WorldNetDaily was excited at the prospect of overturning birthright citizenship. A Jan. 30 article by Bob Unruh gushed that “The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled a time to hear arguments in the birthright citizenship case, a fight brought by opponents of President Donald Trump who object to his agenda to return to the original understanding of the constitutional provision,” asserting that “The White House has filed with the court pages and pages of statements from experts who, at the time of its adoption, confirmed that it did not apply to those groups.”
But when the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship, WND threw a fit. Joe Kovacs huffed in a June 30 article:
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled children born in the United States, including those whose parents are in the country unlawfully or only temporarily, are indeed American citizens according to the the Fourteenth Amendment, striking down President Donald Trump’s executive order.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the 6-3 majority, indicated children born to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily in the United States satisfy the amendment’s citizenship clause.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights − to freely participate in our political community,” Roberts wrote. “The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”
Kovacs gave more space to the dissents of justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito than he did to Roberts, even though their opinions did not prevail:
In his dissent, Thomas writes the Fourteenth Amendment “was enacted in the wake of the Civil War with the one pervading purpose of securing equal citizenship for the freed slaves.”
Thomas accused the majority of “repurposing” the Fourteenth Amendment “to protect its own set of preferred rights that the Reconstruction Congress never contemplated and that cannot find support in its text.”
“Today, the Court does so again by recognizing a constitutional right to citizenship for the children of all foreign birth tourists and illegal aliens.”
“I am not sure that today’s opinion will stand the test of time. The Citizenship Clause ‘added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship.’ Today’s opinion devalues that citizenship.”
“I respectfully dissent.”
Justice Samuel Alito ripped into his colleagues, saying: “This is one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court, and in my judgment, the court has made a serious mistake.”
WND then started agitating for the ruling to be overturned. Unruh wrote in a July 2 article:
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority in determining that President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14160, which determined that the U.S. should be like most other nations on earth and not grant citizenship to the newborns of illegal aliens, could not take effect.
But in his concurrence he also outlined a roadmap for the president’s agenda to move forward, through Congress.
Kavanaugh, in his concurrence, said the case should have been resolved under federal law, not the Constitution.
And he diagrammed a possible legislative path for that to happen.
Unruh served up more agitation the next day:
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has explained his one absolute fix for the Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship activism.
That opinion written by John Roberts claims that the 14th Amendment was written to assure anyone, from anywhere in the world, the absolute right to claim the privileges of U.S. citizenship if they were born on its soil.
Paul says Congress should pursue a constitutional amendment to change birthright citizenship—and if lawmakers won’t act, he says he’ll start with state legislatures.
“Let’s get it done one state at a time and put pressure on Congress,” he said.
Unruh devoted a July 9 article to President Trump whining about the decision:
President Donald Trump is calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to fix its “miscarriage of justice” that it delivered to the American people with its recent birthright citizenship ruling.
That decision said, in layman’s terms, that anyone in the world has a right to claim U.S. citizenship for their newborns if those infants are born in the United States, even if the parents are illegal aliens, fleeing criminals, birth tourists, or something else.
Trump said, “Signs and Billboards are being put up all over our Southern Border, and Mexico, advertising BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, with ‘Deliveries starting at $4000.’ Likewise, similar signs going up all over our Country. Billions of Dollars will be illegally made by this SCAM, with Citizenship going to anyone willing to pay. It will be, by far, the number one way of becoming a citizen, and then the entire family will be allowed to follow. Not sustainable. NOBODY SAW THIS COMING!!! AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP IS NOT FOR SALE! In fact, that is a crime, and therefore, the Supreme Court’s ruling is wrong. I will be asking for a Rehearing by the United States Supreme Court, IMMEDIATELY. This miscarriage of justice will destroy America if they don’t change their absolutely insane decision.”
The Supreme Court rarely rehears cases, although it has happened on occasion in the past.
Unruh served up his biased interpretation of the controversy in a July 11 article:
Birthright citizenship, including birthright citizenship tourism, has been the focus of multiple fights in recent months.
It was because President Donald Trump issued an executive order putting some limits on the ideology that comes out of the 14th Amendment.
He said those newly born children of illegal aliens in the country and other should not be granted citizenship.
The Supreme Court reversed that, declaring, essentially, that parents in the world, if they can break into the United States before a baby’s birth, can benefit from that baby’s U.S. citizenship.
There already are moves in Congress to overturn that, and in the White House to seek another hearing on the problem.
But now a state lawmaker in Texas is calling on others in state government, including Gov. Greg Abbott, to help him make birth tourism in the state a felony.
After all, U.S. citizens are not exempt from state laws that declare certain acts felonies.
It is Texas State Rep. Brian Harrison who is pushing that agenda.
Unsurprisingly, Unruh censors those who are in favor of the Supreme Court’s ruling.