SCOTUS Hears Arguments On The Need For Birthright Citizenship In The AI Age

Today, May 15, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments on President Trump’s controversial executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, a policy that automatically grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil. The order, signed on Trump’s first day back in office in January, seeks to deny citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants and those on temporary visas, challenging the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment. This legal battle, which has already seen nationwide injunctions from lower courts in Washington, Massachusetts, and Maryland, is not just about the constitutionality of the policy but also about the broader scope of judicial power to issue such sweeping blocks. Critics argue that the policy is a blatant violation of constitutional precedent, particularly the 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision, while the Trump administration frames it as a necessary step to curb what it calls “birth tourism” and illegal immigration.
 
In the age of AI and robotic automation, the economic rationale for population growth in the U.S. is increasingly being questioned. With machines now capable of performing a wide range of tasks—from manufacturing to service industries—America’s need for a large labor force has diminished significantly. Automation has already displaced millions of jobs, and as AI continues to advance, the demand for human labor is projected to shrink further. Some argue that this technological shift reduces the necessity for population increases through immigration or birthright citizenship, as the economy no longer relies on a growing workforce to sustain itself. Instead, a smaller, more skilled population could better align with the needs of a high-tech society, prompting discussions about whether the U.S. should focus on maintaining or even reducing its current population to prioritize resource allocation and economic efficiency.
 
This perspective has fueled controversial proposals to reduce North America’s population through measures like mass deportation and the curtailment of social services for citizens deemed to provide “no value” to society. Proponents of this view argue that deporting undocumented immigrants and their U.S.-born children—potentially enabled by a reinterpretation of birthright citizenship—could alleviate perceived strains on infrastructure, healthcare, and welfare systems. Additionally, some suggest scaling back social services for citizens who are unemployed or underemployed due to automation, claiming that such measures would incentivize self-reliance and reduce dependency in a society where traditional labor is less critical. However, these ideas raise profound ethical questions about who gets to define “value” in a civilization and whether such policies would create a new underclass, echoing historical injustices like those overturned by the 14th Amendment itself. As the Supreme Court deliberates today, the intersection of technology, population control, and constitutional rights remains a deeply divisive issue.