The Sovereignty Trap, Why the Court's Birthright Ruling Must be a Legislative Wake-Up Call

I have structural problems with some of the so-called Justices on the Supreme Court. However, I cannot in good conscience disparage them for decisions I don’t like and then praise them for decisions I do like.

What I will say is that we have a few jurists, including Chief Justice John Roberts, who have completely bought into political theory. Roberts seems to have lost his foundation for pure constitutional thinking. He has replaced it with the judicial activism of making law from the bench instead of doing what the Framers intended: interpreting law based entirely on the original intent of the Constitution.

We have others on the bench who cause serious concern. Take Ketanji Brown Jackson, who believes boys should be allowed in girls' sports if they just pretend they are girls. What throws more confusion into her legal philosophy is that at her confirmation hearing, when asked if she could define what a woman is, her answer was "No."

In judicial speak, if you cannot define a subject, you do not understand it. This admission alone should have been enough to get any judge at any level to recuse themselves from ruling on the matter. Too many justices are teetering between judicial activism, Trump Derangement Syndrome, and actual constitutional thinking.

Putting that aside, look at what just happened in Trump v. Barbara regarding birthright citizenship.

I understand my opinion does not legally matter, but I sure have one. This may turn out to be the worst, most costly decision in the history of the Supreme Court, serving as a direct challenge to our national sovereignty.

The Court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment now firmly grants birthright citizenship to individuals born on U.S. soil to non-citizens. Critics point out this creates an incentive for "anchor babies" who can later sponsor relatives via chain migration.

But the immediate, logistical reality is far worse.

A newborn cannot take care of itself. If its undocumented mother is deported, the child is effectively forced to go with her, meaning the government is deporting a U.S. citizen. Our Constitution clearly states a citizen cannot be deported.

Consider the remaining options forced by this ruling.

Option two: A United States citizen cannot leave America without a passport. A newborn child is not automatically issued a passport at birth, nor can they be, so they are forced to leave the country without one. This is either an admission of fact that the child is not truly a citizen, or it is proof that the government is actively breaking its own laws.

Option three is just as legally contradictory: You must grant the mother legal status and force her to remain in the U.S. with the baby. This activates chain migration decades before the citizen child attains the age of 21, which is also entirely illegal.

Both realities cannot be true.

Yet, every single time this fundamental contradiction previously approached the Supreme Court, the justices punted and refused to hear it.

Look at the thousands of Chinese babies born here annually through "maternity tourism," "anchor babies," or "passport babies". We see roughly 20,000 of these births each year.

But there is more.

You don’t even have to be born on mainland American soil; if a birth occurs in a U.S. territory, birthright citizenship still applies.

A measurable portion of these legal citizens are born in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (Saipan), a U.S. Pacific territory. Because Saipan allowed visa-free travel for Chinese nationals for many years, local records showed a massive boom where hundreds of babies were born to Chinese tourists annually—at times outnumbering births to local American residents on the island.

How convenient.

"Grant" means to give; "claim" means to take.

These babies are claimed and documented as U.S. citizens, yet they are also claimed by China.

How do we square this as a nation?

Do we do as God asked Abraham to do and cut the baby in half?

I understand a communist country claiming ownership over people, but no place in our Constitution does it give the United States government the right to claim ownership of its citizens.

Justice Clarence Thomas issued a brilliant 91-page dissent that is a must-read for anyone wanting to see the likely chaotic results of this no-brain decision.

Meanwhile, Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority in striking down the executive order, but he wrote a separate opinion leaving a clear roadmap of how to solve the problem. He concluded that the executive order merely conflicted with existing federal law, not the Constitution itself.

As Justice Kavanaugh explicitly stated:

"The Executive Order does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. But the Order does contravene 8 U. S. C. §1401(a). Consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress could amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But Congress has not yet done so."

Although I disagree with his final vote, Kavanaugh set forward a legitimate, strict constitutionalist argument with proper standing.

The rest of the justices voting for birthright citizenship are simply making law from the bench.

If the American people want to fix the crisis of birth tourism and anchor residency, we must stop looking to judicial activists.

The roadmap is clear, and the ball is now entirely in Congress's court.

Anyone wanting the full text of TRUMP v. BARBARA (birthright citizenship) can go to Supremecourt.gov and download the PDF file and read it. Although it is very long it is pretty easy to understand.