The issue of birthright citizenship is scheduled to be argued on April 1 in the Supreme Court, and an opinion is expected in late June, early July.
The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, which liberals claim grants citizenship to all persons born in the United States regardless of the circumstances, has worked against U.S. interests for decades.
Investigative reporter and author Peter Schweizer released a new book last month titled "The Invisible Coup," in which he explains how other countries encourage "birth tourism" in the United States to create "anchor babies."
The wife of drug lord Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán traveled to Los Angeles in 2011 to give birth and American citizenship to their child.
"A U.S. citizen who has a baby in another country must apply for citizenship for the child through the consulate, which would have been complicated by being married to the most famous criminal in North America," Schweizer wrote in his book.
In another case, Juan Carlos Valencia González recently took the helm of the notorious "Jalisco New Generation" cartel. His mother, a Mexican national who also works in the cartel, traveled to California 41 years ago to give birth and U.S. citizenship to her son, the then-future crime lord.
But this could all change by mid-summer.
The 14th Amendment is the second of the post-Civil War Reconstruction Amendments. The 13th bans involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime, and the 15th grants the right to vote regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
In addition to addressing citizenship rights, the 14th Amendment grants equal protection under the law at all levels of government.
The intent of Congress in approving and the states in ratifying the Reconstruction Amendments was to make the emancipated slaves free Americans in every respect. Slavery was banned, they enjoyed equal protection of the law, and they could vote.
The 14th Amendment wasn’t about foreign nationals creating “anchor babies,” or establishing a new industry called “birth tourism.”
The citizenship clause provides that "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.” (emphasis added)
On the first day in office of his second term, President Donald Trump signed "Executive Order 14160—Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship." In it he argued that "anchor babies" weren't "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
Therefore, beginning 30 days after the date that the order was signed, U.S. citizenship would be denied "(1) when that person's mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person's father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth, or (2) when that person's mother's presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person's father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth."
Eighty-two years before the 14th Amendment was ratified, one of America's Founders appeared to agree with Trump's reasoning that foreign nationals were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to John Adams dated Feb. 7, 1786, that "aliens are the subjects of a foreign power."
That suggests that because of their allegiance to a foreign country, their children can’t be U.S. citizens simply because they were born within the United States. It takes more than that.
Seventy-one amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs have been filed so far in the birthright citizenship case pending in the high court. Of them:
- 25 were filed in support of the Petitioner (Trump)
- 45 for the Respondent
- One was filed in support of neither party
Court watchers have already called two other recent cases in favor of the Trump administration on the basis of the questions and comments from the justices.
In one, Watson v. Republican National Committee, an important election integrity case, the justices appeared ready to overturn a state law that permits the counting of late-arriving mail-in ballots.
In the second, Noem v. Al Otro Lado, the Court appears likely to side with the administration's policy of systematically turning away asylum-seekers before they reach the U.S.-Mexican border.
Both of those cases were heard last week, and if the court rules according to predictions, they would represent big wins for the administration.
But birthright citizenship is the Big Kahuna, scheduled to be argued Wednesday. If the administration wins that one it'll represent a huge win for American sovereignty.
It'll answer the question: is this our country, or does it belong to everyone who wanders into it?
Michael Dorstewitz is a retired lawyer and is a frequent contributor to Newsmax. He's also a former U.S. Merchant Marine officer and a Second Amendment supporter. Read more Michael Dorstewitz Insider articles — Click Here Now.
© 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.