The Trump administration has sought to restrict citizenship to children with at least one parent with citizenship or permanent legal status.
Alito warned in his dissent the ruling could have “grotesque results,” including an encouragement of “birth tourism,” and national security ramifications.
“If the Fourteenth Amendment required these results, the country would have to live with them or amend the Constitution,” he wrote. “But the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the rule the Court now imposes on the country.
“In my judgment, the Court has made a mistake that will seriously affect the country’s future,” he continued.
Alito accused the majority opinion of relying “on precedent that glosses the text” of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause and that their argument “fails on textualist grounds.”
The conservative justice specifically pointed to the 14th Amendment’s reference to a person who is “subject to the jurisdiction of,” arguing that the court’s majority failed to consider issues of dual citizenship.
For that last bit related to being “subject to the jurisdiction of," is he suggesting that foreigners aren’t subject to criminal prosecutions? Like, if some gal who is foreign and lacks citizenship/greencard/visa/foreign service/etc. snuck in and randomly shoots someone, they’d not be subject to US prosecution? What if they’re also apprehended with a ton of Schedule 1 narcotics? We supposed to be like “Ope! She’s not subject to US jurisdiction. So, we better send her home with a stern finger wagging.”
He could always go sulk for a couple more years, then resign.
The decision has been made so shut up about it and respect the courts decision, crybaby bitch Alito.
The US Supreme Court was tasked with determining if the US Constitution was constitutional. And three of the justices failed at this very basic task.
They are seriously terrified of “white replacement theory.”
The heritage foundation has poisoned all three branches of our government. It’s disgusting.Given that birthright citizenship has been the rule since the Civil War, is he saying that all of subsequent American history is an example of these “grotesque results”?
He doesn’t expect you to think!
My family’s been here since 1733 and never took a test. If birthright citizenship isn’t real then am I a citizen?
And if we’ve never been citizens, who do we sue to get back all the taxes we paid?
You think aliens (gov term) don’t pay taxes? Be it non-resident aliens, resident aliens for tax purposes, or resident aliens, we do.
No taxation without representation my ass. The US loves to tax without representation
Hell some of my ancestors have been here since before even James Town in one case but we hugged the borders of civilization through much of it so where do me and my kin fit in since records are scattered. For those curious my ancestors came over from western Ireland with a Jesuit expedition about 20 years before James Town.
Don’t forget all of the back taxes you owe to the British crown!
Them Limeys will have to come and take them.
This is who the pedo squad republicans nominate for scotus - people who don’t understand or respect the constitution.
It’s a feature; not a glitch
Honestly don’t care about birth right citizenship. Tons of countries don’t have it. It made sense for north America when travel was long but now.
Funny how you went from saying it’s a bad thing to “I don’t care” after you were asked for even a shred of evidence about why it’s a bad thing.
“Birth tourism” - Moot point. They’re solving that by making the country so shitty in every way that no one wants to be US citizens.
No fences, no borders, free movement for all.
It’s funny too because this mentality is both moral and good for business. Capitalism thrives when people are free to come and go and buy as they please but the US isn’t actually a capitalist society, there is no free market. Borders are antithetical to free markets.
Borders are antithetical to free markets.
There is no such thing as a free market.
Sure but as an economic concept, it’s still an abstract idea that can be understood
It’s been in effect for over 200 years, but now it’s a problem. Fuck this guy.
I think I know what the real problem is.
Alito’s birth was a serious mistake.
Alito? That dont sound like a 'merican name. Deport his foreigner ass.
Literal traitor says what?
The only people coming to the US now are the truly desperate refugees that couldn’t afford to go anywhere better.
“Careful analysis of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the process that led to its adoption shows that it does not degrade the concept of United States citizenship in this way,” Alito wrote. “Instead, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.”
Hmm, let’s look a the actual text of the 14th amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
The word “solely” doesn’t appear there once. There is absolutely nothing there that states that being a citizen of another country disqualifies you, or your kids. (If it did, it would be impossible to be naturalized as a US citizen without first renouncing your original citizenship). It’s obvious that this clause was meant to apply to diplomats and other people who get some forms of immunity from local prosecution.
What an asshat…
It’s ironic because Alitos family didn’t arrive from Italy until 1914 as well.
& us Italians weren’t even considered to be white people here until around the 1920’s
What kind of clown argues the constitution is unconstitutional
Republicans. Constantly.
4-6 members of the current supreme court. Consistently…
Alito wrote. “Instead, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.”
The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. Its primary purpose was to secure rights for formerly enslaved people, establishing birthright citizenship, barring states from denying “equal protection of the laws,” and ensuring “due process” for all individuals. Slaves were freed in 1865. Wonder how and when the former slaves became obligated to owe allegiance to the US after it had them enslaved for half their life.
Not to mention, that would mean that citizenship wouldn’t be granted to kids who have at least one parent with dual citizenship. As those kids could potentially be under the jurisdiction of the other country.
His reasoning in his dissent doesn’t hold up to even basic scrutiny.
Nobody has ever accused Alito of having logically coherent views.
Not to mention, that would mean that citizenship wouldn’t be granted to kids who have at least one parent with dual citizenship.
The Nazis had the same way of looking at ancestry for determining whether someone was Jewish.
The jurisdiction clause was also there so native Americans on reservations didn’t get citizenship.
Citizens don’t owe allegiance to a state.
who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.”
Like some kind of… Citizen?
Well, you actually do renounce any prior citizenships during the naturalization process.
Do you have a source for that? The US State Department website says you don’t.
The oath of alliegance (I can’t do fancy links on mobile easily: https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learn-about-citizenship/the-naturalization-interview-and-test/naturalization-oath-of-allegiance-to-the-united-states-of-america) you have to take as part of the naturalization process includes a renunciation clause. The link you have only talks about being a dual citizen through birth or gaining another citizenship while being a US citizen, not naturalizing while a citizen of elsewhere.
That oath doesn’t mean anything unless the other country recognizes it means something.
Here’s a link to a legal firm that claims that Canada just ignores that oath, and a Canadian who becomes an American citizen doesn’t lose their Canadian citizenship. On the other hand, the Germans apparently care, and revoke your German citizenship once you get naturalized in the US, all because of the oat h
The short answer is No. United States allows foreign nationals to naturalize and become U.S. citizens and the country also allows people to hold dual nationality. People who are citizens of foreign countries may become U.S. citizens and they may not be required to give up their current nationality.
Renouncing your previous citizenship is not really up to the U.S. Government but rather your previous country. Citizenship laws differ from country to country and some countries do not allow the citizens to hold dual citizenship.
Not for the U.S.
You have to do it if the other country doesn’t allow dual citizenship and has diplomatic relations with the U.S. to the point where the U.S. enforces it.
Can’t wait to read this fascist scumbag’s obituary.
The Constitution is
LAW!a MISTAKE!-Republicans (UNLESS it’s After a Bunch of Kindergarteners get MOWED DOWN by a Gunman!)
One of the court reporting people on NPR said something like “This is a perfect case where all they had to do was point at the Constitution and not take up the case”.
