For Throwback Thursday, Vox asks 'The end of birthright citizenship as we know it?'

Today's Throwback Thursday topic is Vox asking The end of birthright citizenship as we know it?

Is the Supreme Court considering a radical reinterpretation of the 14th amendment?

President Donald Trump has been on a crusade to end birthright citizenship for years. Challenging the long-held legal consensus that anyone born in the United States is granted citizenship, he signed an executive order stripping that right away from the children of undocumented parents and temporary visa holders.

The executive order after returning to the White House set in motion a series of lawsuits challenging Trump’s ability to make sweeping changes to birthright citizenship. And now it’s headed to the Supreme Court in a case called Trump v. Barbara.

The 14th Amendment was passed to guarantee citizenship to freed enslaved people and their children, but was later clarified to apply to anybody born on US soil with a few very specific exceptions. For well over 100 years, birthright citizenship has been enshrined in the Constitution with that understanding.

In Trump v. Barbara, the Trump administration claims that the law applies to those who are not just born in the United States but also “owe allegiance” to it — except…the words “owe allegiance” don’t appear anywhere in the 14th Amendment.

The plaintiffs are representing a group of people affected by Trump’s executive order, and their argument is simple: Leave birthright citizenship alone.

This is a throwback to last year's Vox explains 'Why the US has birthright citizenship', where I wrote the following.

As Vox points out, this is an old debate, one that goes back to the adoption of the 14th Amendment and it always turns out the same way; people born here, other than children of diplomats, residents of American Samoa, and formerly Native Americans — I don't know if we've ever had children of enemy aliens occupying American soil other than Japanese in the Philippines, and I don't know if the Filipinos were American citizens back then — are citizens.

That's what Vox expects will happen again, at least this time.

Vox originally uploaded this video to its Patreon in January and then uploaded it to YouTube yesterday, so it didn't include anything from yesterday's arguments before the Supreme Court. For that, I turn to PBS NewsHour Analyzing the arguments as Supreme Court hears birthright citizenship case.

On his first day back in office, President Trump signed an executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, a cornerstone of immigration policy enshrined in the 14th Amendment and affirmed by the Supreme Court more than 100 years ago. But now the justices are reexamining the policy. Ali Rogin discussed the legal debate with Amy Howe and Amanda Frost.

PBS NewsHour featured five Justices who expressed skepticism of the government's argument, Gorsuch, Cavanaugh, Barrett, Roberts and Jackson, enough to overturn Donald "Hoover Harding Cleveland" Trump's executive order. Add in Kagen and Sotomayor, and that's seven votes. Alito might go along with Hoover Harding Cleveland, but I don't know about Thomas; he could go either way, not that it will matter. Hoover Harding Cleveland will lose and birthright citizenship will win.

MS NOW, formerly MSNBC, presented information leading to the same conclusion after a livelier discussion in SCOTUS considers limits to birthright citizenship: 'Off the wall theory'.

Some Supreme Cout justices -- including key conservatives -- seem skeptical about the Trump administration's argument for ending birthright citizenship. And in a presidential first, Trump attended the beginning of the proceedings. Afterwards he posted that the U.S. was "stupid" for allowing birthright citizenship. Hayes Brown, Basil Smikle, Ron Insana and Melissa Murray.

That was worth including for the Mean Girls reference alone.

I'm looking forward to the decision later this year. In the meantime, stay tuned for another retrospective about holidays tomorrow.