By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Stephen Miller, a key figure in the Trump administration’s immigration policies, has urged the Supreme Court to issue a unanimous decision overturning birthright citizenship, arguing that anything less would signify a non-functioning democracy. He contends that the 14th Amendment, originally intended to enfranchise formerly enslaved people, was not meant to grant automatic citizenship to the children of immigrants. Miller emphasized that a country allowing individuals to gain citizenship simply by setting foot on U.S. soil and having a child would diminish the sanctity of citizenship itself, posing a threat to the nation’s future. The Supreme Court has heard arguments on this matter, with President Trump also attending some proceedings.
Read the original article here
Stephen Miller has voiced a strong desire for the Supreme Court to issue a unanimous ruling against the principle of birthright citizenship. This call for a complete reversal of a long-standing interpretation of American law is met with considerable skepticism and opposition, primarily because it directly challenges the foundational text of the Constitution. The idea that a ruling against birthright citizenship could be unanimous among the current Supreme Court justices is seen as highly improbable by many, given the established legal precedent and the explicit wording of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment, specifically Section 1, is the cornerstone of the argument for birthright citizenship. It clearly states, “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.” This language has been understood for generations to mean that anyone born on American soil is automatically a citizen, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. The historical context of this amendment, enacted after the Civil War to ensure citizenship for formerly enslaved people and to counter discriminatory rulings like Dred Scott, further solidifies its intent to be inclusive.
The Supreme Court itself has previously upheld the concept of birthright citizenship, most notably in the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark. This legal precedent reinforces the understanding that the principle of *jus soli*, or the right of soil, is deeply embedded in American jurisprudence. Therefore, the notion that the current Supreme Court would unanimously overturn this established interpretation, especially without a constitutional amendment, is viewed as a radical departure from its intended role as an interpreter, not a creator, of law.
Those who advocate for maintaining birthright citizenship point out that the power to alter the Constitution lies with Congress and the states, not the Supreme Court. Amending the Constitution is a rigorous process requiring proposal by a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress or by a constitutional convention, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the states. The Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution, but it cannot fundamentally change its text or provisions. Therefore, any attempt to eliminate birthright citizenship would necessitate a constitutional amendment, a path widely considered politically unfeasible.
The call for a unanimous ruling against birthright citizenship by Stephen Miller is often viewed as a political maneuver rather than a serious legal proposal. Critics suggest that such a stance serves to rally a specific base and provoke debate, rather than reflect a genuine belief in the legal achievability of such a ruling. The idea of questioning the citizenship of individuals born in the U.S. also raises concerns about the potential for widespread instability and the erosion of fundamental rights, potentially leading to a situation where no one’s citizenship is truly secure.
Furthermore, the assertion that the United States is unique in its practice of birthright citizenship is factually incorrect. Many countries around the world, numbering in the dozens, also grant citizenship based on place of birth. This counters a common argument used by opponents of birthright citizenship, highlighting that the concept itself is not an anomaly in the global legal landscape. The debate, therefore, centers on adherence to established constitutional principles versus a desire for immigration policy changes that would require a significant constitutional overhaul.
The overwhelming sentiment expressed by those commenting on this issue is that a unanimous Supreme Court ruling against birthright citizenship is virtually impossible and goes against the plain meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. The expectation is that any ruling on the matter would likely affirm existing law, potentially with dissenting opinions from justices who favor a narrower interpretation, but certainly not a unanimous reversal. The legal framework and historical precedent strongly favor the continuation of birthright citizenship, making any call for its abolition through judicial fiat appear, to many, as an attempt to circumvent the constitutional amendment process.