The United States Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Trump v. Barbara, confirming that birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment applies to children born in the U.S., even if their parents are in the country illegally or on temporary visas.

美國最高法院在川普訴芭芭拉一案中裁定，根據第14條修正案，在美國出生的孩子享有出生公民權，即使其父母是非法入境或持有臨時簽證亦然。

A 6-3 majority of the Court decided that people born on American soil to undocumented or temporary residents are still 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States. Consequently, they automatically receive citizenship. This ruling cancels an executive order that tried to separate birthright citizenship from the 14th Amendment. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized that the Reconstruction amendments were designed to create a new standard for citizenship and belonging.

法院以 6 比 3 的多數票裁定，由無文件人士或臨時居民在美國領土出生的個體，仍屬於「受美國司法管轄」。因此，他們會自動獲得公民身份。此裁決撤銷了一項試圖將出生公民權與第 14 條修正案分離的行政命令。凱坦姬·布朗·傑克森法官強調，重建修正案旨在為公民身份與歸屬感建立一套新標準。

On the other hand, the dissenting judges—Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch—argued that the 14th Amendment should not guarantee citizenship to children of parents who owe loyalty to foreign countries. They suggested that the original purpose of the law was to exclude people who are not fully under U.S. control. Furthermore, they expressed concerns about 'birth tourism' and potential risks to national security caused by the current interpretation.

另一方面，持反對意見的法官——湯瑪斯、艾利托與高修法官——則認為，第 14 條修正案不應向那些父母對外國效忠的孩子保證公民身份。他們認為法律的初衷是為了排除那些不完全受美國控制的人。此外，他們對「生育旅遊」以及目前解釋可能對國家安全造成的風險表示擔憂。

Responses to the ruling show a deep political divide. Democratic lawmakers asserted that the decision is a necessary follow-through of constitutional rules. In contrast, Republican representatives and the executive branch described the ruling as a legal mistake. To fix this, some conservatives have suggested creating new laws to limit citizenship, classifying certain undocumented entries as 'invasions,' or attempting to change the Constitution itself.

各界對此裁決的反應顯示出深刻的政治分歧。民主黨立法者堅稱，此決定是對憲法規則的必要貫徹。相反，共和黨代表與行政部門將此裁決描述為法律錯誤。為了修正這一點，部分保守派建議制定新法律以限制公民權，將某些無文件入境行為定義為「入侵」，或嘗試修改憲法本身。

The ruling keeps the current system of birthright citizenship in place. However, it has led to demands for new laws and constitutional changes to address concerns about illegal immigration and birth tourism.

此裁決維持了現行的出生公民權制度。然而，這也導致了要求制定新法與修改憲法的呼聲，以解決對非法移民與生育旅遊的擔憂。