Justice Jackson strains mightily to justify birthright citizenship

by Noel S. Williams 

SCOTUS just heard oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, AKA the Birthright Citizenship case. As we now know (if we didn’t before), the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause grants birthright citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the US and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” That clause raises some interesting questions: Can someone be subject to the jurisdiction of two countries? Can someone hold allegiance to two sovereigns?

In her questioning of Cecillia Wang, the ACLU lawyer, Justice Jackson tried to magically concoct two types of jurisdiction: permanent and local. In her strained example, a foreigner traveling in Japan is temporarily subject to local jurisdiction—if the traveler’s wallet is stolen, for example, Japanese authorities have jurisdiction to investigate the crime. Nevertheless, that traveler is still subject to the permanent jurisdiction of their home country.

Here’s where the crafty concoction becomes a stretch: Jackson implied that temporary sojourners (parents on a Birth Tourism escapade, perhaps) might be subject to local jurisdiction (e.g., in the U.S.); their babies, having been born here, are subject to our permanent jurisdiction. The implication of Jackson’s argument is that parents have temporary allegiance; babies have permanent allegiance.

Huh? Except in rare juvenile delinquency and runaway cases, children usually owe allegiance to their parents up until the age of majority. But there is a potentially craftier deceit: Wang and the seemingly complicit Jackson seem to suggest one can hold allegiance to two sovereigns. Therefore, even if a “sojourner” (aka illegal alien) is subject to a foreign potentate, the illegal can still be under our jurisdiction—temporarily, at least.

In essence, they hold allegiance to two sovereigns and abide by the 14th Amendment’s requirements. Furthermore, their offspring are presumed to have allegiance to the jurisdiction of their birth, even if their sojourning parents are from an enemy country, and an enemy country is where Birth Tourism is out of control.

Justice Jackson used Japan as her example, but China may better demonstrate the incongruity between permanent and local jurisdiction and its ramifications for allegiance.

It is China (one wonders if someone named “Wang”—representing the ACLU and referring to “white people” during arguments—can be objective), where birth tourism to the U.S. is rampant. Some of our territories, including the Northern Mariana Islands, may not require a visa.

There are indications that the CCP facilitates the practice, even as part of an invisible coup. Moreover, Chinese nationals who are naturalized over here hardly demonstrate their allegiance to our jurisdiction. In fact, they are renowned for spying, stealing secrets, and sowing anti-American discord despite their domicile and so-called “permanent allegiance.”

Based on abundant empirical evidence, China is adversarial to the U.S. Justice Jackson and her ilk may be skilled at twisting words, willfully misinterpreting framers’ intentions, and convoluting meanings to suit their activism, but this is just commonsense for average folk: it is impossible to have dual allegiance to two sovereigns when they are enemies.herefore, it is common sense (whether or not it is currently legal to carve out exceptions) to end birthright citizenship for Chinese sojourners daring to game the system. Their allegiance is to their parents and the CCP (who probably sponsored them), not to the last great hope of Earth.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/04/justice_jackson_strains_mightily_to_justify_birthright_citizenship.html