Supreme Court Ruling on Birthright Citizenship Draws Dissent
Justice Clarence Thomas has voiced strong opposition to a recent 5-4 Supreme Court decision that affirms birthright citizenship as a constitutional right. He describes the ruling as a modern political agenda rooted in outdated feudal concepts that undermine the value of American citizenship.
In his written dissent, Thomas argues:
The court determined that the Citizenship Clause reflects an English feudal principle, suggesting that individuals are bound to lifelong servitude to the king—something that Americans have historically rejected.
…
Today’s opinions diminish [U.S.] citizenship. I respectfully disagree.
Thomas’s dissent includes extensive commentary:
This court has taken the unusual step of declaring unconstitutional an executive order designed to keep children of temporary foreign visitors and undocumented immigrants from obtaining citizenship. This contributes to the troubling legacy of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was meant to secure equal rights for freed African Americans. political repurposing
His dissent, supported by Justice Neil Gorsuch, elaborates further:
The Citizenship Clause has traditionally been understood not to extend to children of temporary foreign visitors, who, by their very status, are not considered residents of the U.S. For many years, regardless of political leadership, the federal government has consistently denied citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who do not reside here. If a child is born here to parents who live abroad, that child isn’t a citizen by birth according to current laws and the Constitution. Scholars have consistently asserted that a child born to foreign parents within U.S. territory is not a citizen unless those parents are permanently residing in the U.S. The Court has recognized that the citizenship clause does not recognize those born to foreign nationals.
The court presents a different interpretation. It asserts that American citizenship is still influenced by “feudal” ideas from medieval England, where individuals were seen as bound to their landowners as a form of perpetual servitude. The court claims that this feudal concept was broadly adopted as the foundation of American citizenship and solidified by the Reconstruction Congress. The court also links these ideas to the Civil Rights Act, which emphasizes that individuals should not be under foreign control, and references the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, stating it ultimately clarified these meanings.
However, I must question the accuracy of the court’s historical accounts. The ruling that the Citizenship Clause embodies feudal principles reflects a perspective that contradicts what many Americans have believed. The underlying reasoning from an earlier case, Lynch v. Clark, was actually not widely accepted even at the time the Citizenship Clause was created. Moreover, Wong Kim Ark emphasized restrictions on citizenship for those who were not residents of the U.S. Scholars and officials have reiterated that the citizenship clause does not apply to children of temporary foreign visitors, maintaining the principle that those born to “strangers or travelers” are not considered nationals.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed by former President Barack Obama, made a critical remark about Thomas, implying that his views align with the racist sentiments upheld in the 1857 Dred Scott decision, which led to civil unrest.
The irony here is striking: despite discussions around the Dred Scott ruling, both the government and its opponents appear to be leaning back towards its fundamental ideas. They suggest that simply being born on U.S. soil isn’t sufficient for citizenship—a notion that the citizenship clause directly refutes.
In closing, Thomas referenced the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson case, which countered the racist ideologies of Dred Scott.
I can’t say whether today’s opinions will endure through time. The Citizenship Clause greatly enhances the honor and value of American citizenship. Plessy, U.S. 163, 555 (Harlan, J., dissenting). Today’s ruling diminishes those civil rights. I respectfully disagree.
The court’s decision leaves Americans with limited options to defend their civil rights, emphasizing the need for a constitutional amendment by Congress or a supermajority agreement from state legislators.
