American citizenship is a sacred bond between an individual and a nation, and not to be confused with a souvenir collected during a temporary visitor or a loophole through a plane ticket, a tourist visa, or a strategically timed hospital stay.The Supreme Court is poised to rule on one of the most consequential constitutional questions of our era: whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause mandates birthright citizenship for the children of those present in the United States illegally or only temporarily.As the nation awaits that ruling, President Donald Trump has publicly deliberated about Supreme Court openings and the future composition of the Court. One frequently discussed potential nominee, Judge James Ho of the Fifth Circuit, should be removed from consideration. His publicly stated views on birthright citizenship represent more than a legal disagreement — they reveal a rigid constitutional philosophy that is poorly suited to the moment confronting the country.
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION FACES TOUGH QUESTIONS ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP AT SUPREME COURT
Ho has not merely offered a passing comment on this topic. He has staked out an absolutist position with considerable force. In a 2006 law review article, he wrote that birthright citizenship “is protected no less for children of undocumented persons than for descendants of Mayflower passengers.” In interviews he even further, defending the same constitutional guarantee for the children of tourists which includes “maternity tourism.” This allows foreign nationals traveling to the U.S. specifically to give birth and secure American citizenship for their children.
