Has SCOTUS redefined the 14th Amendment to apply to birth tourism?

If Title IX can protect against discrimination by sex by elucidating the original intent of a Constitutional definition of male and female, why can’t Congress do the same with ‘jurisdiction thereof,’ ‘domicile,’ and ‘reside,’ regarding citizenship?

A. Dru Kristenev ——Bio and Archives--July 1, 2026

Cover Story | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

The opinion on Trump v. Barbara sent down by the majority of Supreme Court justices may have indicated the Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship to illegals living in the United States, but it revolves around how they’ve overlooked the parenthetical application of “jurisdiction thereof.”

Justice Clarence Thomas raises a pertinent query regarding the term ‘domicile,’ and how it affects vacationers who visit the United States for the express purpose of birthing their children within its borders.

Upon delivering their babies while on our shores, there are thousands who then depart back to their homeland to raise those children where they are permanently domiciled, and thus under the jurisdiction of a foreign government for their entire lives.

If the majority decided that illegals living under the jurisdiction of the Unted States, because they are residing here, are to have citizenship bestowed upon their children born here, that is one interpretation of the clause in question. That will be covered later in this diatribe.

It can be argued that any who visit the United States for the sole purpose of birthing their child on our shores do not come under the........

© Canada Free Press