Alito: Roberts Sold Out Declaration Of Independence Before 250th
Chief justice John Roberts recently stated that all foreigners born in the United States are automatically entitled to American citizenship, effectively echoing the British system of birthright subjecthood. Justice Samuel Alito dissented, criticizing this view as a revival of colonial British principles rejected by the american founders, emphasizing that the American understanding of citizenship is fundamentally different. Alito pointed out that historically,”subjects” in Britain were not considered “citizens,” and the Declaration of Independence explicitly rejected British sovereignty and the basis of British law. He further argued that applying the British birthright rule to the U.S. is inconsistent with the Constitution, which emphasizes government deriving its power from the consent of the governed. Alito also criticized Roberts for potentially making decisions that could threaten American sovereignty, such as allowing non-citizens with no allegiance to hold presidential office. He highlighted the importance of adhering to original constitutional meanings and cautioned against decisions driven by fear of consequences.The debate centers on weather current legal interpretations align with the Constitution’s principles or if they impose outdated Colonial-era rules on modern America.
Chief Justice John Roberts declared Tuesday that all foreigners have a claim to American citizenship, so long as they happen to be born here. In doing so, as Justice Samuel Alito pointed out, he reimposed the British system of subjecthood totally rejected by the American founders “only days before” the country is set to celebrate its 250th anniversary of independence from that very system.
“According to the Court, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause codified the British rule of birthright subjecthood with only one new exception, which was needed to accommodate the unique status of American Indians,” Alito wrote, dissenting from Roberts’ attempt to reimpose medieval feudalism. “That is a curious claim, and it is ironic that the Court should embrace it only days before we celebrate the 250th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence, which emphatically renounced the foundation on which the British rule rested.”
Alito explained further that the concept of “citizenship” was not part of the British understanding of a person’s association with government. “That rule did not concern ‘citizenship.’ There was no such thing as a ‘citizen’ of England, Scotland, or Ireland. The inhabitants of the British Isles were the King’s ‘subjects,’” he wrote.
Alito went on to explain that “in this system of soil and servitude, the Court sees ‘emancipation.’ But our Founders disagreed. The Declaration of Independence emphatically rejected the British theory of government. It proclaimed that governments ‘deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed,’ not divine right. And it ‘[a]bsolved’ the people of the United States ‘from all Allegiance to the British Crown.’ With its foundation blown away, the British rule of birthright subjecthood was not suited for easy incorporation into American law.”
‘Too Much Is at Stake’
Alito also took the opportunity to not-so-subtly criticize Roberts’ fecklessness on the court.
Roberts is infamous for working overtime to find a meek, middle-ground result that exacerbates or does little to solve the issues at hand. Despite the dire consequences of this decision, such as allowing foreigners who have zero allegiance to the United States to become presidents, this decision must be no different in Roberts’ mind: It maintains the status quo, even if that status quo is an existential threat to the republic.
“The original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require inhumane results, and we should not adopt an erroneous interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment simply out of fear of the consequences of ‘rocking the boat’ or as a reaction to current immigration policy,” Alito wrote. “Nor should we take the position that our hands are tied by dicta in a sprawling 19th-century opinion that is, to put the point gently, very far from a model of careful judicial craftsmanship. Too much is at stake.”
United States citizenship is precious. Anyone who has attended a ceremony where citizens are naturalized can see that message on the faces of those who take the citizenship oath. Before saddling the Nation with a medieval rule, we had better be certain the Constitution requires it.
Alito then went on to summarize the majority’s reasoning before dismissing it entirely:
The Court’s account of the birthright-citizenship rule in American law is roughly as follows. After American independence, the British rule of birthright subjecthood was modified in just one way (to take account of Indians who lived under tribal governance), but otherwise the rule was transplanted intact to American soil. As modified, the rule was that a child born in this country is automatically an American citizen unless the child is born to tribal Indians or to a diplomat with immunity from legal process. During the period before the Civil War, the rule’s status was firm. After the war, Congress codified the rule in §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. And in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649 (1898), this Court issued a binding precedent confirming what Congress had done.
“Every step of this story is incorrect,” Alito wrote. “The Declaration of Independence repudiated the foundation on which the British rule was based.”
Breccan F. Thies is the White House correspondent for The Federalist. He is a co-recipient of the 2025 Dao Prize for Excellence in Investigative Journalism. As an investigative journalist, he previously covered education and culture issues for the Washington Examiner and Breitbart News. He holds a degree from the University of Virginia and is a 2022 Claremont Institute Publius Fellow. You can follow him on X: @BreccanFThies.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
