…Yesterday, Trump attempted to do some of the same things via new executive orders. One is intended to deny automatic citizenship to children born to people living in the United States while working for a foreign government and children of people declared to be terrorists or adversaries of the U.S. It would also deny citizenship to people born in U.S. territories if Congress passes a proposed lawallowing that, creating a new group of stateless people. The second order is intended to prevent the practice of “birth tourism,” in which people visiting the United States on tourist visas give birth to babies who are then U.S. citizens.

Legal experts and advocates say the orders are unconstitutional, and they are certain to be challenged in court. Trump’s loss at the Supreme Court seems to make these orders a long shot. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his opinion for the Court, “children born of parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States” satisfy the relevant conditions and thus “under the Constitution, they are citizens at birth.”

The language in the orders about “alien enemies” is another likely area for dispute, not because anyone is eager to welcome the children of bona fide adversaries but because this administration has made absurd claims about illegal immigration constituting an “invasion,” which makes no sense on its face and has been rejected by federal judges.

Trump’s announcement of the orders at the White House yesterday was full of fabrications, exaggerations, and lies. Trump claimed that the Fourteenth Amendment “was meant for the babies of slaves. It was—it was right after—one week or two weeks after the Civil War ended.” In fact, it passed three years later, in 1868. The presidential adviser Stephen Miller echoed the same idea, saying that the amendment “had no other meaning and purpose outside of that, and that’s been clear, obviously, since the day that it was passed.” When a politician uses the word obviously—like frankly—that’s a good sign that what follows will be neither obvious nor true. If this had been obvious since 1868, the U.S. wouldn’t have acted otherwise for more than a century, and the Supreme Court would have ruled in favor of the administration….

Source: Trump’s Déjà-Vu Moment on Birthright Citizenship

On the final day of its term, the Supreme Court issued a majority opinion with a clear message: Birthright citizenship is a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.That decision on Tuesday, striking down President Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship, reaffirmed decades of legal thought and practice.

But some civil rights advocates, lawyers and legal scholars were surprised that four justices — Clarence Thomas, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch — said that they did not see birthright citizenship as a constitutional right for certain groups.

(Justice Kavanaugh agreed with the majority’s decision to strike down Mr. Trump’s executive order, but based his reasoning on a federal statute rather than on the 14th Amendment.)

“This should have been a 9-0 decision,” said Bethany Li, executive director of the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, which filed an amicus brief against the president’s order.

For more than a century, there was broad consensus among most legal scholars and the courts that the 14th Amendment extended citizenship not just to the children of formerly enslaved people, but also to nearly all babies born within the United States. It was only when Mr. Trump began running for office, in 2015, that a once-fringe academic theory — that the 14th Amendment was only about slavery, and did not cover the children of temporary visitors — started to gain political and legal traction.

The momentum culminated in Mr. Trump’s executive order on his first day back in office last year to end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary foreign residents.

“A year and a half ago, people said there was no support for this view, that it was ahistorical and atextual,” said Ilan Wurman, a law professor at the University of Minnesota who filed an amicus brief in support of Mr. Trump’s executive order. “So to get four votes for the Trump administration’s position here is quite a coup.”

To be sure, the ruling was ultimately a win for proponents of birthright citizenship….

Source: The Birthright Decision Was Surprisingly Close, Some Legal Scholars Say