'Sad history': Supreme Court justices' opinions in birthright citizenship case

By Ryan Foley, Christian Post Reporter Thursday, July 02, 2026

U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito speaks during the Georgetown University Law Center's third annual Dean's Lecture to the Graduating Class in the Hart Auditorium in McDonough Hall February 23, 2016, in Washington, D.C. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

2. Alito’s dissent contains history of US immigration policy

A separate dissent by Justice Samuel Alito, appointed to the bench by former President George W. Bush, begins by describing Trump v. Barbara as “one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court,” adding, “In my judgment, the Court has made a serious mistake.”

“As interpreted by the Court today, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on virtually everyone who happens to be born in this country, including the children of ‘birth tourists,’ women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child and then promptly return home,” he wrote.

Alito added that the debate about birthright citizenship comes at a time when illegal immigration remains a major issue facing the U.S.

He attributed the illegal immigration crisis to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which “eliminated immigration quotas based on national origin and replaced them with a preference-based immigration system that included an overall cap of 290,000 immigrant visas per year.” He noted that a result of the legislation was “demand for visas vastly outstripped supply, thus encouraging migrants to subvert the legal process.”

“Many immigrants entered or remained illegally for economic reasons,” he stated. “American employers were all too willing to hire employees who would work for less than the minimum wage and without the benefit of laws protecting employee rights.”

“This situation created a strong incentive for immigration — both legal and illegal,” said Alito, detailing failed attempts to curb the illegal immigration problem and highlighting its exacerbation by sanctuary city policies before noting the implications of the Trump v. Barbara decision on the crisis: “The Court’s interpretation preserves a powerful incentive to enter or remain in the 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,” he warned. “The Court has made a mistake that will seriously affect the Country’s future.”