President Donald Trump lost big at the Supreme Court on Tuesday as a majority of the justices struck down his executive order abolishing birthright citizenship in the United States — but it's possible there's an alternate reality in which he could have won this, the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote.
Specifically, they argued, Trump could have tried a much less sweeping change to America's citizenship system, and gotten a more favorable result out of it.
"An interesting counterfactual is how the Justices might have come out on a narrower order, if Mr. Trump had tried to end birthright citizenship for transients alone," wrote the board, which has been forecasting Trump's loss on this issue for months. But instead, "he took the advice of those who recommended an expansive constitutional challenge because he thought the issue was a political winner, and his defeat is all the greater for it."
With Chief Justice John Roberts issuing an absolute judgment in favor of constitutional protections for birthright citizenship, this is no longer possible without an amendment to the Constitution.
A key consequence of the ruling, noted the board, is that "today’s 'Dreamers' will give birth to citizens, rather than a second generation living in limbo" — which is for the better, the board argued. "The ability to assimilate newcomers has always been an American strength, while falling birthrates will soon make that an even greater American advantage."
As for the specter of "birth tourism," the board concluded, "If [it's] as big a problem as Mr. Trump says, he can make a sustained case for a constitutional amendment."