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.”
Hmm, let’s look a the actual text of the 14th amendment:
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.
What kind of clown argues the constitution is unconstitutional
Republicans. Constantly.
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.
The Nazis had the same way of looking at ancestry for determining whether someone was Jewish.
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