The United States Supreme Court has issued a ruling in Trump v. Barbara, affirming that birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment extends to children born in the U.S. to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present.

美國最高法院在 Trump v. Barbara 案中作出裁決，確認根據第 14 條修正案，在美國出生且父母為非法或臨時居留者之子女，享有出生公民權。

The Court's 6-3 majority determined that individuals born on American soil to undocumented or temporary residents remain 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States, thereby securing automatic citizenship. This decision effectively invalidated an executive order aimed at decoupling birthright citizenship from the 14th Amendment. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in her concurrence, characterized the Reconstruction amendments as an 'antisubordination reset' designed to supersede previous judicial precedents regarding citizenship and belonging.

法院以 6 比 3 的多數票判定，在美國領土出生、且父母為無證或臨時居民的人士，仍「受美國司法管轄」，因此可自動獲得公民身份。此決定有效地廢止了一項旨在將出生公民權與第 14 條修正案脫鉤的行政命令。Ketanji Brown Jackson 法官在她的協同意見書中，將重建修正案描述為一次「反從屬重設」，旨在取代先前關於公民身份與歸屬感的司法先例。

Conversely, the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, posited that the 14th Amendment does not guarantee citizenship to children of those owing allegiance to foreign powers. This perspective emphasizes an allegiance-based conception of citizenship, suggesting that the original intent of the Citizenship Clause was to exclude those not fully subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Furthermore, the dissent highlighted the phenomenon of 'birth tourism' and the potential for national security vulnerabilities resulting from the current interpretation.

相反地，由 Thomas、Alito 和 Gorsuch 法官參與的反對意見認為，第 14 條修正案並不保證對外國權力效忠者的子女擁有公民身份。此觀點強調基於效忠的公民身份概念，認為公民權條款的最初意圖是排除那些不完全受美國司法管轄的人。此外，反對意見還強調了「生育旅遊」現象，以及目前解釋可能導致的國家安全漏洞。

Stakeholder responses reflect a profound ideological schism. Democratic legislators have characterized the ruling as a necessary adherence to constitutional mandates. In contrast, Republican representatives and the executive branch have described the decision as a legal error. Proposed remedial measures from the conservative flank include the introduction of statutory exceptions—a possibility noted by Justice Brett Kavanaugh—the classification of certain undocumented entries as 'invasions' to bypass automatic citizenship, or the pursuit of a formal constitutional amendment to redefine the requirements for birthright citizenship.

利益相關者的反應反映了深刻的意識形態分歧。民主黨立法者將此裁決描述為對憲法指令的必要遵循。相比之下，共和黨代表與行政部門則將此決定描述為法律錯誤。保守派提出的補救措施包括引入法定例外情況（Kavanaugh 法官指出的可能性）、將某些無證入境行為歸類為「入侵」以繞過自動公民權，或者追求正式的憲法修正案以重新定義出生公民權的要求。

The ruling maintains the status quo of birthright citizenship, though it has prompted calls for legislative intervention and constitutional revision to address concerns regarding birth tourism and illegal immigration.

此裁決維持了出生公民權的現狀，但已引起要求立法干預與憲法修訂的呼聲，以解決對生育旅遊與非法移民的憂慮。