The Supreme Court has handed down a 6-3 decision in the case of Trump v. Barbara, upholding birthright citizenship as the law of the land. Critics of the ruling warn that it will open the floodgates for third-world and pro-Communist "birth tourism" at a time when immigration enforcement is cracking down on illegal entry.
Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joined Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and the court's three liberals in the 6-3 majority. The court's three remaining conservatives dissented, with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch arguing that the ruling was a step in the wrong direction.
The case was brought by an immigrant in New Hampshire who challenged President Donald Trump's executive order to exempt birthright citizenship from the Fourteenth Amendment. The amendment was crafted to ensure formerly enslaved people obtained American citizenship.
White House advisor Stephen Miller called the ruling "one of the most destructive and outrageous decisions in the long history of the Supreme Court." Miller argued that American citizenship is not the birthright of the world, but rather belongs only to Americans.
Other critics of the ruling, including Daniel Turner, president of Power the Future, and Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., argued that the ruling will lead to an influx of illegal immigrants having babies on American soil before returning to their home countries.
Schmitt proposed legislation to address the ruling, calling it "wrong, dangerous, and disastrous for American sovereignty and the American people." He argued that the Constitution must be amended to restore American citizenship and put "We the People" first.
Rep. Clay Fuller, R-Ga., also criticized the ruling, saying that it puts the future of illegal immigrants over real American children. Fuller introduced HR 172, a Constitutional amendment that would likely correspond with Schmitt's Senate version.
Turning Point USA spokesman Andrew Kolvet argued that the ruling sets a new standard for Supreme Court justices, saying that a willingness to overturn the case will be the "new litmus test."
Not everyone was opposed to the ruling, however. Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., and Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, praised the decision, arguing that it reaffirms over a century of legal precedent protecting birthright citizenship.
Padilla, who is the son of Mexican immigrants, said that the Constitution "could not be clearer" that if someone is born in the U.S. they are a citizen. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul also praised the ruling, saying that she was "heartened" by the court's decision.
The ruling has sparked a heated debate over the future of birthright citizenship and the role of the Supreme Court in shaping American law. As the country moves forward, one thing is clear: the issue is far from settled.
The proposed constitutional amendment, which would require approval by two-thirds of both the House and Senate or by a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of the states, could be a long shot. However, it has already sparked a national conversation about the importance of American citizenship and the future of the country.
