The US Supreme Court made a decision about citizenship. They said children born in the US are citizens. This is true even if the parents are not legal residents.

美國最高法院對公民身份做出了一項決定。他們表示在美國出生的小孩均為公民，即使父母不是合法居民也是如此。

Six judges said the law gives citizenship to these children. This means a previous order from the president is now wrong.

六位法官表示法律賦予這些孩子公民身份。這意味著總統之前的指令現在是錯誤的。

Three judges disagreed. They said children of foreign parents should not be citizens. They worry that some people come to the US only to have babies.

三位法官表示反對。他們認為外國父母的孩子不應成為公民，他們擔心有些人是為了生子而來到美國。

Democrats like this decision. They say it follows the law. Republicans do not like it. They say the decision is a mistake.

民主黨支持這項決定，稱其符合法律。共和黨則不支持，認為這項決定是一個錯誤。

The law stays the same for now. But some leaders want to change the law to stop illegal immigration.

法律目前維持不變。但部分領導人希望修改法律以阻止非法移民。

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。

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。