Article

2026-07-02 Home Front: Politix

Supreme Court ruling sparks race to kill a multibillion-dollar loophole in Congress

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Skidmark 2026-07-02 00:55|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [1854 views ] Top
File under: Migrants/Illegal Immigrants

1 I suppose the Roberts court thinks these so-called "birth tourists" actually PAY for their own hospital or birthing center maternity care? Not to mention the cost of complications, C-section, or prolonged recovery.

Care to take a guess as to how those costs are covered? Yes, they are likely covered by Uncle Sam and the taxpayers.

Posted by Besoeker 2026-07-02 04:10|| 2026-07-02 04:10|| Front Page Top

2 When an non-military American gets sick orneed serious health care in Europe, who pays for it?

Posted by Seeking Cure For Ignorance 2026-07-02 06:29|| 2026-07-02 06:29|| Front Page Top

3 /\ A military retiree cannot even get treated at LRMC (Landstuhl Regional Medical Center) in Ramstein, Germany. Been there, tried that.

* USAA does offer overseas travel insurance, but it’s provided through a partner rather than directly by USAA. The coverage is available worldwide and includes medical, evacuation, trip protection, and military‑specific benefits.

Posted by Besoeker 2026-07-02 07:07|| 2026-07-02 07:07|| Front Page Top

4 Our friends got stuck in Hamburg for ten days of Covid quarantine (2022) and such travel insurance was a big help. Eventually.

Posted by Bobby 2026-07-02 08:30|| 2026-07-02 08:30|| Front Page Top

5 I don't see a "loophole" in the wording of the 14A. A newborn in the U.S. is "under the jurisdiction" of the U.S. (diplomatic status being the only exception these days). Once you try to cvreate exceptions by law which are not in the 14A, you open a can of worms. The 14A is not a right for the parents but for the child.

Posted by European Conservative 2026-07-02 10:47|| 2026-07-02 10:47|| Front Page Top

6 ^E.C.: The word is "subject", not "under". The admin argued that "subject" meant something closer to a subject of a sovereign rather than a subject of a conversation, and that allegiance and residence were key to the intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment. SCOTUS decided otherwise, mainly due to the legal analog of the Law of Inertia -- stare decisis (imho).

Posted by Melancholic 2026-07-02 12:20|| 2026-07-02 12:20|| Front Page Top

7 Well I disagree, and so does my law student daughter in the U.S. (a U.S. citizen by birth). The status of the parents simply doesn't matter, only exception being diplomatic status which extends to the child born in the U.S.

It's as simple as that: If a child born in the U.S. is abused by its parents, it can be taken away from their parents. Only exception: the child of a parents with diplomatic status can't be taken away from its parents. Persons enjoying diplomatic status can only be declared persona non grata and be required to leave the U.S. (including the child as it is NOT protected).

The child protected by its diplomatic status is NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. All others are.

If you want to change that, change the 14A. But you can't change this by EO.

Posted by European Conservative 2026-07-02 12:51|| 2026-07-02 12:51|| Front Page Top

8 I don't see a "loophole" in the wording of the 14A.

I'm afraid I must agree with you on this one and the US Constitution is extremely difficult to amend. So the solution is to keep those people out of here so they can have their babies somewhere else.

Posted by Abu Uluque 2026-07-02 13:09|| 2026-07-02 13:09|| Front Page Top

9 I think the 14th Amendment was not intended to create the birthright situation but that is now the law. It should be amended- but won’t be. All the Administration can do is slow the damage.

Posted by Glenmore 2026-07-02 17:33|| 2026-07-02 17:33|| Front Page Top

10 After a quick review I'd be fine keeping the first 10 and rescinding the balance. If Congress wants to keep them they can simply pass a law - not amend the Constitution.

Posted by Clem+Elmish4239 2026-07-02 18:31|| 2026-07-02 18:31|| Front Page Top

11 RE the 14th - a friend of mine posted a follow-up: Make them pay. The new 'citizens' have new obligations: Just because you live outside the US, you still pay income tax and file every year. (I did, for one year).

I'm sure there are exceptions in the law, but the point is, if they get the privileges, they also get the the obligations.

Now, enforce it.

Posted by Bobby 2026-07-02 18:40|| 2026-07-02 18:40|| Front Page Top

12 Including the draft, if that's re-instated? Drafting dual-citizenship Chinese might have its downsides...

Posted by James the lesser 2026-07-02 19:40|| https://idontknowbut.blogspot.com 2026-07-02 19:40|| Front Page Top

21:34 Frank G
21:17 trailing wife
21:09 trailing wife
21:04 Frank G
20:38 Clem+Elmish4239
20:33 Clem+Elmish4239
20:30 Procopius2k
19:40 James the lesser
18:40 Bobby
18:31 Clem+Elmish4239
17:43 Chantry
17:42 Glenmore
17:33 Glenmore
17:30 Grom the Reflective
17:29 Glenmore
17:27 Glenmore
17:24 Glenmore
16:28 Besoeker
16:12 Grom the Reflective
16:09 Chris
15:40 Oregon Dave
15:34 Abu Uluque
15:30 Procopius2k
15:10 Whiskey Mike
Merry-Go-Blog