Debate Over Birthright Citizenship in Supreme Court
On Thursday, Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, expressed his view that the ongoing recognition of birthright citizenship in the U.S. is quite unreasonable. This statement came after oral arguments were presented on President Donald Trump’s executive order aiming to eliminate birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.
Speaking on “Fox & Friends,” Turley described the current discussions as a significant threat to the nation. He remarked, “It’s entirely insane and poses a real danger to our government and republic,” highlighting that the U.S. is among the few countries that still accept birthright citizenship.
Turley noted that it seems the justices were leaning toward a more originalist interpretation of the Constitution, aiming to understand its meaning as it was when first enacted. He referenced the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to grant citizenship to freed slaves and their descendants.
It’s interesting— Turley was taken aback by the apparent alignment of the justices. He mentioned that it felt like all nine might be originalists, especially since the case seemed to be unfolding in a way that emphasized sticking to the original intent. This, he noted, is similar to how judges approach issues like the Second Amendment.
Amid the discussions, some justices appeared doubtful about Trump’s attempt to abolish birthright citizenship. Chief Justice John Roberts hinted that the Constitution’s stance on this issue is fairly explicit. Additionally, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized that U.S. legislation shouldn’t be swayed just because other nations perceive birthright citizenship differently.
President Trump took to Truth Social to allege that foreign nations are profiting from selling citizenship, while Roberts countered the claim that the practice is being abused by foreigners, which he believes is contributing to illegal immigration challenges.
As it stands, the U.S. is still grappling with questions surrounding the limits of birthright citizenship.
