I'd love to believe that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's insipid arguments in favor of birthright citizenship would be enough to lead to another 8-1 decision in President Donald Trump's favor. Yes, the 14th Amendment was meant to grant citizenship to the children of former slaves, not birth tourists who fly to the United States from China or wherever to deliver their baby on U.S. soil and then fly back home. As I reported the other day, Newsweek seemed to have a problem with Trump saying birthright citizenship wasn't meant for "rich people from China." Then there's surrogacy, where a Chinese millionaire ships his frozen sperm to a surrogate mother in the United States and then has the kids shipped back to China. One man was reported to have more than 100 children that way.
Kurt Schlichter of Twitchy sister site Townhall predicts that Trump is going to lose the case, but don't freak out.
You guys understand we’re going to lose the birthright citizenship case, right?
— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) April 1, 2026
Before you completely freak out, the traditional understanding of the 14th Amendment, which we are seeking to change, is not an insane reading of it. Nor are our arguments insane like the left has…
The post continues:
… has been same. That’s baloney to just shut us up. Neither side is frivolous.
It’s a tough call legally and objectively speaking. But when we lose it, and I think we will, don’t freak out that this is some sort of conspiracy. It’s a hard legal decision. Sadly, we have three judges who aren’t even going to try to examine the question and will always vote for what leftists want. But the rest of the court has to make a tough legal call.
I think our reading is the correct one. For various reasons, I think they’re going to rule against us. Don’t freak out when they do. It’s not an utterly irrational ruling like so many of the district court opinions we’ve seen.
Hard words.
— Cynical Publius (@CynicalPublius) April 1, 2026
But I agree with Kurt on this.
Also, the stare decisis the ruling creates may clarify other paths to fight this fight. https://t.co/9CnH15w0fi
And it sets the stage for the political battle that follows.
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) April 1, 2026
In the long-term, this is an existential fight for the culture of this country that has developed over 250 years.
To favor birthright citizenship is to endorse mass migration to the U.S. with malign motives.
That's… https://t.co/JOL261qiRV
The post continues:
… the political debate. If necessary, the end of that debate should be a constitutional amendment.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
We agree that it's going to take a constitutional amendment, which we're not going to see in our lifetimes.
Recommended
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
— Elvis Trump (@Elvis_Trump) April 1, 2026
Apparently, it has become one.
They can’t even pass a budget bill or an election security measure that is favored by 80%+ of the voters but you think they’ll get a Constitutional amendment passed and ratified by the States? 😂
— NautiGirl 🇺🇸🏴☠️🍊 ollllllo (@ladiebldr) April 1, 2026
For an amendment, you need 290 House votes and 67 Senate votes. How realistic is that?
— Discerning Texan (@CWRandomMusings) April 1, 2026
And if a Constitutional amendment cannot be achieved in the near term, then the U.S. can still deport the parents and forever deny them citizenship. That should be a strong disincentive for those who would think to take advantage of birthright citizenship.
— Fansini (@TheTropaion) April 1, 2026
I still don't get how the children of illegal aliens & tourists fall into the category of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" after the exhaustive analysis of that term's roots in the 14th Amendment.
— Big Jarhead (@big_jarhead) April 1, 2026
Basically if they rule against us, nothing changes. But it is at least in writing and if change is wanted bad enough, then Congress will be forced to do the heavy lifting. So it won’t happen anytime soon
— Jeff Walker (@jewalker33) April 1, 2026
The loss will mean the door will be closed on this matter for generations. Had to try. It was the best shot the admin had in terms of court makeup.
— Rando Calrissian (@DislikedShip) April 1, 2026
I hope we see a limited scope. I don’t expect a full ruling requiring citizenship; but I want a legal basis to prevent people from flying in to become citizens and then returning abroad. They may live abroad but remain American citizens. That needs to change.
— Walter Curt (@wcdispatch) April 1, 2026
I think there are statutory ways to do that that wouldn’t be affected by the traditional reading of the 14A
— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) April 1, 2026
I hate to resort to a cliché, but at least the case is raising awareness of the issue and the problem of both anchor babies and birthright tourism.
***
