In an editorial about the Supreme Court’s decision on birthright citizenship,The New York Post predictably and exultantly announced that most of the justices got it right:

Illegal immigrants, say restrictionists, are quick to have babies here who get automatic citizenship simply by being born on US soil in order to “anchor” their presence in the country.

Birthright citizenship, they say, draws them in, amounting to a loophole that needs to be close.

Yet Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the 14^th Amendment doesn’t say anything about the status of the parents of a baby born here, and that the country would need to amend the Constitution to make such a profound change to the definition of American citizenship.

This is a plain reading of the law and shows deference to long-established judicial rulings.

Restrictionists should nonetheless take heart: Just last week, the court ruled that the president can deny entry to bogus asylum-seekers at the border, which will go a long way to screening out those seeking to have anchor babies here.

Tuesday’s decisions add up to a solid affirmation of common sense, a recognition of shared values and plain, straight-forward reading of the law. Bravo!

The final paragraph in this panegyric is particularly problematic, as Benjamin M. Osborne in his Chronicles piece last week and four of the Court’s justices clearly show in their counter-positions. The decision to confer birthright citizenship on the children of illegals and birth tourists is anything but “a straight-forward reading” of the 14^th Amendment, which was ratified to guarantee citizenship to the children of former slaves after the Civil War. Later, that right was correctly or incorrectly extended to the children of legal residents from China but was not conferred, until recently, on those who sneak into the country feloniously to drop off their anchor babies.

Equally uncovered by that provision in the 14^th Amendment are the present beneficiaries of birth tourism, many of whom, as President Trump noted, are coming from China and probably represent the interests of that hostile government.

I was particularly struck by how Laura Jarrett, NBC’s “legal expert” (and daughter of Obama associate, Valerie Jarrett) referred to “undocumented mothers,” whose right to have their children declared U.S. citizens was upheld by those wise Solons who grace our highest court. Laura and others of her persuasion don’t seem to be for court packing this week and, in fact, urge us all to accept ‘the law of the land” as represented by the judicial protectors of the “undocumented mothers.”

The Post also featured a detailed account of the Court’s rejection of the Trump policy of challenging the birthright citizenship of the children of those who are not legal residents in the United States.  Sespite labored efforts to appear neutral, the Post’s politics reporter  Ryan King clearly leaned toward John Roberts’ decision in Trump v. Barbara. Apparently, Roberts spoke for the side of reason and humane tradition when he stated that the “right to have rights” belongs to “every free born person in this land.”  Whether the “undocumented” parents of these offspring are “subject to the jurisdiction” of our country, as the 14^th Amendment requires, may no longer matter.

It would not be reading too much into this obvious disagreement between Chronicles on the one hand and the booming voice of the Murdoch media on the other to recognize the long-standing cleavage between us and them. Unlike the Post’s editorial board, we do not look upon American citizenship, to quote Osborne, as a “souvenir” thrown after prospective mothers who have entered the country by committing a crime. We also don’t view it as a tool to be used by the country’s adversaries to establish a beachhead here. Most importantly, we believe that like other sovereign nations, the U.S. is not required to accept as a citizen anyone who happens, under whatever circumstances, to be born here. Nor do we believe that the authors of the 14^th Amendment intended to saddle us with that ridiculous position, however much it may advance globalist ideology and the interests of the Democratic Party.

Even if I accepted John Locke’s contract theory of how civil society is formed, I would not be obliged to let everyone who happened to be born on American soil become a citizen. Those who agree to the social contract in order to protect their natural rights are not required to allow anyone born on one’s native soil to enjoy citizenship. That is a right reserved for those who are already citizens to make on behalf of those who wish to enjoy the same privilege. Neoconservatives have no problem, however, with an ever-expanding membership, even if gained by fraud, because they are globalists who want open-borders policies for every country in the world (except for one). The U.S., from their perspective, is meant to be a creedal or propositional country and presumably, as Mark Brennan recently joked, anyone can learn the obligatory creedal formula while waiting to cross our borders.

One can also fathom why the Democrats are so happy to make citizens of “undocumented mothers.” It’s the same reason they just flooded the country with 10 million to 15 million illegals. These precious newcomers, especially but not entirely from Third World countries, have enormous value as future Democratic voters. Leftists would be fools to take any other position from the standpoint of increasing their long-term power.