(A)Political - December 6th

Good morning everyone,

Capitol Hill did not bring a slow news cycle this week. Let’s find out why!

The highest court in the U.S. will hear Trump’s plea to end birthright citizenship for ‘anchor babies’. USDA Sec. Rollins is withholding SNAP funds from 21 states for a refusal to hand over data. An alleged D.C. Pipe bomb suspect appeared in court yesterday in what federal authorities are alleging as a massive plot.

• SCOTUS Takes Up Birthright Citizenship Case

• USDA Withholds SNAP Funds From 21 States

• Alleged Jan 6th Pipe Bomb Suspect D.C. Caught, Arrives In Court

SCOTUS Takes Up Birthright Citizenship Case

_{By: Atlas}

The Supreme Court has announced it will hear arguments in Trump v. Barbara, a case directly challenging the long-standing principle of birthright citizenship in the United States. President Donald Trump’s executive order, which would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants or those on temporary visas, has brought one of the nation’s most contentious political issues before its highest court.

Beyond the political headlines, the case revives a constitutional debate over 150 years old, with surprising origins and far-reaching consequences that could affect every American. This is not simply about immigration policy; it is a fundamental re-examination of what it means to be a citizen, who gets to decide, and the surprising practical consequences that could impose new bureaucratic burdens and a literal "baby tax" on every American family.

This article explores the most impactful and unexpected takeaways from this historic legal battle, moving past the rhetoric to the core constitutional principles, historical precedents, and practical realities at stake.

1. The Real Fight is Over a 125-Year-Old Precedent Involving a Chinese-American Cook

The current debate is not new. It is a direct challenge to a foundational Supreme Court precedent set over a century ago in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Decided in 1898, this case remains the cornerstone of birthright citizenship in America.

Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were permanent residents but, due to discriminatory laws like the Chinese Exclusion Act, were legally ineligible to become U.S. citizens themselves. After traveling abroad, Wong Kim Ark was denied re-entry into the United States on the grounds that he was not a citizen. The case reached the Supreme Court, which had to decide if a person born on U.S. soil to foreign parents was a citizen under the 14th Amendment.

In a 6-2 ruling, the Court affirmed Wong Kim Ark’s citizenship. Justice Horace Gray, writing for the majority, established that the 14th Amendment embraced the "ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory," a principle known as jus soli (law of the soil). This decision solidified the understanding that, with very narrow exceptions, birth on U.S. soil confers U.S. citizenship. The current legal challenge is therefore a bid to overturn a precedent that served as a crucial bulwark against the explicit goals of the anti-Asian immigration policies of the 19th century.

2. The Entire Legal Battle Hinges on Redefining Just Two Words

At its core, the administration's legal challenge comes down to a proposed reinterpretation of just two words in the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause: "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The clause states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."

For over a century, the meaning of this phrase was considered settled law. The current case presents a modern reinterpretation designed to challenge that long-standing precedent. The legal dispute centers on two starkly different readings of the clause:

• The Traditional View: For over 125 years, this has been interpreted to mean anyone born on U.S. soil who is subject to its laws. This is a stable pillar of constitutional law, with only narrow exceptions for individuals born with a unique political status, such as the children of foreign diplomats or of an invading army, who are not fully subject to the host country's laws.

• The Administration's Argument: The administration is using a new battering ram against that precedent, claiming the phrase has a much narrower meaning. They argue it requires owing "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, a condition met only if a parent has "a permanent domicil and residence" in the country. This redefinition would exclude the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants and individuals on temporary visas, such as students or guest workers.

The administration’s Solicitor General, D. John Sauer, framed this position in his appeal to the Supreme Court:

"The Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause was adopted to grant citizenship to newly freed slaves and their children — not … to the children of aliens illegally or temporarily in the United States."

3. Ending Birthright Citizenship Would Create a New American Underclass

A policy intended to curb illegal immigration would, counter-intuitively, cause the unauthorized population to grow dramatically over time. If U.S.-born children of non-citizen parents are denied citizenship, they do not automatically inherit the citizenship of their parents' home country, and there is no alternative legal status for them under current U.S. law, effectively rendering them stateless at birth.

Projections from the Migration Policy Institute estimate that by 2050, repealing birthright citizenship would add 4.7 million U.S.-born individuals to the unauthorized population. This would institutionalize a permanent, hereditary caste system of people born and raised in the United States but locked out of the formal economy and society—a concept antithetical to American ideals.

Civil rights advocates warn this would create a "permanent, multigenerational subclass" of people denied the fundamental rights and opportunities of citizenship. As the ACLU stated in response to the executive order:

"We will continue fighting this cruel executive order to ensure that every child born in the United States has their right to citizenship protected instead of being relegated to a permanent, multigenerational subclass of people born in the U.S. but who are denied full rights."

4. It Could Create a New Bureaucracy for Every American Family

One of the most overlooked consequences of ending birthright citizenship is the massive bureaucratic apparatus that would be required to manage it—a system that would affect every family in America, not just immigrants. If birth on U.S. soil is no longer sufficient proof of citizenship, a new, universal verification system would become necessary.

Under such a system, every parent of every newborn in the U.S. would have to prove their own citizenship or legal immigration status simply to get a birth certificate for their child. An analysis from the Cato Institute frames this as a massive new bureaucratic hurdle for all American families.

This process would come with significant costs. The Cato Institute estimates the administrative burden would be equivalent to a "$600 baby tax on every child born in the United States," totaling approximately $2.4 billion per year in new costs for American households. This shift would transform a simple, bright-line rule into a complex and expensive process, making the issue of birthright citizenship deeply personal for every American.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Barbara will extend far beyond immigration policy. It is a re-examination of a core constitutional promise, forcing a confrontation with a 125-year-old precedent born from an earlier era of anti-immigrant sentiment. The outcome carries profound consequences that could reshape the nation’s social fabric and create new administrative burdens for every citizen.

Over 125 years ago, the Supreme Court affirmed the citizenship of a Chinese cook’s son against a tide of racial animus. Today, it must decide if that same constitutional promise holds for the children of a new generation of immigrants, forcing the nation to confront a fundamental question: Is being an American defined by the simple fact of birth on its soil, or by a government's evolving definition of who is worthy to belong?

Subscribe to (A)Political to read the rest.