'Sad history': Supreme Court justices' opinions in birthright citizenship case
3. Alito’s dissent raises fairness, national security concerns
While Alito’s dissent focused heavily on the implications of the Trump v. Barbara decision related to U.S. immigration policy, it also touched upon fairness and national security concerns.
“The Court’s interpretation is not only contrary to the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, it produces grotesque results,” Alito wrote. “While foreigners who wish to immigrate lawfully must sometimes wait for many years, a child born here to a birth tourist is automatically a citizen.”
Alito’s statement reflects concerns that establishing birthright citizenship will further incentivize illegal immigration and discourage people from following the legal process to emigrate to the U.S.
“The Court’s interpretation also has national-security implications,” he added, providing a scenario as to how birthright citizenship could be exploited.
“Suppose that a person’s only connection to this country is that he was born here to a mother who was present just long enough to give birth and then quickly returned to her native country. Suppose that country is a strategic adversary or enemy of the United States. Suppose the child never visited the United States while growing up and was inculcated with hatred of this country. According to the Court, that person is a citizen of the United States,” he wrote.
Alito listed the privileges of citizenship that the bad actor in this scenario would have the ability to obtain: “He can enter and leave the country as he pleases. He can travel the world on a United States passport. Even if he plots to harm this country, he cannot be deprived of his status as a citizen, at least under current precedent.”
Ryan Foley is a reporter for The Christian Post. He can be reached at: ryan.foley@christianpost.com
