Supreme Court Weighs Radical Birthright Citizenship Challenge

Court Hears Fringe Theory on Birthright Citizenship

The Supreme Court is set to hear a case challenging the long-standing principle of birthright citizenship in the United States. The legal argument, described as “completely fringe” by legal experts, questions the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which states that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are citizens.

The Legal Basis: The 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, clearly states: “All persons born or naturalized in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This language has historically been understood to grant citizenship to anyone born within U.S. borders, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.

John Eastman: The Architect of the Theory

The main proponent of the theory being considered is John Eastman, a lawyer previously associated with efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Eastman has argued for years that children born in the U.S. to parents who are not permanent legal residents should not automatically be granted citizenship. This viewpoint directly contradicts the plain language of the 14th Amendment.

“All persons born here are citizens here. That’s what it says. You don’t need law school for this one.”

Bill Barr’s Doubts

Even former Attorney General Bill Barr, a conservative and loyalist to the Trump administration, has expressed skepticism about Eastman’s ideas. Barr reportedly cited Eastman’s theory on birthright citizenship as a reason he found Eastman not credible. Barr recounted a conversation where Eastman presented his idea, and Barr told him it was wrong.

This skepticism is notable, as Eastman was also involved in attempts to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to reject electoral votes on January 6, 2021. These actions ultimately led to Eastman and others facing disbarment proceedings, a severe consequence for any lawyer.

Legal Community’s Reaction

Legal analysts widely view the argument presented to the Supreme Court as having little to no merit. Andrew Weissmann, a former FBI general counsel and prosecutor, noted that the legal community largely expects a near-unanimous decision against the administration’s position. The fact that such a fringe argument has reached the Supreme Court is seen as a concerning indicator of the current legal and political climate.

“Every single judge, every single one that has had this issue, including judges appointed…” Weissmann stated, implying that the argument has been rejected by all lower courts. He added that the core idea is something a first-year law student would recognize as unlikely to succeed.

The Administration’s Stance

The current administration’s argument suggests that even if parents are in the U.S. legally, such as on green cards or as students, their children born here might not be citizens if the parents’ status is considered temporary. This interpretation goes beyond excluding children born to undocumented immigrants and extends to those born to lawful residents.

“It’s not just saying that if someone came into the country illegally and had a child here, that they shouldn’t have citizenship. Although the language of the Constitution is, they do. If you’re born here, you’re born here, period. It doesn’t matter how your parents got here,” explained Weissmann.

Potential Motives and Broader Implications

The ACLU has suggested that this legal challenge could be an effort to change the demographics of the U.S. and gain more racial control. While the legal outcome is widely expected to be a loss for the challengers, the act of pushing the argument itself is seen as signaling xenophobic and racist sentiments to appeal to a specific base.

Experts believe this push is contrary to the nation’s founding principles. Distinguishing between deporting criminals and denying citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to lawful residents is a critical difference. The argument is seen by some as echoing rhetoric that favors a specific ethnic or religious background, a stance that conflicts with the inclusive ideals the U.S. aims to represent.

What to Watch Next

All eyes are now on the Supreme Court’s decision. Legal observers will be watching closely to see if any justices deviate from the widely expected unanimous ruling. The case serves as a significant test of the Court’s commitment to established constitutional principles and may reveal deeper political leanings among its members.

Source: DOJ’s ‘RADICAL’ & ‘FRINGE' claim collides with Constitution in EPIC FACT-CHECK (Melber x Weissmann) (YouTube)