Texas Republican leaders blast Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship

By Bethany Blankley
The Center Square

Texas Republicans are blasting the U.S. Supreme Court for ruling on Tuesday that the 14th Amendment citizenship clause applies to children born in the U.S. after the mother illegally entered the country.

The ruling is considered a major blow to the Trump administration and to law enforcement currently combatting extensive “birth tourism” criminal networks. The networks orchestrate illegal entry and visa fraud to facilitate foreign national women giving birth in the U.S. and are also connected to extensive welfare fraud, investigators have found. Prosecutions span from California to Texas to the Northern Mariana Islands.

President Donald Trump vowed to end birth tourism and abuse of birthright citizenship by illegal foreign nationals in both of his administrations.

In response to the ruling, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said it was “a missed opportunity to restore the original meaning of the 14th Amendment.

“Birthright citizenship has become a powerful magnet for illegal immigration that will forever change our nation if left unaddressed. Automatic citizenship for children born to parents in the United States illegally or only temporarily is an absurdity that was never contemplated by our Constitution nor agreed to by the American people,” Abbott said in a statement.

He also called on Congress to “clarify that American citizenship means something and does not extend automatically to children whose parents are in this country unlawfully or temporarily. The American people and the sovereignty of our nation deserve nothing less.”

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, described the ruling as “a travesty. The Fourteenth Amendment was written to overturn Dred Scott and guarantee citizenship to freed slaves – not to create automatic citizenship for the children of those who violate our immigration laws or are only temporarily in the United States.”

U.S. Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, agreed, citing dissenting Justice Clarence Thomas who “was right. Today’s ruling got it wrong. Illegal aliens shouldn’t be able to anchor themselves to our country simply because they crossed the border and gave birth. Birthright citizenship was never meant for people who had no right to be here in the first place,” he said.

Cruz also said the court “adopted an interpretation that departs from the original meaning of the Constitution and incentivizes illegal immigration” and “will only invite further exploitation of our immigration system.”

U.S. Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Texas, agreed, arguing the Supreme Court made “a major mistake” and the “completely insane” ruling was “begging fraudsters to take advantage.”

The solution, Cruz argues, is to restore “the original meaning of the Citizenship Clause,” the first sentence of the amendment. It states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Cruz has historically supported amending the Constitution to fix the clause. However, he and U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, also argue “Congress has the power to define what it means to be born in the United States ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’”

“While current law contains no such restriction, Congress could pass a law defining what it means to be born in the United States ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ excluding prospectively from birthright citizenship individuals born in the U.S. to illegal aliens,” Lee maintains, The Center Square reported.

After the ruling, Lee said that open border policies facilitating the illegal entry of millions of people who are still in the country, coupled with “unrestricted birthright citizenship” and “open-ended federal welfare system” was “a recipe for disaster.”

U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, opposes amending the Constitution, arguing it isn’t necessary. Congress must “define the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ very specifically to make clear that citizenship is tied to the citizenship of the parent, not the soil,” he said.

Congress must also “completely restrict funding from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security or any other agency or state that provides documentation and status to anyone not subject to the ‘jurisdiction thereof,’” Roy added.

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said Congress should also pass the Barring American Citizenship by Keeping Out Foreign Fraudsters Act, which he filed. “Foreign nationals are exploiting our laws and undermining our nation’s sovereignty” and the bill “would put a stop to the practice of birth tourism by adversaries like China and Russia,” he said.

Restricting birthright citizenship has historically been bipartisan, although Congress has failed to act.

In 1993, former U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-NV, proposed the Immigration Stabilization Act to impose statutory limitations on automatic birthright citizenship.

His bill “would have limited automatic birthright citizenship to children born in the United States to mothers who were either U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents at the time. The fact that federal law doesn’t currently impose such a restriction doesn’t mean that it couldn’t,” which is why Reid proposed it, Lee said, The Center Square reported.

The last time the Supreme Court ruled on birthright citizenship was in 1898. In this case, the court held that a child born in San Francisco to legal Chinese immigrants was a U.S. citizen. The case didn’t address the issue of children born in the U.S. to illegal border crossers or birth tourism participants involved in visa fraud.