“Birthright citizenship for people unlawfully present was never explicitly established by the Constitution, because the Fourteenth Amendment’s phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ historically referred to those fully and legally subject to U.S. sovereign authority.
“Any recent Supreme Court interpretation that retroactively extends citizenship to individuals outside that original jurisdictional meaning would be seen as an unconstitutional act of judicial revision rather than interpretation.
“Such retroactive validation effectively legitimizes a century of improper administrative practice, which enabled electoral and immigration fraud.
“To put what I’m saying in perspective had the Supreme Court correctly declared that birthright citizenship never existed and removed citizenship from millions of U.S.‑born residents, the public reaction would likely have been explosive because many people would interpret the decision as proof that decades of elections were shaped by an improperly expanded electorate.
“The presence of millions of “unauthorized” voters would be seen as having altered electoral outcomes, creating the perception that past political majorities were built on an illegitimate foundation.
“The Court chose to validate long‑standing administrative practice not because it was constitutionally correct, but because overturning it would expose decades of electoral participation by individuals who were never eligible.
“The Court effectively prioritized institutional continuity over constitutional fidelity, aiming to prevent the public backlash, chaos, and accusations of systemic fraud that such a reversal would unleash.”
— Source (Burnt Toast on Gab)
