To put it mildly, the US Supreme Court has been at the center of a lot of controversy over the past few decades. From the various rulings around Roe v Wade to however the fuck Ketanji Brown Jackson got a seat with the High Court while simultaneously being one-tenth of a halfwit, it’s a miracle there aren’t more protests.

After the recent rulings about birthright citizenship, though, there might be a few more coming down the pike. Immigration debates are already highly charged in the first place, and the Right hoped the 6-3 conservative majority would rule the practice would go the way of former President Brick Tamland’s sway over the Left.

Wellllll…it didn’t go that way. In Trump v Barbara, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to strike President Trump’s Executive Order banning birthright citizenship. The Left were happy in spite of convincing themselves the court would uphold it. The Right were unhappy because they thought the 6-3 majority would guarantee it.

As for me…well, I have a headache thinking about the concept, so in lieu of aspirin, I decided to look into it further.

You’re welcome…I guess.

birthright citizenship

What the Left thinks it means – a way for newborns from foreign parents to become American citizens that should be maintained

What the Right thinks it means – a way for newborns from illegal immigrant parents to become American citizens that should be eliminated

What it really means – a simple idea complicated by politics

So, we’re all on the same page before moving into the sexy part of this controversy, we have to define what birthright citizenship actually is. Basically, it’s the idea if you’re born on American soil, that makes you an American. That’s going to piss off more than a few Leftists, but that’s not important right now. The crux of the idea comes from the 14th Amendment, which states in part as follows:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Seems pretty straightforward, right? And it was for a lot of years until someone got it in his/her (still 2 genders for those of you playing along at home) head that this would cover the children of illegal immigrants. And based on a plain reading of the 14th Amendment, I can’t find fault with that conclusion from a logical standpoint.

Until we add that little thing the kids today like to call context. The author of the section of the 14th Amendment quoted above was a man named John Bingham. His history prior to writing the 14th Amendment is interesting, so you might want to read about it using this link. For those who don’t, let me break it down.

Bingham saw racial injustice towards blacks and wanted to end it through targeted legislation. He failed at first, but eventually got it done.

Now, what does this have to do with the current state of birthright citizenship? Glad you asked because if not I would have had to come up with something witty to put here, and we know how well that works!

In his speech introducing the 14th Amendment, Bingham anticipated how future/current generations would try to adapt it to their needs, but focused primarily on how it would impact blacks, who had just experienced a painful history of being treated as less than human. Although this is a limited focus, it’s essential to understanding the context. Bingham didn’t want this to become a means for states to treat blacks as non-citizens under their laws, but a baseline for Congress to enact new laws to expand on the concepts within the Amendment. And they did.

And then they didn’t when it came to illegal immigration.

This is when President Trump took action, and when the Left lost their collectivist minds. One Supreme Court decision later, and here we are.

You may be asking “Thomas, what do you think of the decision?” You may also be asking “Thomas, why are you dressed like Ernest Borgnine in a tutu?” First off, don’t kink-shame me. Second of all, how did you get in my house?

But to answer the first question, as much as it will piss off the Right, the Supreme Court made the right decision, kinda. Here’s what I mean.

Section 5 of the 14th Amendment reads as follows:

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

As the big fan of the Constitution as I am, I can see the fundamental flaw with this section, namely being the Executive Branch is the enforcement arm of the government. Having said that, the 14th Amendment puts the onus on Congress to enforce it, so unfortunately any enforcement of the provisions falls on them.

Which means they’ll get around to it by the time we celebrate America’s 300th birthday.

The Executive Order President Trump made circumvented the process established with the 14th ratification. It asserted the power of the Executive Branch to do the job it’s been doing since 1787, but it also violated the Constitution, leading to the Supreme Court decision and the subsequent freakout.

The dissents on Trump v Barbara are worth reading if you have the time and a lot of coffee and truck stop speed because the history lesson and intent were laid out pretty thoroughly. You might want to read Justice Jackson’s dissent if only for the comedic concept that she calls out Justice Clarence Thomas by name to try to give him a dressing down. That’s like Dylan Mulvaney calling out Danny Trejo for not being as badass as he is.

So, what happens now? A lot of bitching and moaning without anything getting done. At the very least, Trump allies in Congress have a path forward to write legislation to address birthright citizenship. The problem is time is short, the problem continues to grow, and Leftists will call them racist. So, any Tuesday on Capitol Hill, pretty much.

To me, the concept of birthright citizenship has merit, but it also has a loophole that allows people to abuse it. Until that loophole gets fixed through the aforementioned legislative action, it’s going to continue to be a problem. It also raises a point about how far Constitutional provisions extend to illegal immigrants. Even as I write this, I see numerous touchpoints that intersect with birthright citizenship.

What’s the solution? I got nothing. We have allowed politicians to warp the Constitution so this matter can’t be undone without a lot of work, a united front willing to discuss it, and the courage to fix it once and for all so the loophole is closed tighter than a little black dress.

Well, I’m off to my cryogenic chamber to wait for the day this happens. Wake me when shit goes down.