a lower court’s injunction, ruled that the lower court had “correctly concluded that the Executive Order’s proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional.”
The first time the Trump administration was able to find any judge, anywhere in America, to state that it had the ability to do away with birthright citizenship was when it got to the Supreme Court.
And then it found three of them.
If it were just one judge, being weird and acting like a Vulcan, maybe you could argue that the high court always has eccentrics and this isn’t evidence of structural corruption.
But three justices willing to vouch for the necessity of anti-constitutional action on the part of the executive branch?
And now, consider the specific circumstances of those three justices.
One of them, Neil Gorsuch, was appointed by the president he ruled in favor of.
One of them, Samuel Alito, is in the habit of openly lying to the public and the media when he is not ruling from the bench. Oh, and he is alleged to have run a campaign of leaking controversial opinions in an attempt to help shape the political narratives of his preferred party.
And the third, Clarence Thomas, is so nakedly corrupt that the wealth of gifts and emoluments he has received over the years from his ideological patrons beggars belief. (Many of these were not properly disclosed, either.)
Share
In the face of these corruptions, the Court has refused to reform itself. There has been no sanction against Justice Alito for lying to the public.2
There has been no sanction against Justice Thomas for accepting highly questionable gifts—and failing to properly disclose many of them in accordance with the Court’s own protocols.
And now, with these corruptions hanging over the Court, we have three justices issuing dissents that cannot be supported by any reasonable reading of the Constitution. If there were any room for argument on the government’s contention that birthright citizenship could be abolished via executive order then some judge, somewhere, would have found it.
The plain fact is that the only three judges in America willing to make such anti-constitutional arguments were a Trump appointee, a political hack with a history as a liar, and a man who has taken millions of dollars in bennies from conservative donors.
That is the picture of an institution in need of deep, structural reform.
www.thebulwark.com
The Supreme Court Just Made the Case for Its Own Expansion
Today’s birthright citizenship ruling wasn't a win for constitutionalism. It was a warning.
Jonathan V. LastJun 30, 2026
“Winning”
On the one hand, yes, it is very nice that the Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration’s BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL order to unilaterally end the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship.This is nice in the same way that it is nice when a person walking past you on the street doesn’t pull out a gun and shoot you.
The Court’s majority followed the Constitution. Yay. Let the celebrations begin. Give each of the six justices in the majority a cookie.
On the other hand: The fact that three justices took the anti-constitutional side of this fight is evidence that the Court itself cries out for reform.
Let’s not play make-believe. There was no “case” here. The Trump administration has lost this argument at every single level. The lower-court judges who heard the case were gobsmacked that the Trump administration would even try to end birthright citizenship via executive order.
It started in January 2025 when a district court judge granted a temporary restraining order blocking implementation of the policy.
“This is a blatantly unconstitutional [executive] order,” Judge John Coughenour said. He was not done:
Coughenour is not one of your socialist DEI judges—he was appointed by Ronald Forking Reagan.
Six months later, in July 2025, Judge Joseph Laplante, a George W. Bush appointee in the District Court of New Hampshire, granted certification for the class-action lawsuit that would challenge the administration’s policy.
Another version of the case, State of Washington v. Trump, was heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It ruled against Trump as well.1
The majority, upholding a lower court’s injunction, ruled that the lower court had “correctly concluded that the Executive Order’s proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional.”
The first time the Trump administration was able to find any judge, anywhere in America, to state that it had the ability to do away with birthright citizenship was when it got to the Supreme Court.
And then it found three of them.
2. Reform
What does it mean when a third of the Court wants to blow up the Constitution?If it were just one judge, being weird and acting like a Vulcan, maybe you could argue that the high court always has eccentrics and this isn’t evidence of structural corruption.
But three justices willing to vouch for the necessity of anti-constitutional action on the part of the executive branch?
And now, consider the specific circumstances of those three justices.
One of them, Neil Gorsuch, was appointed by the president he ruled in favor of.
One of them, Samuel Alito, is in the habit of openly lying to the public and the media when he is not ruling from the bench. Oh, and he is alleged to have run a campaign of leaking controversial opinions in an attempt to help shape the political narratives of his preferred party.
And the third, Clarence Thomas, is so nakedly corrupt that the wealth of gifts and emoluments he has received over the years from his ideological patrons beggars belief. (Many of these were not properly disclosed, either.)
Share
In the face of these corruptions, the Court has refused to reform itself. There has been no sanction against Justice Alito for lying to the public.2
There has been no sanction against Justice Thomas for accepting highly questionable gifts—and failing to properly disclose many of them in accordance with the Court’s own protocols.
And now, with these corruptions hanging over the Court, we have three justices issuing dissents that cannot be supported by any reasonable reading of the Constitution. If there were any room for argument on the government’s contention that birthright citizenship could be abolished via executive order then some judge, somewhere, would have found it.
The plain fact is that the only three judges in America willing to make such anti-constitutional arguments were a Trump appointee, a political hack with a history as a liar, and a man who has taken millions of dollars in bennies from conservative donors.
That is the picture of an institution in need of deep, structural reform.
The Supreme Court Just Made the Case for Its Own Expansion
Today’s birthright citizenship ruling wasn't a win for constitutionalism. It was a warning.
www.thebulwark.com
From 1802 to 1952 it took five years to become a naturalized citizen. Are you sure they didn't have any children the first 5 years after arrival?
This anti immigration crap by Republicans is so fuggin stupid. What do you think will happen when no immigrants are allowed anymore? Business starts to dry up, innovation dries up, and our population starts to dry up, too.
My mother's side,.. But since my father's lineage was naturalized that became the primary and earliest connection to citizenship.
There are only three ways to become an American citizen.
I used the maths gif because it should not be hard to figure out most of our ancestors were birthright citizens.
that's kind of racist comment isn't it. There are white babies born in the US to non citizens.
Now, on the other hand, non citizens in the country illegally even with a newborn US citizen are eligible for deportation. Does having a US citizen child exempt them? Because, you know that will be the next step for ICE
We have no record of any marriage or children until after his naturalization...
I'm a euro mutt mostly but my maternal grandmother was born here to French Canadian immigrants. Close enough I think I can qualify for Canadian citizenship. Pretty happy I have that in my back pocket with the orange idiot in charge.
Thought i read that it was 5-4? regardless, the point still stands
I've actually seem it presented as both,.. but I believe 6-3 is correct.
I think so, but Kavanaugh voted with the majority on different grounds. In his view, Trump’s order “does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment” but does violate a federal law providing that children who are “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are U.S. citizens.
Cafeteria originalism is the newest rage with the purported conservatives. Fixed meaning when we want to screw the liberals; we can create judicial exceptions when we want to help the cons.
Justice Scalia is STILL rolling over in his grave.
@Aardvark86
Justice Scalia is STILL rolling over in his grave.
@Aardvark86
George Washington wanted us all to own guns that would have allowed 100 dudes to win the entire Revolutionary War on their own.
Just got back from hiking trout lake trail haven’t read anything yet
Unbelievably, stupid and dishonest article. Democrats just looking for an excuse to pack the court. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the most respected Justice on the supreme Court in the original case, Justice Harlan dissented. The original case was premised on the intellectual Foundation of serfdom. Imagine, if we had legal principles based on black inferiority -- would we keep following those principles even if they have been in effect for a long time.Very good read on just how egregious the three justices who did not side with the majority are behaving:
The Supreme Court Just Made the Case for Its Own Expansion
Today’s birthright citizenship ruling wasn't a win for constitutionalism. It was a warning.
Jonathan V. Last
Jun 30, 2026
“Winning”
On the one hand, yes, it is very nice that the Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration’s BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL order to unilaterally end the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship.
This is nice in the same way that it is nice when a person walking past you on the street doesn’t pull out a gun and shoot you.
The Court’s majority followed the Constitution. Yay. Let the celebrations begin. Give each of the six justices in the majority a cookie.
On the other hand: The fact that three justices took the anti-constitutional side of this fight is evidence that the Court itself cries out for reform.
Let’s not play make-believe. There was no “case” here. The Trump administration has lost this argument at every single level. The lower-court judges who heard the case were gobsmacked that the Trump administration would even try to end birthright citizenship via executive order.
It started in January 2025 when a district court judge granted a temporary restraining order blocking implementation of the policy.
“This is a blatantly unconstitutional [executive] order,” Judge John Coughenour said. He was not done:
Coughenour is not one of your socialist DEI judges—he was appointed by Ronald Forking Reagan.
Six months later, in July 2025, Judge Joseph Laplante, a George W. Bush appointee in the District Court of New Hampshire, granted certification for the class-action lawsuit that would challenge the administration’s policy.
Another version of the case, State of Washington v. Trump, was heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It ruled against Trump as well.1
The majority, upholding a lower court’s injunction, ruled that the lower court had “correctly concluded that the Executive Order’s proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional.”
The first time the Trump administration was able to find any judge, anywhere in America, to state that it had the ability to do away with birthright citizenship was when it got to the Supreme Court.
And then it found three of them.
2. Reform
What does it mean when a third of the Court wants to blow up the Constitution?
If it were just one judge, being weird and acting like a Vulcan, maybe you could argue that the high court always has eccentrics and this isn’t evidence of structural corruption.
But three justices willing to vouch for the necessity of anti-constitutional action on the part of the executive branch?
And now, consider the specific circumstances of those three justices.
One of them, Neil Gorsuch, was appointed by the president he ruled in favor of.
One of them, Samuel Alito, is in the habit of openly lying to the public and the media when he is not ruling from the bench. Oh, and he is alleged to have run a campaign of leaking controversial opinions in an attempt to help shape the political narratives of his preferred party.
And the third, Clarence Thomas, is so nakedly corrupt that the wealth of gifts and emoluments he has received over the years from his ideological patrons beggars belief. (Many of these were not properly disclosed, either.)
Share
In the face of these corruptions, the Court has refused to reform itself. There has been no sanction against Justice Alito for lying to the public.2
There has been no sanction against Justice Thomas for accepting highly questionable gifts—and failing to properly disclose many of them in accordance with the Court’s own protocols.
And now, with these corruptions hanging over the Court, we have three justices issuing dissents that cannot be supported by any reasonable reading of the Constitution. If there were any room for argument on the government’s contention that birthright citizenship could be abolished via executive order then some judge, somewhere, would have found it.
The plain fact is that the only three judges in America willing to make such anti-constitutional arguments were a Trump appointee, a political hack with a history as a liar, and a man who has taken millions of dollars in bennies from conservative donors.
That is the picture of an institution in need of deep, structural reform.
The Supreme Court Just Made the Case for Its Own Expansion
Today’s birthright citizenship ruling wasn't a win for constitutionalism. It was a warning.
This is a fake argument. The world was a very different place in the latter half of the 19th century or in the beginning of the 20th century. Maybe there were 50 million people in the United States in 1870. There was no internet, no automobiles for a good portion of this time and much more difficult travel between one country and another. Just because something was done one way in the distant past under very different conditions, does not mean it is the right way of doing things now.
So how do you feel about the Second Amendment?
I am neutral about it mostly. Personally, I don't like being around lots of guns. On the other hand, it is useful for some citizens to have guns. If some people have guns, the government is less likely to be dictatorial.
How do you feel about the supreme Court overruling its previous decision that homosexual Acts would be prosecuted criminally? (Bowers v Hardwick)
Trump supporters and those who side with Trump are unamerican traitors to our country? No way!
Trump supporters are disgusting subhuman filth
Trump supporters are disgusting subhuman filth