SCOTUS Says Civil War Was About Protecting Birth Tourists
Teh U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that children born in the United States to illegal aliens and foreign nationals,including those operating birth tourism schemes,are automatically citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court’s decision ties this interpretation to the Civil War era and the historical intent of the amendment, suggesting that the goal was to allow foreigners to gain U.S. citizenship by having children on American soil. This ruling is criticized for its historical accuracy by Justice Clarence Thomas and others, who argue that it misrepresents the amendment’s original purpose. The decision has led to concerns over birth tourism scams, exemplified by Chinese nationals and businesses facilitating births in the U.S. to secure citizenship for their children. Critics contend that the Court’s reasoning is flawed and driven by political motives rather than historical fact.
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Civil War was apparently fought so that illegal aliens and Chinese nationals who have set up birth tourism companies in the United States could have anchor babies.
The Supreme Court held that “Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.” Four of the justices agreed that the 14th Amendment does not confer automatic citizenship.
In justifying their decision, the high court argued the ruling is rooted in the Civil War itself. According to the Court’s historical account (which was rebuked by Justice Clarence Thomas), one of the greatest achievements of the generation that fought the Civil War and created the 14th Amendment was to permit millions of foreign nationals to come here, drop a baby out, and have that child become “American.”
“In the midst of the Civil War, Attorney General Edward Bates issued a landmark opinion citing key authorities, including Calvin’s Case and Kent’s Commentaries, rejecting the premise that ‘citizenship is ever hereditary,’ and declaring that ‘every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen, . . . without any reference to race or color,’” the Court wrote. The opinion then tied that to Reconstruction.
“A year after General Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, Congress sought to turn Bates’s opinion into law. The result was the Civil Rights Act of 1866… What the Civil Rights Act began, the Fourteenth Amendment, and its reputation of Dred Scott, would finish.”
According to the narrow majority, Congress sought “to put the ‘great question of citizenship’ ‘beyond the legislative power’ altogether, to settle the issue once and for all.”
“The Fourteenth Amendment achieved its aim,” the court held, as if the “aim” of the 14th Amendment was ever to guarantee that illegal aliens or foreign nationals who set up birth tourism schemes could have “American” babies. “The Citizenship Clause mirrored the common law’s criteria for citizenship, starting with territory ( a child must be ‘born … in the United States’) and ending with sovereign power (a child must be ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States). A child born on American soil and subject to American law was made an American citizen.”
It’s a ludicrous assertion that now legitimizes the scams being run by the Chinese, for example. Take Chinese billionaire Xu Bo, who has reportedly fathered more than 100 children — possibly more — through surrogacy agencies in the United States. Xu himself has never lived in the United States. But, as a result of the twisted logic that was codified by the high court, his children are citizens and can run for president one day. But Xu isn’t the only Chinese national purposely having children in the United States. Take the Have My Baby in Miami clinic, which is a business that allows foreign nationals using temporary visitor visas to travel to the country to give birth and make a paperwork American. Republicans in Congress are investigating the birth tourism schemes.
But as Thomas wrote in his dissent, “the Court’s account is not historically accurate.”
Thomas points out that the Court twisted an amendment “designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks” for “political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support.”
As The Federalist’s CEO and co-founder Sean Davis said on X: “The Roberts/Barrett take on the 14th is entirely inconsistent with actual history, language, and common sense. They’re not actually stupid enough to believe it. Which means this entire decision was driven by their own cowardice and craven desire to be liked.”
Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist. Brianna graduated from Fordham University with a degree in International Political Economy. Her work has been featured on Newsmax, Fox News, Fox Business and RealClearPolitics. Follow Brianna on X: @briannalyman2
" 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
