Last week, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned Trump’s executive order to restrict birthright citizenship only to children of at least one legal citizen or permanent resident. But is this overturn a fair interpretation of the 14th Amendment? In his dissent, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas explains that the intent of the amendment was to enfranchise freed slaves whose connections to America were often decades, if not centuries, old. He argues that being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States means exactly this, in contrast to the many temporary visitors and illegal immigrants who enter the United States for birth tourism, without intention to contribute to this country. If a foreign country’s troops conquered parts of the US and gave birth in the land that they occupied, few people would argue for naturalizing their children automatically. So why should regular civilians who cross the border illegally be any different?