Summary of "Why SCOTUS Knows Birthright Citizenship Is Wrong but Will Allow It To Continue | Victor Davis Hanson"

Summary

Victor Davis Hanson argues that the common interpretation of the 14th Amendment—automatic birthright citizenship for anyone born in the United States—is being widely abused by foreigners who travel to the U.S. to give birth so their child will obtain U.S. citizenship and later facilitate the parents’ return. He calls this the “anchor baby” practice, contends it is increasingly common and costly, and says it runs counter to the spirit and national interest.

Main points

Historical and constitutional claim

Hanson contends the 14th Amendment was written in the post–Civil War context to address slavery and to grant citizenship to persons born here who were not subject to foreign allegiance.
He argues the amendment was never intended to create a blanket jus soli (right of the soil) regime for foreigners who retain allegiance to other countries.

Comparative point

Hanson notes that most countries, including many in Europe and Mexico, do not grant unconditional birthright citizenship; many require parental citizenship or residency.
He asserts no sensible nation would adopt the U.S. approach and that European countries are generally stricter than the U.S. on this issue.

Practical concerns and examples

Describes instances of people flying to the U.S. to give birth and then leaving with the newborn.
Raises financial concerns, citing large sums spent on related care and services.
Outlines the pathway from birthright citizenship to passports, green cards, and eventual sponsorship of parents.
Argues many immigrants retain allegiance to their home countries, offering cultural signs as evidence (e.g., Mexican flags, support for home-country soccer teams, Mexican consulate activity, political rallies in the U.S.).

Criticism of the Supreme Court and justices

Criticizes Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s reasoning during oral argument, calling one of her examples incoherent.
Praises Justice Clarence Thomas for concise reasoning.
Predicts the Supreme Court recognizes logical problems with current practice but is likely to avoid overturning the established interpretation because of precedent, political backlash, and concerns about appearing to target Hispanic communities.
Suggests the Court may punt the issue or leave reform to Congress, despite the current rule having arisen largely from judicial interpretation rather than explicit statute.

Political context

Connects the debate to the Trump administration’s attempts to change the policy.
Forecasts judicial reluctance to overturn long-standing practice because of potential fallout from interest groups and racial politics.