{"id":2633,"date":"2026-07-08T11:39:04","date_gmt":"2026-07-08T11:39:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/interstatelogisticshubs.com\/?p=2633"},"modified":"2026-07-08T11:39:04","modified_gmt":"2026-07-08T11:39:04","slug":"trump-v-barbara-suicide-by-cop-out","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/interstatelogisticshubs.com\/?p=2633","title":{"rendered":"Trump v. Barbara: Suicide by Cop-Out"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Trump v. Barbara<\/em> is a fundamental disaster for American territorial integrity, and therefore for what America is. It constitutionalizes what was previously undecided, and does so in the worst way. In context (given today\u2019s era of mass migration), it basically says that two plus two equals five. In a way, the question at the heart of Barbara <\/em>not only was long undecided but was necessarily undecided in the relevant period, from 1866 to 1965. This is because it didn\u2019t have to be decided until the era of mass migration arose. Mass migration didn\u2019t become a thing until recent decades, and, in particular, mass illegal immigration from Mexico didn\u2019t occur until the 1960s. The new phenomenon of mass migration, including illegal immigration, is why Barbara<\/em> is important, and also why it was wrongly decided.<\/p>

Read more How Democratic Socialists Hijacked the Progressive Playbook<\/a><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court danced gingerly around the issue of mass migration (especially but not only illegal immigration), in the sense that it failed to reckon with it altogether, or even to directly mention it. The closest the Court comes to confronting the issue is to repeatedly reference an opinion by Chief Justice John Marshall, who, of course, lived 150 years before mass migration inhabited anyone\u2019s living consciousness.<\/p>\n

14th Amendment birthright citizenship is an inheritance of the English common law. Back then, the King always needed more subjects because he needed more soldiers for his army. The common law of jus soli obviously enabled this, whatever else it enabled. What we now call birthright citizenship is, in part, the fruit of imperial ambitions. Bringing us to the present, the Court\u2019s analysis of birthright citizenship depends substantially on the role played by \u201caliens.\u201d But the Court takes no account, as far as I can see, of the current reality on the ground. \u201cAlien\u201d necessarily signifies something different in an era of mass migration than it does in a pre-mass migration era, such as is found in the long period of common law from which birthright citizenship descends. If it\u2019s true, as the Court appears to suggest, that in American constitutional law \u201calien\u201d means \u201calien,\u201d full stop, then the law is \u201ca ass and a idiot\u201d (Charles Dickens), and it needs reforming in the same manner as Bentham successfully urged the reform of various aspects of the common law in the early 19th Century.<\/p>\n

When the Court gave birth to Barbara<\/em>, it ignored common sense and logic. I believe that Justice Barrett will sooner or later understand the fundamental problems with broad birthright citizenship, and come to regret joining the chief and the three liberals in Barbara<\/em>\u2019s invitation to America to commit suicide. You\u2019ve heard of \u201csuicide by cop.\u201d Well, Trump v. Barbara<\/em> is suicide by cop-out.<\/p>\n

The above external or sociological considerations aren\u2019t as paramount for visa-holding legal immigrants and foreign students as they are for illegals, though they\u2019re hardly irrelevant to the former because of the shape-shifting convenience of air travel for legal immigrants. For these invited visitors, internal or doctrinal considerations regarding \u201ccomplete jurisdiction\u201d create the clarity needed for avoiding national suicide. Temporary visitors, such as foreign students and H1-B visa holders, aren\u2019t under complete jurisdiction. The latter can\u2019t be under such jurisdiction insofar as they lack the employment and movement rights that American citizens importantly have under their complete jurisdiction. When H1-B visa holders can have their very own unions, then maybe we can talk about complete jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

\n

\"The<\/figure>\nTo this, the Supreme Court all but says, \u201cNa, na, na, can\u2019t hear you.\u201d It\u2019s ridiculous. On this matter, Trump and not John Roberts is the adult in the room. Adults are supposed to recognize reality. Regarding birthright citizenship, Trump has more affinity with the deliverances of reason than the American legal establishment does.<\/p>\n

The dissents recognize reality, whether implicitly or (especially with Justice Alito\u2019s dissent) explicitly. Not to be missed, I must add, is footnote 9 of Alito\u2019s dissent, which made me smile and think that to the victor indeed goes the spoils — the argumentation victor, in this case.<\/p>

Read more The 2026 Supreme Court \u2014 a \u2018C Minus\u2019 at Best<\/a><\/p>\n

More than ever, Congress needs to step up, as President Trump urged it to do right after Barbara<\/em> was handed down (buttressed by Kavanaugh\u2019s partial dissent). By next January, Congress should pass legislation comprised of three things:<\/p>\n