Some Real Talk About the Iran Deal
How Did ‘I’ll Fight the Jews’ Become a Selling Point For Democrats?
This Is America, FIFA
Wrong!
LA Does Not Love LA
Same S**t, Different Day
Pool Attacks Reflect the Left's Insanity
Your Castle, Their Plans: 21 Years After Kelo, the Government Still Holds the...
America Needs Fewer Performers and More Adults
No Ceasefire in the Islamic Republic’s War Against Women
Trump to Pardon 250 for 250: Will Paul Petersen, Imprisoned Victim of Lawfare,...
Colombia's Socialist Despot Blames Israel After Electoral Loss to Trump-Backed Candidate
More Than 20 Shot in Chicago Over Weekend As Trump Offers Help
This NYT Father's Day Article Will Make You Vomit
Sen. Gallego Under Fire for Using Campaign Cash on Super Bowl Tickets, Family...
Tipsheet
Premium

You Won’t Believe Justice Jackson’s Arguments Against Ending Birthright Citizenship

You Won’t Believe Justice Jackson’s Arguments Against Ending Birthright Citizenship
AP Photo/Patrick Semansky

Oral arguments ensued on Wednesday in Trump v. Barbara, a case that could redefine birthright citizenship in the United States.

The Trump administration specifically is attempting to end “birth tourism,” where illegal immigrants or citizens of foreign adversaries come to the U.S. while pregnant, give birth to an American citizen, and potentially use the child to gain legal advantages in the country.

One of the key arguments revolved around the definition of “allegiance” as applied to the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment. A key argument of Solicitor General John Sauer was that being “subject to the jurisdiction” requires a meaningful and ongoing allegiance to the U.S., which it claims illegal immigrants and certain visitors do not fully owe because they entered unlawfully or only temporarily.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court’s newest member appointed by President Biden, made her presence felt, drawing odd and often inapplicable comparisons and quoting figures she admitted she wasn’t familiar with.

"I was thinking about this, and I think there are various sources that say this, that you can have, you obviously have permanent allegiance based on being born in whatever country you're from," Justice Jackson said. "That's what everybody recognizes. But you also have local allegiance when you are on the soil of this other sovereign."

She went on to pose a hypothetical as a U.S. citizen in Japan.

"If I steal someone's wallet in Japan, the Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me," she said. "It's allegiance meaning, can they control you as a matter of law? I can also rely on them if my wallet is stolen, to, you know, under Japanese law, go and prosecute the person who has stolen it. So there's this relationship based on, even though I'm a temporary traveler, I'm just on vacation in Japan, I'm still locally owing allegiance in that sense."

Her argument was criticized online for conflating simple territorial jurisdiction with citizenship law. Since jurisdiction does not require any allegiance, but citizenship is a permanent status with lasting effects, it demands a deeper, more ongoing bond of loyalty and membership in the political community that is not present in the temporary legal relationship involved in prosecuting a simple crime.

She even brought up sources she had little familiarity with.

This comes as critics continue to dismiss Justice Jackson as little more than a DEI appointment, noting that President Biden pledged to nominate a Black woman to the Court with little emphasis on merit.

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement