Birthright Citizenship remains intact for now. However, only 5 justices, determined the 14th Amendment to be controlling. One justice sided with the majority, but not on Constitutional ground. Does this decision [more like 5 to 4] raise concerns about the viability of birthright citizenship?
Chief Justice John Roberts, invalidates Trump's Executive Order that he issued on the first day of his second term seeking to deny citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants and of people studying, working or visiting the U.S. on time-limited visas.
Held: Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. Pp. 2–26.
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the majority opinion. Justice Amy Coney Barrett and the three liberals [agreed that the Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship.] Justice Brett Kavanaugh disagreed with that conclusion but said Trump’s executive order is invalid because it violates a federal statute.
Justice Kavanaugh more specifically noted: The Court today holds that the Order violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. I respectfully disagree with the Court’s constitutional holding. In my view, the Executive Order does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. But the Order does contravene a federal statute, 8 U. S. C. §1401(a). Congress could—consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment—amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But Congress has not yet done so.
Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch outright reject the notion that birthright is automatically conferred by birth regardless on the 14th Amendment Provision. They focused on the provision attributing in part a remedy for Black slavery or racial context, raising also the issue of "tourist birth rate."
The dissenting justices maintained that they do not accept the century‑long interpretation that birthright citizenship is automatic. Instead, they appear to favor a narrow reading of the Citizenship Clause, tying citizenship to parental domicile and allegiance, birth tourists and rejection of mediaeval interpretation of history.
Does this decision [more like 5 to 4] raise concerns about viability of birthright citizenship?