FOR INSIDERS | Why birthright citizenship could be the right’s new Roe 

Hard-line immigration restrictionists who were profoundly disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision last week upholding birthright citizenship as a constitutional right are seeing the decision as akin to what Roe v. Wade was for the anti-abortion movement.

Activists and lawmakers are planning for a long-term effort to eventually reverse the decision. They are eyeing options to chip away at it in the meantime.

And above all else, they see politicians’ stances on birthright citizenship becoming a core issue that determines who is welcomed into the right wing coalition and who is not.

“Much the same way that abortion was the litmus test for what was a conservative back in the 80s, when there was a very large wing of the party that was pro-choice back then, this will be a litmus test for conservatives moving forward in the future,” conservative commentator and operative Ryan Girdursky told me.

The majority opinion Trump v. Barbara, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld birthright citizenship as a constitutional right even for parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country — enraging conservatives who argued that those individuals should not be considered “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States per the 14th Amendment.

That sweeping standard blocks out pathways for Congress and the Trump administration to restrict citizenship for babies born to parents only briefly or illegally in the U.S., meaning it would take either another Supreme Court opinion or constitutional amendment to change that standard.

But some are eyeing things Congress or the executive branch can do to push back anyway.

Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project, said the ruling underscores the need for the Trump administration to ramp up mass deportations and further crack down on who is admitted into the country.

“You don’t have illegal aliens having birthright anchor babies if illegal aliens aren’t in the country,” he told me. “Deporting the illegal alien parents of anchor babies — and then they can take their kid home with them. I think that’s like the commonsense response, if this is the civilizational crisis which its critics say it is.”

The Oversight Project suggested suspending visas to any countries that engage in “birth tourism,” and positioning Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at hospitals and birth centers. Howell also suggested “limiting the travel of pregnant women” through ideas like having people pay a bond that is not recoverable if they have a baby in the U.S.

Some Republican lawmakers in Congress are planning or have introduced legislation to try to chip away at the decision by targeting “birth tourism” or defining which individuals are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and then defunding agencies or jurisdictions who recognize such individuals as citizens. (I wrote about some of those proposals over here.)

Lawmakers were encouraged by Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring decision that said President Trump’s executive order was not legal but stipulated that Congress could “amend” federal law “or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country.” 

One bill from Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.), called the “Anchors Away Act,” would allow babies to be citizens only if they are born to U.S. citizens, those with lawful permanent status, or those with lawful status and serving in the military. And it would restrict pregnant foreign nationals from entering the U.S. as nonimmigrants unless they are married to a U.S. citizen. 

Girdursky, though, said........

© The Hill