Justice Samuel Alito dissented from the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling upholding birthright citizenship, arguing the majority misread the 14th Amendment and preserved incentives tied to illegal immigration and birth tourism.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Justice Samuel Alito sharply criticized the Supreme Court’s Tuesday ruling upholding birthright citizenship, warning in dissent that the majority had misinterpreted the 14th Amendment and issued a decision with long-term consequences for the country.
The court ruled 6-3 against President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor and, in part, Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Amy Coney Barrett also sided with the majority. Alito, Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.
Roberts wrote that “children born of parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States” meet the requirements of the Citizenship Clause.
“Under the Constitution, they are citizens at birth,” Roberts wrote.
Alito rejected that interpretation in a 39-page dissent beginning on page 153 of the court’s opinion.
“This is one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court, and in my judgment, the Court has made a serious mistake,” Alito wrote.
He argued that the majority’s reading of the 14th Amendment extends citizenship far beyond what the amendment originally meant.
“As interpreted by the Court today, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on virtually everyone who happens to be born in this country, including the children of ‘birth tourists,’ women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child and then promptly return home,” Alito wrote.
“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,” he continued. “Instead, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.”
A video clip discussing the ruling and dissent circulated widely after the decision through an X post.
Alito said Congress should decide who may become a citizen, rather than having the court read automatic citizenship into the 14th Amendment for broad categories of children born to noncitizen parents.
He wrote that children are not responsible for their parents’ violations of immigration law but said the present situation followed decades of messaging and enforcement failures.
“Children are not responsible for their parents’ violation of our immigration laws, and their plight is the result of a long period during which a coterie of actors… sent the message to would-be immigrants that our immigration laws should not be taken too seriously,” Alito wrote.
“This message, coupled with ineffective or unenthusiastic enforcement, spurred massive illegal immigration and the growth of a large contingent of people who were born here to mothers unlawfully present in this country,” he added.
Alito said the court should not avoid the constitutional question because of concerns over practical consequences.
The court “should not adopt an erroneous interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment simply out of fear of the consequences of ‘rocking the boat’ or as a reaction to current immigration policy,” he wrote.
“Nor should we take the position that our hands are tied,” Alito wrote, adding that “too much is at stake.”
“United States citizenship is precious,” he wrote.
Alito’s dissent reviewed the history of citizenship and the meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of.” He noted that “tribal Indians and their children, although born on US soil, were not citizens” at one point in American history, arguing that birth within the country has not always been treated as sufficient for citizenship.
He also said the majority’s decision leaves a major policy question in the hands of the court rather than Congress.
“As a result of the events of the past 50 years, the United States now has a huge contingent of people who entered or remained in this country illegally, as well as a large group of people who were born here to such parents,” Alito wrote. “The Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment makes all the members of this latter group citizens. Many of those who have grown up here now have a strong moral claim to be allowed to remain, but that is a matter that the Fourteenth Amendment, when properly interpreted, leaves to Congress.”
Alito said the ruling creates outcomes he called inconsistent with the original meaning of the amendment.
“The Court’s interpretation is not only contrary to the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, it produces grotesque results,” he wrote. “While foreigners who wish to immigrate lawfully must sometimes wait for many years, a child born here to a birth tourist is automatically a citizen.”
He also raised national security concerns, describing a scenario in which a child born in the United States to foreign parents grows up abroad in a country hostile to America.
“Suppose that country is a strategic adversary or enemy of the United States. Suppose the child never visited the United States while growing up and was inculcated with hatred of this country. According to the Court, that person is a citizen of the United States. He can enter and leave the country as he pleases. He can travel the world on a United States passport. Even if he plots to harm this country, he cannot be deprived of his status as a citizen, at least under current precedent,” Alito wrote.
Alito said the court’s interpretation will continue to encourage illegal immigration.
“The Court’s interpretation preserves a powerful incentive to enter or remain in this country illegally,” he wrote.
He noted that immigrants often prefer wealthier countries with stronger economic opportunities and wrote that, other than Canada, the United States is the “only affluent nation where birth alone is enough to establish citizenship.”
Alito concluded that the majority had imposed a citizenship rule that the 14th Amendment does not require.
“In my judgment, the Court has made a mistake that will seriously affect the country’s future,” he wrote.
Gorsuch and Thomas also filed dissenting opinions. Thomas wrote a 91-page dissent arguing that the court’s majority misread the 14th Amendment.
The decision came the same day NPR mistakenly published an article claiming Alito had retired, then quickly removed and retracted the story.
NPR later posted an editor’s note acknowledging the error.
“Editors Note: Earlier today we erroneously published a story saying that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was retiring. He has not announced his retirement and we have retracted the story,” the outlet said.
The ruling leaves birthright citizenship intact for children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present, while Alito’s dissent frames the decision as a major constitutional error that should have been left to Congress.
Original article
Comments