The 1600: The Birthright Question

Newsweek

27-06-2025

The Insider's Track
Good morning,
🎶 Friday Listening: Third Eye Blind - Semi-Charmed Life. I've been going down a 3EB YouTube-hole that has reminded me how underrated this band was in its time. This whole record is like a sonic distillation of what it was like to be alive in the waning days of the 20th century... the last of the Good Times.
Today is the last day of the Supreme Court's term, and it's still got six decisions to issue before the justices can head home for summer break. The big one we're expecting this morning is their ruling on President Trump's attempt to end automatic birthright citizenship. The actual case at hand is a bit convoluted.
It's less about whether BC is constitutional, and more about this issue of nationwide injunctions; whether federal judges can block executive orders on a national basis. The drama here is that SCOTUS could do any number of things: the justices could rule narrowly on the injunction issue, or they could turn down the administration's request to get involved and instead rule on the constitutionality of BC. We'll find out around 10aET, before many of you have read this—but stick with me anyway here.
The issue of "activist" judges trying to sabotage the Trump admin's agenda feels, to me, wildly overblown. It's pretty much the only guardrail left against unfettered executive power, and it's holding up pretty well. The White House generally abides by what these judges say, then the issue gets kicked upstairs and eventually to an appeals court or even SCOTUS for a final judgment. Every POTUS complains about how they're being stymied by some activist lower-court judge, but it happens more with Trump because of his far more encompassing view of executive power. Or put another way, he does a lot more stuff that's legally questionable. But to whine about this the way they do—all while having the Supreme Court firmly in their pocket—is very lame.
The more interesting legal precedent at hand is the birthright question. From the oral arguments in this case, it seems highly unlikely the court will outright repeal BC because it's pretty clearly in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment has long been interpreted by scholars on both the left and right that if you're born on US soil, you are automatically an American citizen (with a couple exceptions, like if you're the kid of a foreign diplomat). If this is an issue that MAGA feels so strongly about, then Trump should use his considerable bully pulpit to make the case for a constitutional amendment. But that's hard.
Here's how I think about BC. It's tough to get data on this because hospitals don't typically ask about your citizenship status, but the best estimates are there's about 250K people born in the US every year to parents who are not here legally, or on visas. Some number of those (I'd wager the majority) are born into families who have been here without legal status for a long time, working, paying taxes, contributing to their communities. As far as I am concerned, these folks are American. And another good chunk are college kids on student visas who fall in love, get pregnant and overstay, things like that. If a baby is born in those situations, to loving parents who live/study/work in the US, who the hell am I to say that baby isn't as American as me?
But let's assume for argument's sake that all 250K of those births are "anchor babies" born to moms from China on birth tourism excursions or whatever. They have the baby, baby gets American passport, they go back home. Presto, one new American citizen living as an expat. If all quarter-million of those births were basically a scam to get American citizenship, that would be 14% of U.S. births annually. It's just not the huge deal that the right makes it out to be.
And even so, I've yet to read a substantive argument about why it's so bad to have more Americans out there. The left uses the cloying language about how "immigrants make America great." But I'd flip it: America makes immigrants great. The magic dust that we have that very few other Western nations do is that we are really, really good at assimilating our immigrants.
Think about your own life: the guy who owns the store downtown whose parents came from Africa and who is a bigger football fan than you. The Chinese couple who made a living washing dishes and whose kids are now software engineers sending them to an early retirement. These people love this country more than most so-called "natives" because they understand inherently something us "real Americans" take for granted: How special and rare it is to live somewhere with that kind of opportunity. So that's my argument in favor of birthright citizenship. The more Americans, the merrier, I say. We'll see if Roberts, Gorsuch, et al. agree.
Have a nice weekend.
The Rundown
Zohran Mamdani's decisive win in the first round of the New York City Democratic mayoral primary Tuesday has become more than a local political upset—it's a new frontline in the battle over the soul of the Democratic Party and a gift to Republicans eager for a fresh national target.
President Donald Trump mocked Mamdani, a proud democratic socialist, as a "Communist lunatic," adding, "If this is the future of the Democrats, they don't have one." Vice President JD Vance congratulated him as "the new leader of the Democratic Party." Within hours, the National Republican Congressional Committee branded him an "antisemitic socialist radical," tying him to frontline Democrats in suburban swing districts.
Read more from Newsweek's Jesus Mesa.
Also happening:
Congress: Democrats are moving to rein in President Trump's authority to launch military action against Iran, citing concerns over transparency and constitutional limits following recent U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. The push comes as lawmakers prepare to vote on a war powers resolution requiring congressional approval for future strikes. Follow the latest.
NATO summit: One big question was left unanswered at NATO's biggest summit of the year, and only America's delegation could answer it. But the U.S. did not discuss with its allies any plans to roll back the American troop presence in Europe, according to two European officials at The Hague gathering. Read more.
This is a preview of The 1600—Tap here to get this newsletter delivered straight to your inbox.