Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in favor of birthright citizenship has sparked a vigorous response from both lawmakers and commentators intent on ending birth tourism and protecting both citizenship and election integrity in America.

“Upset with the SCOTUS decision today?” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) asked in a social media post Tuesday about the decision in Trump v. Barbara. “Call your senator at (202) 224-3121 and tell them to support my Constitutional Amendment to end Birthright Citizenship. We must protect the integrity of American citizenship.”

Paul introduced the amendment April 30, explaining that “[u]nder current interpretations of American law, anyone born on American soil automatically becomes a U.S. citizen, regardless of whether the parent was here legally or not.”

“This is wrong,” he asserted, “and not at all the intent of those who wrote the 14th Amendment. We are a country filled with immigrants, and legal immigration is valuable and should be protected.”

The Kentucky senator said America is also a country whose borders have been undermined and whose “generosity” has also been “exploited too often.”

Praising President Donald Trump’s work to close the border to illegal immigrants, Paul added, nevertheless, that there is still more to do.

“We need to make sure that only children born to legal residents of the U.S. are automatically citizens,” he wrote soon after the Court heard oral arguments in the case. “I have supported protecting birthright citizenship from abuse since the beginning of my tenure in the Senate, when I cosponsored the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011, and now I am proposing an amendment to protect United States citizenship in case the Supreme Court fails to address this issue correctly.”

As Paul then stated Wednesday morning, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said, in fact, that the Court failed big time in its duties.

In his dissent, Alito wrote that the decision in Trump v. Barbara is “one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court, and in my judgment, the Court has made a serious mistake.”

The justice continued:

As interpreted by the Court today, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on virtually everyone who happens to be born in this country, including the children of “birth tourists,” women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child and then promptly return home. Careful analysis of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the process that led to its adoption shows that it does not degrade the concept of United States citizenship in this way. Instead, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.

Citing Alito, Paul said that the 14th Amendment “was never intended to reward the millions who have poured across our border illegally. This court ruling twists the Constitution and undermines the very meaning of American citizenship.”

In his own dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the Court’s decision “devalues” American citizenship:

The Court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President’s Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens. In doing so, the Court adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Missouri) asserts the Court has engaged in essentially “constitutionalizing unlimited birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens and temporarily present aliens.”

The decision is “wrong, dangerous and disastrous for American sovereignty and the American people,” and “exposes America to grave national security risks,” Schmitt added, noting that if legislation does not fix the problem, “[w]e must amend the Constitution and restore American citizenship. We must again put ‘We the People’ first.”

U.S. Rep. Abe Hamadeh (R-Arizona) also said Congress must “fill the void” with the Save America Act - tremendously popular with Americans, but not so with some Senate Republicans, including Majority Leader John Thune (R-South Dakota).

“The Left learned after the Supreme Court failed to stop the 2020 steal that they could weaponize mail-in ballots with zero consequences,” Hamadeh continued as he focused on the current Court’s 5-4 decision in Watson v. the Republican National Committee.

That decision, released Monday, held “federal election-day statutes do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day but received up to five days thereafter.”

“[N]othing in the federal election-day statutes requires ballots to be received by election day,” the Court added.

“The Watson decision confirms the Court has fully abdicated the fight for election integrity,” Hamadeh wrote. “The courts won’t save us—Congress must fill the void. The Save America Act isn’t revolutionary; it’s common sense. Without basic safeguards, what’s the point of our elections?”

Journalists and political commentators have also outright condemned the Court’s decision on birthright citizenship.

Fox News contributor and editor-in-chief at The Federalist Mollie Hemingway called the decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, “devastatingly bad” and on par with those in the Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade cases.

Referring to this “major defeat,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) commented on the decision’s scope.

“It is a substantive decision that says the 14th amendment requires citizenship for those born to, among others, birth tourists or those unlawfully present in the country,” he wrote in a social media post. “Will need either a constitutional amendment or a future court to overrule this.”

Writing at First Things, Rachel Bovard of the Conservative Partnership Institute said Roberts’ decision is one that “will rank among the most consequential—and misguided—of the modern era.”

The Supreme Court, she wrote, has “entrenched an expansive vision of birthright citizenship, fundamentally reshaping the boundaries of the American political community.”

It appears most who recognize the devastating blow the Court’s decision has delivered to the nation also acknowledge the repair must lie with Congress.

Law professor and legal analyst Jonathan Turley stated the same in his column.

“On birthright citizenship, the matter now rests not with the court but the country,” Turley wrote, explaining that it’s time for the American people and their representatives to debate the practice.

“We must now decide whether to pursue such a debate as a constitutional amendment,” he said, adding that while Congress “can pass legislation cracking down on birth tourism, there is only so much that such laws can do in questioning why particular births occurred in the United States.”

“I can think of no more appropriate debate to have as we celebrate our 250th anniversary than what it means to be a citizen of this unique republic,” Turley concluded.

‘NO AD’ subscription for CDM!  Sign up here and support real investigative journalism and help save the republic!'