Editorial: On the birthright matter, the US Constitution is pretty clear

As constitutional amendments go, the 14th is straightforward. Ratified in 1868 after Republicans in Congress had fiercely repudiated the notorious Dred Scott decision, it declares that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

The issue before the Supreme Court, which affirmed in a ruling released Tuesday that President Donald Trump's executive order ending so-called birthright citizenship violated the Constitution, was whether or not those born to parents in the country without authorization, called "anchor babies" by some, could be denied that citizenship.

Most European countries (including the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands and Sweden) do not automatically grant citizenship to those born on their soil in whatever circumstances. It is similarly rare in Asia: Not one nation among Japan, China, India, Israel, Iran, Taiwan, Thailand and Malaysia have that right. Most African countries don't either. Australia actually removed it in 1986; at least one of the birth parents must now be an Australian citizen or a permanent resident. But it has thrived in the Americas, land of immigrants.

So the Trump administration had an argument. We see the logic that for some who live abroad, the motivation of birthing a child with instant U.S. citizenship might result in an unauthorized crossing of the border, with all the risk that entails.

Justice Samuel Alito's dissent argues that illegal immigration did not exist as we know it today when the 14th Amendment was adopted and therefore its citizenship guarantees were never supposed to include the children of individuals who had unlawfully crossed U.S. borders with parents owing allegiance to a foreign power.

But from the U.S. point of view, that motivation to have an American kid with an American Dream can also be seen as affirmative of the values of a nation of immigrants.

We have said here many times that the U.S. has the right to restrict immigration, as does almost every nation in the world, and those federal laws should be respected by local officials, but we still choose to see it that way.

Moreover, we see little evidence that parents are using their American kids to help them jump the line themselves, certainly not in any worrying numbers. The process is too complex for that and typically requires those parents to return first to their home country.

We'd also note that those who stand with the likes of Australia can always strive for a constitutional amendment themselves.

So we're with Chief Justice John G. Roberts on this one: "Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights - to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.' We keep that promise today."

As well we should.

_____

Copyright 2026 Tribune Content Agency. All Rights Reserved.