The Trump administration has sought to restrict citizenship to children with at least one parent with citizenship or permanent legal status.
Alito warned in his dissent the ruling could have “grotesque results,” including an encouragement of “birth tourism,” and national security ramifications.
“If the Fourteenth Amendment required these results, the country would have to live with them or amend the Constitution,” he wrote. “But the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the rule the Court now imposes on the country.
“In my judgment, the Court has made a mistake that will seriously affect the country’s future,” he continued.
Alito accused the majority opinion of relying “on precedent that glosses the text” of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause and that their argument “fails on textualist grounds.”
The conservative justice specifically pointed to the 14th Amendment’s reference to a person who is “subject to the jurisdiction of,” arguing that the court’s majority failed to consider issues of dual citizenship.
For that last bit related to being “subject to the jurisdiction of," is he suggesting that foreigners aren’t subject to criminal prosecutions? Like, if some gal who is foreign and lacks citizenship/greencard/visa/foreign service/etc. snuck in and randomly shoots someone, they’d not be subject to US prosecution? What if they’re also apprehended with a ton of Schedule 1 narcotics? We supposed to be like “Ope! She’s not subject to US jurisdiction. So, we better send her home with a stern finger wagging.”
Can’t wait to read this fascist scumbag’s obituary.
He’s such a joke. If the results will be disastrous in the future, we would have seen that over the last century. And he knows this, which just shows that he doesn’t give a fuck about reality or facts.
Alito is insane.
Alito is a disgrace. I hope he’s removed from power soon
better the devil you know than some other psychopath
Removing him would give the jackass the opportunity to appoint a new ACB or Cavenaugh.
Both of whom, btw, voted that the 14th amendment was constitutional.
A Dem nomination would be better.
I would hope, perhaps foolishly, that those appointments would not be confirmed.
Under this Senate? Ha!
Pontificate on a pike, Alito
Eat shit and die!
Given that birthright citizenship has been the rule since the Civil War, is he saying that all of subsequent American history is an example of these “grotesque results”?
He doesn’t expect you to think!
My family’s been here since 1733 and never took a test. If birthright citizenship isn’t real then am I a citizen?
And if we’ve never been citizens, who do we sue to get back all the taxes we paid?
Don’t forget all of the back taxes you owe to the British crown!
Them Limeys will have to come and take them.
“Careful analysis of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the process that led to its adoption shows that it does not degrade the concept of United States citizenship in this way,” Alito wrote. “Instead, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.”
Hmm, let’s look a the actual text of the 14th amendment:
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.
The word “solely” doesn’t appear there once. There is absolutely nothing there that states that being a citizen of another country disqualifies you, or your kids. (If it did, it would be impossible to be naturalized as a US citizen without first renouncing your original citizenship). It’s obvious that this clause was meant to apply to diplomats and other people who get some forms of immunity from local prosecution.
What an asshat…
It’s ironic because Alitos family didn’t arrive from Italy until 1914 as well.
& us Italians weren’t even considered to be white people here until around the 1920’s
What kind of clown argues the constitution is unconstitutional
Citizens don’t owe allegiance to a state.
Alito wrote. “Instead, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.”
The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. Its primary purpose was to secure rights for formerly enslaved people, establishing birthright citizenship, barring states from denying “equal protection of the laws,” and ensuring “due process” for all individuals. Slaves were freed in 1865. Wonder how and when the former slaves became obligated to owe allegiance to the US after it had them enslaved for half their life.
Not to mention, that would mean that citizenship wouldn’t be granted to kids who have at least one parent with dual citizenship. As those kids could potentially be under the jurisdiction of the other country.
His reasoning in his dissent doesn’t hold up to even basic scrutiny.
Not to mention, that would mean that citizenship wouldn’t be granted to kids who have at least one parent with dual citizenship.
The Nazis had the same way of looking at ancestry for determining whether someone was Jewish.
who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.”
Like some kind of… Citizen?
Well, you actually do renounce any prior citizenships during the naturalization process.
Do you have a source for that? The US State Department website says you don’t.
The oath of alliegance (I can’t do fancy links on mobile easily: https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learn-about-citizenship/the-naturalization-interview-and-test/naturalization-oath-of-allegiance-to-the-united-states-of-america) you have to take as part of the naturalization process includes a renunciation clause. The link you have only talks about being a dual citizen through birth or gaining another citizenship while being a US citizen, not naturalizing while a citizen of elsewhere.
That oath doesn’t mean anything unless the other country recognizes it means something.
Here’s a link to a legal firm that claims that Canada just ignores that oath, and a Canadian who becomes an American citizen doesn’t lose their Canadian citizenship. On the other hand, the Germans apparently care, and revoke your German citizenship once you get naturalized in the US, all because of the oat h
The short answer is No. United States allows foreign nationals to naturalize and become U.S. citizens and the country also allows people to hold dual nationality. People who are citizens of foreign countries may become U.S. citizens and they may not be required to give up their current nationality.
Renouncing your previous citizenship is not really up to the U.S. Government but rather your previous country. Citizenship laws differ from country to country and some countries do not allow the citizens to hold dual citizenship.
Not for the U.S.
You have to do it if the other country doesn’t allow dual citizenship and has diplomatic relations with the U.S. to the point where the U.S. enforces it.
Alito’s birth was a serious mistake.
Every new breath Alito takes is a fucking mistake
Alito himself is a serious Baby Bush era mistake that has inflicted his toxicity on the US public for a couple of decades now
Bah! What are the Supreme Court Justices doing, relying on this pesky thing called ‘precedent’? They’re supposed to be making up justifications as they see fit, based on who invited them to their yacht or resort retreat!
He’s a serious mistake.
Given this ruling, if there are future considerations by Court I’m sure he’ll now recuse himself /s
The next challenge (edit: to the 14th amendment) will be shaped by this very dissent. That’s why Alito wrote it.
How does one prove that at least one of their parents is a citizen, considering that they also would need to prove that at least one of their parents is a citizen.
Also if this ruling went the other way we’d have millions of suddenly stateless Americans, more than the current count (Dreamers et. al)
Let me know when somebody “slams” alito into a fucking curb.
