'Anchor babies' - 'Birthright Citizenship' - another lawless evil that will bring down our once great Republic!

 

Trump’s Birthright Case: Irrefutable

Some justices are ignoring key arguments in birthright citizenship case.

Joe Fried | April 4, 2026 www.americanthinker.com

I listened intently to the Supreme Court’s oral arguments regarding birthright citizenship. It seems that some justices are ignoring key arguments in the case.

There is a residency requirement in the Citizenship Clause

In January 2025, President Trump signed an executive order ending birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are either undocumented or in the country legally but on a temporary basis. The ACLU challenged the executive order, and the Supreme Court is considering the case. Solicitor General John Sauer is arguing on behalf of the Trump Administration.

Part of General Sauer’s case is simple and irrefutable: Most people should not gain citizenship via birth tourism. It is an atrocious policy, and it does not meet the express written requirements of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

To his credit, Justice Clarence Thomas was quick to emphasize that fact. Certain words in the Citizenship Clause preclude the provision of citizenship for most people engaged in birth tourism.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside (emphasis added).

In other words, there is a residency (or domicile) requirement, and that requirement cannot be not met by most people engaged in birth tourism. Typically, a woman flies to the U.S., delivers a baby, spends a few days in a hospital or birthing center, and flies home. She enters the country legally but doesn’t spend enough time in the U.S. to establish residency (domicile).

Based on what I heard in the oral arguments, there are other justices who understand and appreciate the domicile requirement. They are Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.

On the other hand, John Roberts and the three liberal justices were indifferent to the clearly-worded requirements in the Citizenship Clause.

Sauer informed the Court that there are hundreds of birth tourism companies and may be over a million birth tourists (U.S. citizens) living in China. Most of those tourists had babies but did not establish residency in the United States. Nevertheless, Roberts was not impressed:

ROBERTS: Well, it certainly wasn't a problem in the 19th century.

SAUER: No, but, of course, we're -- we're in a new world now, as Justice Alito pointed out to, where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a -- a child who's a U.S. citizen.

ROBERTS: Well, it's a new world. It's the same Constitution.

The flippant comment of Justice Roberts (“It’s the same Constitution”) dismisses the importance of the residency requirement, even though it is expressly stated in the 14th Amendment.

Case law also has a domicile requirement

As an argument against the Trump Administration, Justice Sonia Sotomayor brought up a key immigration case from 1898: Wong Kim Ark. In that case, the Court ruled that individuals born on U.S. soil are citizens under the 14th Amendment, regardless of their parents' foreign citizenship.

However, Sotomayor overlooked the fact that, although the parents of Wong Kim were Chinese citizens, they were domiciled in the United States. The importance of that fact is evident from the concluding words of the court’s opinion:

We’ve decided that Chinese immigrants with a permanent domicile and residence here fall within the rule of birthright citizenship (emphasis added).

Justice Elena Kagan did not overlook the domicile requirement -- she simply does not believe it is important. That is evident from her blathering counterargument:

You say, oh, it says the word “domicile” a bunch of times, which it does. It’s a long opinion. It says a lot of things.

In reality, there is a domicile requirement in both the Citizenship clause of the constitution and in the crucial Wong Kim Ark case of 1898. Roberts and the other liberal justices are simply choosing to pretend it is not there.

Is the child of an illegal immigrant a citizen?

So far we have discussed birth tourism, where people enter the country legally, but stay for a very short time. What about people who enter illegally and stay for an extended period of time? Can they establish a domicile? If so, should their children be granted citizenship? To answer those questions we must focus on five specific words in the Citizenship Clause: subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

If a person is born in the U.S. and is subject to the jurisdiction thereof, our Constitution grants him or her citizenship. But, what exactly is “jurisdiction”? On that topic General Sauer had lots of facts but his arguments were probably too confusing to be persuasive to a skeptical Supreme Court.

The three liberals, who have suddenly become Scalia-styled “originalists,” argued that the Citizenship Clause originates from British law, and is essentially unchanged since the era of the Sovereign: King George III.

Justice Kagan again made reference to the Wong Kim Ark case, emphasizing its “English law rationale.”

But the rationale of the case is really quite clear. It says there was this common law tradition. It came from England. We know what it was. Everybody got citizenship by birth except for a few discrete categories...

AG Sauer disputed many of Kagan’s assertions regarding the Ark case, but the entire matter became muddled enough to easily allow the liberals on the court (and I include Roberts in that category) to weasel their way out of a sane ruling.

Here are some of the confusing issues: Does jurisdiction imply “allegiance” to the nation? If so, whose allegiance -- the parent’s or the child’s? And does it matter if the illegal alien is subject to a foreign power?

Other ambiguities are inherent in implementation. For example, does it matter if the illegal alien is or is not evading law enforcement? Does it matter if the illegal entrant has been in the country a week or for ten years?

Those are issues are confusing to most justices, but not to Ketanji Jackson. She sees the issue of allegiance with amazing clarity:

I was thinking, you know, I’m a U.S. citizen and visiting Japan and what it means is that, you know, if I steal someone’s wallet in Japan, the Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me. It’s allegiance, meaning, they can control you as a matter of law.... So there’s this relationship...

Thus, to Jackson, people can gain citizenship by picking pockets!

As a matter of strategy, it might have been better if President Trump had limited the executive order to the relatively clear issue of temporary visitors who do not establish residency. If that were the sole issue, there might be a chance for a 5-4 victory.

Serious implications for fair elections and national security

The estimated number of U.S. citizens being raised in China is huge -- ranging from the thousands to over a million. A March 19, 2026 article in the New York Post described the situation this way:

China-watchers estimate about 1,000 companies offer birth tourism to the Northern Mariana Islands, other US overseas territories and even the US mainland. They claim a gob-smacking 1.5 million American babies are being raised in China by Chinese parents who’ve participated in birth tourism.

Based on U.S. and state election laws, they are all potentially U.S. voters -- even if they never set foot in the United States again.

Several states, mostly the ones controlled by Democrats, allow people who have never resided in the United States to vote from abroad, based on their parents’ last U.S. residence.

And each of the 50 states allows absentee voting by people after they have established residency. That is not hard to do. For most states, residency can be established in only 15 to 30 days.

As these tourism babies reach the age of 18, they could become a huge factor in swing state elections -- especially if their voting is directed and coordinated by the Chinese government.

For whom will they vote? I wonder.

 

Lawless evil abounds on the planet and must be identified and removed. Bad is now good and good now is bad. Egad! Such insanity prevails!

 

A left-wing outlet says that immigrant sexual assaults are a good thing

AFRU argues that sexual assaults will lead to the end of racism—if they’re against white women who then embrace the romance of the thing.

Andrea Widburg | April 3, 2026 www.americanthinker.com

I thought I was watching a hoax come to life when I saw the tweets show up on my X feed. Conservative commentators were sharing an image. At the top was a large black-and-white photograph of an endless line of African and Middle Eastern men (and one lone woman). The setting, clearly, is Europe. At the bottom left of the photograph, in a little yellow button, is the word “love.” And underneath is this headline: “Why a ‘rise in sexual assaults’ by migrants is a price worth paying to end racism.”

I mean, you can see why I thought it was a hoax. Who in their right mind would advocate for increased sexual assaults by migrants? After all, day in and day out, American and European news outlets (especially European ones) have stories of these migrants sexually assaulting everyone from babies to old women, assaults that often ended in murder. Here are just some recent examples from America, all of which are names you’ll recognize:

• Laken Riley
• Rachel Morin
• Kayla Hamilton
• Jocelyn Nungaray

Europe has the same problem, which is aided and abetted by officials:

• “Foreigners now commit nearly half of all rapes in Austria, Syrians largest foreign group of suspects”
• “Germany: After girl gang raped, Berlin youth center accused of cover-up because they did not want suspects to be labeled as ‘typical Muslims’”
• “Moroccan asylum seeker arrested for brutal assault and attempted rape of 19-year-old Dutch woman in Rotterdam, mayor describes ‘terrible crime’”
• “Italy: Pakistani migrant sentenced to nearly 5 years in prison for attempted rape of 13-year-old boy”
• “France: African migrant arrested after rape of French woman out for a jog in Lille, caught days later while trying to rape second woman”

And of course, England had the child exploitation scandal. In 2013, the British people learned that, starting in the 1980s and continuing for decades, Pakistani gangs were systematically trafficking thousands of British girls in the most brutal ways imaginable, while the authorities looked the other way, for fear of offending the Muslim population.

I don’t know about you, but that’s not making me feel the love for Third World immigrants—especially cultures that don’t think rape is wrong. But that’s not the thinking at AFRU, a site that describes itself this way:

Shalawam! 👋 AFRU is a Black-led and Black-owned startup that combines art and fashion with lifestyle commentary to create a strong social justice brand that is relevant to folks from all walks of life.

We believe in the power of art to spark meaningful conversations, as well as the other way around. We also realize that people don’t want to be preached to all the time. That’s why our imprint magazine stitches together light everyday topics with navigation of more difficult intersectional spaces — all while allowing for the kind of messiness that is part of human nature. Our visual and intellectual branding therefore nurture each other in an perpetual spiral of trendsetting justice.

Well, it’s definitely “nurturing” something when it publishes an essay entitled “Why a ‘rise in sexual assaults’ by migrants is a price worth paying to end racism.”

According to the essay, which the entire AFRU staff came together to write, all these sexual assaults are just an unfortunate combination of “language gaps and cultural misunderstandings” that end up with “the first romantic encounter between a Western woman and a refugee” being perceived (presumably by the refugee) as “quasi-consensual in nature.”

Let me interject here that, for decades, the left, via its feminist branch, has been telling us that consent must be so explicit that the man should ask the woman every step of the way. May I touch your arm? May I hug you? May I kiss you? May I remove your shirt/shoes/pants? May I insert Plug A into Slot A or, if I’m into kink, into Slot B? Anything short of that is rape.

Now, though, we’re being told that if an immigrant from a rape culture decides that grabbing a woman, ripping off her clothes, and doing vile things to her body is “romantic,” it’s also “quasi-consensual” and, therefore all good.

But there’s a bright side to these “quasi-consensual,” perhaps violent encounters: “But increasingly these encounters result in a shared apartment, a mixed-race child, a new surname, and a happy future.” And who do we have to thank for this? White women who aren’t just “engaging in fetishism or exoticism.” Instead, by accepting these assaults, they are trailblazing a path to the end of racism. (Apparently, black women or other minority women have no such obligation.)

From there, the essay slips into saying it’s a good thing when white European women bring refugees home to mommy. And while they can help these refugees navigate their new land, they, too, learn wonderful things:

These women often introduce their partners to informal but essential codes: how to navigate bureaucracy, what behaviors signal trustworthiness, how to perform integration in a society obsessed with appearances. At the same time, they absorb the refugee’s worldview, witnessing firsthand how Western institutions often fail the very people they claim to welcome.

The essay continues in this blah-blah vein, arguing that all these brave white women are a rebuttal to evil right-wingers who keep harping on the immigrants’ propensity to rape women.

And that’s pretty much where the essay ends. What’s so weird about it is the framing. If you want to say that women civilize men, as they always have, and that white women are doing this for refugees with whom they fall in love, say it. But for AFRU to insist that sexual assault against white women is the pathway to love and social integration is, quite simply, obscene. It’s a whole new level of racism and misogyny that deserves to be called out.

"The spirit and intent of Trump’s order are, frankly, common sense: only U.S. citizens have a right to vote, and ensuring that only U.S. citizens cast votes means identifying who those Americans are".

 

Trump Orders Citizenship Verification for Elections

Thomas Gallatin patriotpost.us 4-4-26

With the SAVE Act tied up in the Senate, President Trump is using everything at his disposal to keep pressing for commonsense election protections.

In response to Congress’s failure to pass the election integrity-focused SAVE Act, President Donald Trump has signed an executive order titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.”

“The right to vote in Federal elections is reserved exclusively for citizens of the United States under the Constitution and Federal law,” the order reads. “Federal statutes explicitly prohibit non-citizens from registering to vote or voting in Federal elections and impose criminal penalties for violations.”

Focusing on protecting American citizens’ votes from disenfranchisement by illegal voting by noncitizens, Trump’s order directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile a list of U.S. citizens from every state using Social Security data.

These lists will help identify whether noncitizen-based voter fraud is occurring by comparing the overall number of eligible American citizens to the voting totals.

The order also directs the U.S. Postal Service to send mail-in ballots only to U.S. citizens approved by each state’s list. As Trump asserted when signing the order, “The cheating on mail-in voting is legendary.”

As the 2005 Jimmy Carter and James Baker-led Commission on Federal Election Reform concluded, mail-in ballots “remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.” Indeed, this is why few countries worldwide permit mass mail-in voting. They know it is a massive recipe for election fraud — ask one-fifth of 2020 mail-in voters. And if the citizenry can’t trust the election results, then whatever government comes to power will automatically be viewed with distrust, suspicion, and a sense of illegitimacy.

Protecting election integrity should be an absolute nonpartisan issue. And yet there are Democrats, the party that created the original Jim Crow laws, ridiculously and falsely smearing the SAVE Act as “Jim Crow 2.0.”

As noted above, the Senate Republicans’ inability to pass the SAVE Act has motivated Trump’s action. The question is, how much of this order will actually be accomplished?

The order threatens to withhold federal funding if state governments fail to get on board with the program, though Democrats are confident that little will come of this. Democrat election lawyer Marc Elias opined on X, “If Trump signs an unconstitutional Executive Order to take over voting, we will sue. I don’t bluff and I usually win.”

Arizona Democrat Secretary of State Adrian Fontes dubiously framed Trump’s order as “nothing more than a push to weaponize the sensitive personal information of voters in this country,” and he promised to “not let this order stand without a fight and will meet the federal government in court.”

But Democrat opposition was to be expected, and from Trump’s perspective, his order is entirely within constitutional bounds. “You may find a rogue judge, you have a lot of rogue judges — very bad, bad, people, very bad judges,” he stated. “But that’s the only way that can be changed, and hopefully we’ll win on appeal if it is. I don’t see how anybody can challenge it.”

The spirit and intent of Trump’s order are, frankly, common sense: only U.S. citizens have a right to vote, and ensuring that only U.S. citizens cast votes means identifying who those Americans are.

With the SAVE Act bogged down by the Senate, Trump is taking action to keep the issue of protecting federal elections front and center for the American people. He’s pressing Democrats over their ridiculous and nonsensical excuses for opposing the safeguarding of the nation’s elections, and at a time in American history when nefarious foreign influence in our elections has never been higher.

Trump is also pushing to make these commonsense election protections, like voter ID and citizenship verification, a campaign issue that Republicans can wield against their Democrat opponents in the midterms. In fact, the tagline should be: “Republicans are trying to safeguard and protect America’s elections from abuse and fraud; why are Democrats stopping them?”

 

"Constitutional law should not be settled by the misinterpretation of others". That is why the current mis-interpretation of the 14th Amendment has caused this national crisis!

 

Supreme Court Skeptical of Undoing Birthright Citizenship

Nate Jackson patriotpost.us 4-3-26

The justices could surprise everyone, but there wasn’t a lot of sympathy for President Trump’s effort to deny automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.

President Donald Trump is absolutely right on the policy and the interpretation of the 14th Amendment — the children of illegal aliens should not automatically become U.S. citizens merely by virtue of the place of their birth. Maybe that’s why he became the first president to sit in on arguments before the Supreme Court yesterday. However, the president is almost certainly not going to prevail in Trump v. Barbara.

On his first day back in office last year, Trump issued Executive Order 14160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” to set a new determination — or, rather, correct the wrong interpretation and practice — regarding citizenship and the 14th Amendment. We’ve written extensively about this interpretation and policy, going as far back as 2010.

The framers of the 14th Amendment had no intention to pave the way for a woman to illegally cross our border and give birth to an automatic citizen. Such a policy is insane.

Yet the legal practice of the last 128 years has gradually devolved into exactly that scenario. Even Solicitor General John Sauer admitted in his brief that this “misreading took hold by President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Administration.” Time doesn’t make all things right, but it won’t be easy to undo that long history of practice either.

The question is one of emphasis. The 14th Amendment reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

Proponents of birthright citizenship for illegals point to “all persons born.” Opponents note that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is critical for context. Illegal aliens are, by definition, not “subject” to U.S. jurisdiction because they are not here legally in the first place.

Georgetown constitutional scholar Randy Barnett expertly explains in The Wall Street Journal that the framers of the 14th Amendment told us what they meant by “jurisdiction” — “not owing allegiance to anybody else” and “not owing allegiance to any foreign power.”

That seems pretty cut-and-dried from a legal standpoint. Constitutional law should not be settled by the misinterpretation of others. We would not enjoy many rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights if that were the case.

All that said, it doesn’t matter what I think. It only matters what five Supreme Court justices think.

Unfortunately, they seemed skeptical of Team Trump’s legal case. Even Justice Samuel Alito didn’t seem persuaded by the jurisdiction argument, saying, “‘Subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ is the puzzle wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a mystery.” Still, he noted that a person cannot be legally domiciled in America when they are not legally in America.

Chief Justice John Roberts called some of the historical examples cited by the administration “very quirky.” He looked at the wording for exclusions and wondered about where Team Trump ended up: “You know, children of ambassadors, children of enemies during a hostile invasion, children on warships, and then you expand it to the whole class of illegal aliens who are here in the country. I’m not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples.”

He also specifically rejected one of Sauer’s points: “It’s a new world where eight billion people are a plane ride away from having a child who’s a U.S. citizen.” Roberts countered, “It’s a new world; it’s the same Constitution.”

That’s correct — and interpretation still matters.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh cited federal statutes passed by Congress in 1940 and 1952 that codified the language of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause. He seemed to think that Congress’s misinterpretation then should guide the Court now.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who, along with the other two left-wing justices, is a sure “no” vote, pointed to the obviously relevant precedent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. That 1898 Supreme Court ruling determined that Wong, the child of Chinese immigrants legally domiciled in the U.S., was a citizen by birth. “You are asking us to overrule Wong Kim Ark?” Sotomayor asked Sauer. No, immigration law was entirely different then.

Bringing her usual stellar wit to bear, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked, “Are we bringing pregnant women for depositions?” Um, no.

“Your view of birthright citizenship turns on what the status of the parents is, not the child,” she said to Sauer. “Help us understand why we wouldn’t see a mention of parents in the text of this Amendment.”

Sauer responded, “I think it’s well understood that children — newborns cannot form domiciles.”

Justice Clarence Thomas was the only one who seemed to fully grasp the post-Civil War context of the 14th Amendment. “How much of the debates around the 14th Amendment had anything to do with immigration?” Thomas asked. The purpose of the amendment, he noted, was to grant citizenship to blacks, including freed slaves.

Overall, the Trump administration faced a lot of skepticism. The ruling likely won’t come until June. The conventional wisdom is foolish. It’s time for the justices to correct the record.