Stephen Miller Criticizes Supreme Court Ruling on Citizenship
Stephen Miller, an advisor to former President Trump, has strongly condemned the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that mandates automatic citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and tourists. He described it as “one of the most devastating and outrageous decisions in the long history of the Supreme Court.”
“American citizenship is not a birthright in the world,” Miller stated. He added that it’s exclusive to Americans, arguing that nothing in the Constitution should lead to national self-destruction.
His remarks align with the dissenting opinions of Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito, who labeled the ruling as “grotesque.”
On the other hand, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed by President Obama, expressed her approval of the decision. She asserted that the constitutional reforms from the post-Civil War “Reconstruction Era” provided a framework for judicial impartiality in America, irrespective of citizenship status.
“The Reconstruction Amendment was a reset for the nation and aimed against caste and subordination,” she emphasized. According to Jackson, the citizenship clause embodies a universal approach that transcends limitations based on race or region, highlighting a broader understanding of freedom for all Americans.
She noted that America has struggled to address the issues stemming from the Civil War and that the majority of the Court today has reaffirmed the principle that all men are created equal.
Miller’s views resonate with other pro-American advocates in Washington, D.C.
Business groups also expressed support for the ruling. Todd Schulte, President of FWD.us, said, “Birthright citizenship is an incredible boon to this country,” emphasizing that it is deeply rooted in the Constitution as part of the Reconstruction efforts.
While some Republican politicians, like retiring Rep. Don Bacon from Nebraska, welcomed the Court’s endorsement of citizenship for undocumented immigrants, others from the GOP have warned about potential negative repercussions and suggested partial solutions to address the ruling’s implications.
