The Federalist90%
SCOTUS Says Babies Of Illegal Aliens, CCP Birth Tourists Are US Citizens Because Of Magic Dirt 12%
By Shawn Fleetwood66%
6/30/2026, 4:14:23 PM
BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Straw Man, and Begging the Question, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 16.9% saturation with 120 hits. Analysis detected 473 faulty-reasoning hits from 709 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 28.8% and a BS Rank of 12% (18,735 of 21,198 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 88.40% of the article peer group.
In a major blow to American sovereignty, the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that children born to illegal aliens and foreign “birth tourists” on U.S. soil are citizens under the 14th Amendment.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred in the court’s judgement and dissented in part.
The case known as <em>Trump v.
Barbara</em> came to fruition last year, when Trump signed an executive order barring the federal government from producing or accepting certain documents purporting to recognize these birthplace citizens.
The directive was immediately challenged in court by proponents of granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens born on U.S. soil.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts <em>ruled</em> that the children born to parents “unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States” “satisfy both elements” of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause: “they are ‘born . . . in the United States’ and ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’”
Therefore, he reasoned, “they are citizens at birth” under the Constitution.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community.
The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’
… We keep that promise today,” Roberts wrote.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a concurring opinion, which Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined in part.
The Biden appointee specifically criticized Thomas's dissenting opinion and the government's position as one that “propose[s] a return” to the “core tenet” of the Supreme Court's 1857 <em>Dred Scott v.
Sanford</em> decision, which held that black Americans — whether freed or enslaved — were not U.S. citizens.
In his concurrence, Kavanaugh said that Trump's executive order violated federal law, but not the 14th Amendment.
In agreeing with the dissent that there is no constitutional “birthplace citizenship” right, he argued that “Congress could — consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment — amend [the law] or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country.”
In his blistering dissent, Thomas (while joined by Gorsuch) blasted the majority's account for not being “historically accurate.”
He emphasized that the court's <em>Barbara</em> decision “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.”
“I am not sure that today’s opinion will stand the test of time.
The Citizenship Clause ‘added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship.’
… Today’s opinion devalues that citizenship.
I respectfully dissent,” Thomas wrote.
In describing the <em>Barbara</em> case as “one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court,” Alito noted in his dissent that the majority's ruling is a “serious mistake.”
He underscored how the holding that “virtually everyone who happens to be born in this country” grants citizenship to the children of “birth tourists” — “women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child and then promptly return home.”
Contrary to the court's ruling, he said, “the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.”
“The Court’s interpretation preserves a powerful incentive to enter or remain in this country illegally.
Immigrants naturally prefer affluent countries where economic opportunities are available.
Other than Canada, the United States will be the only affluent nation where birth alone is enough to establish citizenship,” Alito wrote.
“If the Fourteenth Amendment required these results, the country would have to live with them or amend the Constitution.
But the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the rule the Court now imposes on the country.
In my judgment, the Court has made a mistake that will seriously affect the country’s future.”
Gorsuch also authored a short dissent explaining why he and Thomas's views of the citizenship clause are consistent with the Supreme Court's 1898 <em>U.S. v.
Wong Kim Ark</em> decision, which held that the children of lawful permanent residents of America are citizens.
He also outlined why respondents' facial challenge to Trump's executive order “must fail.”
Speakers
4speakers56%attributed speech310writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Selected voice
74%flagged-word coverageSamuel Alito
167 attributed words42% of attributed speech41% writer coverage
Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.