Curtis Hill: Supreme Court Cheapens Citizenship: A Misreading of the 14th Amendment’s Purpose

Domicile Isn't a Real Argument For Citizenship Says Wydra

A divided US Supreme Court upheld the constitutional right of birthright citizenship, rejecting President Donald Trump’s planned restrictions and invalidating a central plank of his immigration agenda. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented. National citizenship was not an independent concept but simply derivative of state citizenship. “Every citizen of a state,” it was often said, was “ipso facto a citizen of the United States.” In these contexts, too, national citizenship required domicile because state citizenship required domicile. Justice Thomas wrote. Elizabeth Wydra, President of the Constitutional Accountability Center joined Balance of Power to discuss. (Source: Bloomberg)

Justice Thomas Weighs In On Birthright Citizenship Ruling

Justice Clarence Thomas sharply criticized the Supreme Court majority for reading the Constitution to guarantee automatic citizenship to anyone born in the United States, no matter the immigration status of that child’s parents. In a lengthy dissent, Thomas argued that the ruling weakens the meaning of American citizenship and stretches the Fourteenth Amendment beyond what [] The post Justice Thomas Weighs In On Birthright Citizenship Ruling appeared first on Red Right Patriot.

Big Wins, Bigger Losses: Trump's Dramatic Day At The Supreme Court

The US Supreme Court's rulings on birthright citizenship, immigration, and presidential power matter for Indian students, professionals and diaspora families in the US, bringing relief on citizenship...

U.S. Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship, rejecting Trump order

The justices relied on a long-settled understanding of the 14th Amendment and federal law in ruling that anyone born in the U.S., with very limited exceptions, is a citizen.

Citizenship Follies

The administration was never going to win the birthright citizenship case before the Supreme Court. Changing something as fundamental as our current practices regarding membership in the national community shouldn’t be changed by executive order. But the real losers from Tuesday’s decision are the American people. That’s because the high court didn’t just strike down ...