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.”