Dismantling The Disastrous ‘Birthright Citizenship’ Decision

The Supreme Court’s ruling on birthright citizenship — which awards citizenship to anyone whose parents manage to sneak onto American soil and play hide-and-seek for long enough to give birth, like our country is some kind of giant game show — is easily the worst decision the Court has issued in modern times. 

There is no close second. Unlike most bad Supreme Court decisions, the ruling won’t simply be bad for the United States. It goes quite a bit further than that: The ruling could very well bring about the end of the United States itself, which is precisely what the new Democratic Party wants. They’re openly campaigning on it. 

Just last night in Colorado, a socialist from Ethiopia unseated a 15-term incumbent. This is a socialist who was brought here on a “diversity visa,” which shouldn’t even exist. She believes America deserved 9/11. She wants to destroy capitalism and our entire economy. She wants to open the borders, end law enforcement, and make every foreigner a citizen. 

Watch:

Melat Kiros (DSA) wants to abolish ICE and give full citizenship to every illegal migrant (over 20 million)

She just won the primary in Colorado pic.twitter.com/MEJ11pILrm

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) July 1, 2026

Source: @EndWokeness/X.com

and:

Socialist candidate Melat Kiros, who was born in Ethiopia, is about to beat 15-term incumbent Diana DeGette in the Democrat primary for Colorado’s 1st Congressional District.

Here she is saying that 9/11 was America’s fault. pic.twitter.com/2uHNYfeASX

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) July 1, 2026

Source: @greg_price11/X.com

This woman was backed by Hasan Piker, who’s maybe the perfect example of why birthright citizenship should be abolished. As Corey Walker pointed out, Piker was born in New Jersey to Turkish citizens and raised in Turkey. He wants to destroy this country from within. He’s not American in any sense of the word. But because of the fiction of “birthright citizenship,” he’s legally untouchable. And now he’s helping to elect political candidates who are determined to sabotage this country.

We’re seeing similar election results all over the country — from Maine to D.C. to Pennsylvania to New York and California. Third-world foreigners have reached a critical mass, to the point that they’re electing one another.

Here’s a Democrat congressman from the Dominican Republic who now represents New York, spelling it out:

Watch:

Rep. Espaillat: “US Constitution is elastic we will stretch to include everyone”

He then switches to Spanish pic.twitter.com/bkRVS2mdx6

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) June 30, 2026

Source: @EndWokeness/X.com

The Constitution is an “elastic” document that will “stretch to include everyone.” What’s a country that “includes everyone?” It’s not a country at all, of course. That’s the whole point. It’s a failed state that’s guaranteed to go bankrupt and to destroy hundreds of millions of lives in the process.

If this continues unabated, then before long — based on population replacement rates — our country will be indistinguishable from hellscapes like Ethiopia or Somalia. We’re in a position where, as a matter of basic survival, we need to eliminate every incentive for these people to come to our country.

But the Supreme Court has decided, after closely studying the intentions of our Founding Fathers, as well as the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, that the Constitution is indeed a suicide pact. It’s a document, they say, that insists on the destruction of the United States.

But before things get too heavy, here’s a little trivia to start us off. It’s not a trick question or a brain-burner or anything like that. It’s common sense — or at least, it used to be.

If a Mexican woman gives birth to a child while she’s on vacation overseas in some faraway country, is the child automatically a Mexican citizen? Yes or no?

What if the woman is from Guatemala? If a Guatemalan woman gives birth thousands of miles away from the borders of Guatemala, is the child a citizen of Guatemala?

What if the mother is from El Salvador? Honduras? The Philippines? In any of these cases, does the answer change? Or does the child always inherit his mother’s citizenship, regardless of the specific country in which he was born?

As you may have guessed, the answer remains the same in every single one of these cases. The child is indeed a citizen of the country his mother is from. Honduras will award citizenship to a child of a Honduran woman who’s born overseas. The Philippines, El Salvador, Mexico, Guatemala, and many other countries will all do the same. The United States does this as well. If your parents are American, then no matter where you’re born, you’re automatically American as well.

Another way of saying this is that, regardless of where you may be born, you’re still “subject to the jurisdiction” of your mother’s home country. You’ll grow up as a citizen of that country. You’ll probably have to pay taxes to that country. You may have to register for the draft or some other form of military service in that country. In every relevant respect, even though you weren’t born in that particular country, you’re “subject to their jurisdiction.”

With that in mind, here’s the text of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was ratified in 1868:

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.

You’re probably starting to see the issue. Under the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment, it’s not enough to be “born or naturalized” in the United States. If that were the case, the framers of the amendment would’ve stopped there. But they added another requirement. In addition to being “born or naturalized in the United States,” to become a citizen, a child must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

So what does that mean exactly?

One clue is that elsewhere in the Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause applies to “any person within [a state’s] jurisdiction.” So we can infer that “within a jurisdiction” does not mean the same thing as being “subject to a jurisdiction,” since these are two very different phrases that appear in the Constitution.

Being “within a jurisdiction” is pretty straightforward — you were born within the physical boundaries of some jurisdiction. But being “subject” to a jurisdiction clearly means something else.

The obvious translation here is that the child can’t be an anchor baby. He can’t be “subject to the jurisdiction” of some faraway country, where he’s automatically become a citizen. That’s the only way to make sense of this provision, really. Otherwise, it’s very redundant. The framers could have simply written, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States.” But they didn’t write that. 

They added that the child must also be “subject to the jurisdiction” of this country — meaning they can’t be foreign nationals. They can’t be the children of illegal aliens who are citizens of some other country. It’s not complicated. It’s a straightforward, obvious interpretation of what the framers of the amendment wrote. And it makes complete sense, because it’s how pretty much every other country on the planet handles this issue. 

Try going to Beijing or Tokyo and giving birth, and then demanding that they recognize your child as a Chinese or Japanese citizen. They’ll probably get a kick out of it.

And yet, on Tuesday, in what was easily one of the worst and most consequential Supreme Court rulings in memory, a narrow majority of the Supreme Court — including all the Leftists, along with Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts — decided otherwise. In their view, the words “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States are completely redundant. 

The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment apparently had no reason to include those words at all, because according to John Roberts, “every free-born person in this land” is automatically a citizen of the United States. This country, according to this allegedly “conservative” Supreme Court, is compelled to award citizenship to every child born within our borders — even if the child’s parents are cartel members who snuck into the country illegally, even if the child’s mother is a “birth tourist” who flew into the country nine months into her pregnancy on a fake visa for the sole purpose of giving birth to an American citizen, and even if the child’s clan in Somalia exists to defraud the United States at every available opportunity. 

In every single case, we’re told, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment viewed citizenship more like a prize than anything else. As long as you pop out a baby in the right geographic location, then you win the jackpot. We’re all supposed to believe that the child is just as American as you or me. They’re entitled to all of the benefits of American citizenship, for the rest of their lives, because of the precise spot where they happened to be born. We have to subsidize that child for the rest of their life.

I need to make it clear that no country can survive what the Supreme Court has just prescribed for the United States of America. And to a very real extent, that renders the legal debate moot. 

No country in the history of the world has offered birthright citizenship, open borders, and a comprehensive welfare state — and survived for any length of time. You simply cannot promise citizenship and unlimited benefits to the entire world without inviting total destruction. And so if the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment, or the founders of the country, intended to set us up for civilizational suicide, then we would have no choice but to defy their wishes. 

We are not morally required to kill the country and destroy our children’s future just because some people 150 years ago thought that we should. But as it happens, they did not think that we should. They did not intend this.

What makes America so desirable to all of these foreigners is that Americans live here. We can govern ourselves, unlike Somalis, Haitians, or Venezuelans. We’re the most innovative and intelligent people on the planet, which is why we have individual states that are worth far more than entire countries, like Canada, France, or the U.K. 

Through our hard work and ingenuity, we’ve created more wealth than these people can ever comprehend. We have a shared history, language, and religious tradition — one that isn’t premised on murdering all the infidels or worshipping pedophiles. 

We are that shining city on the hill. We’re the only Western country that still respects the freedom of speech. We have air conditioning, which is no small thing. Far more Europeans die of heatstroke every year than die of gun violence in the United States.

To state that foreign invaders are entitled to American citizenship simply because they happen to be born here — without consideration for literally anything else — defies all common sense. It’s tantamount to stating that the Constitution is a suicide pact. 

Samuel Alito pointed out in his dissent that, if anything, this is a very feudal way of thinking — the idea that you’re a “subject of the king” based on where you were born, whether you like it or not. It’s precisely the kind of thinking that our founders rejected when they declared their independence from Britain. That’s why, in our citizenship test, the framers required allegiance to the United States. We transcended the feudal way of thinking and adopted our own system.

When I made this argument on social media, a few people tried to add a “Community Note” to one of my posts on X. Their argument was basically, “Well, this has been the law of the land forever. We’ve always afforded citizenship to anyone who was born here, and the Supreme Court is just maintaining the status quo, so therefore, there’s no need to panic.” But this objection misunderstands every important aspect of this controversy.

First of all, no, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 that preceded the amendment very clearly did not intend to give citizenship to everyone who was born in this country. In fact, the law specifically excluded the children of invading soldiers, the children of foreign diplomats, and all the members of Indian tribes, regardless of where they were born. It wasn’t until many years later that Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which afforded citizenship to members of Indian tribes born in the United States.

The logic for excluding Indians was pretty simple: Even though they might be born on our soil, they nevertheless were “subject to the authority” of some other sovereign (namely an Indian tribe). Therefore, regardless of where they were born, the members of the Indian tribes were not awarded automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. 

And that raises the obvious question: From a logical perspective, why exactly are the children of today’s illegal aliens entitled to citizenship, while the members of Indian tribes are not? In virtually every case, the children of illegal aliens are citizens of some other country. And those countries — as third-world and hellish as they may be — are generally far more developed than the Indian tribes located in America. So why are the Indian children not subject to the authority of the United States, while every other illegal alien is?

The majority of the Supreme Court never answered this question. They didn’t even attempt to. As Alito writes in his dissent:

The Court cannot explain why the Fourteenth Amendment did not confer citizenship on children born in the United States to tribal Indians. … Federal law governed those children and their parents to the extent the Federal Government wished. If the Court were right that the Citizenship Clause applies to anyone who is born here and is subject to our laws, then the Fourteenth Amendment would have conferred citizenship on all tribal Indians. But the exception for tribal Indians was well-established at the time and remained until Congress eliminated it by statute.

The point is, it’s completely wrong to suggest that the Fourteenth Amendment always guaranteed birthright citizenship to everyone. There were limitations on that principle. And pretty much everyone understood that. 

That’s why, in 1910, the Department of Justice issued a report stating, “[It] has never been held, and it is very doubtful whether it will ever be held, that the mere act of birth of a child on American soil, to parents who are accidentally or temporarily in the United States, operates to invest such child with all the rights of American citizenship.”

Additionally, as Clarence Thomas wrote in his dissent:

Representative Bingham, the architect of the Fourteenth Amendment, believed that the Citizenship Clause would not apply to the children of temporary visitors. Senator Trumbull, a principal champion of the Amendment, agreed. Jacob Howard, who introduced the Citizenship Clause, agreed. Congressman after Congressman during the legislative debates agreed. Congress in 1870 agreed. President Grant’s Attorney General agreed. President Grant’s Attorney General before that agreed. The Supreme Court in 1873 agreed. State legislatures agreed. Executive Branch decisionmakers over the course of multiple decades agreed. Justice Miller agreed. Thomas Cooley agreed. A battery of other eminent scholars agreed. And, the great Justice John Marshall Harlan, on three separate occasions, agreed.

With its latest decision, the Supreme Court has made it very clear that our institutions will not protect what’s rightfully ours — and what belongs to all of our children.

As Justice Thomas put it, “The Citizenship Clause added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship. Today’s opinion devalues that citizenship.” 

His opinion, which is much longer than Alito’s, is also worth reading. At one point, he cites the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas for the proposition that “if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people.”

This has been the default understanding of Western civilization for a very long time. And now our institutions are rejecting this principle, which amounts to common sense. 

As a result, we now have no other choice but to remake our institutions before the enemies of this country — who are winning elections at a rapid pace — destroy them outright. 

Get rid of the filibuster. Declare war on the third-world — not simply the communists and the birth tourists, but all of them. 

Use existing authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to ban not only all third-worlders, but also all women of childbearing age from entering the United States. 

Expel Maria Salazar from the GOP, along with every other Republican who’s endorsed the birthright citizenship ruling.

Block existing foreign nationals from receiving identification numbers, which they use instead of Social Security numbers to apply for jobs, housing, and other benefits.

We’re well past the point where a “fraud task force” can make any meaningful difference. The only way to prevent an inevitable takeover — the only way to prevent a catastrophe of historic proportions — is for every Republican to become someone they’ll vilify in 50 years. 

Become a Joseph McCarthy. Become a Richard Nixon. They will try to destroy us, yes, but they’re doing that already. And if we manage to match their level of intensity (or even come close to it), in the end we’ll accomplish exactly what McCarthy and Nixon and other great men of history did. 

We’ll do what the Supreme Court just failed to do. We will put an end to an unlawful and long-running attack on this country — an anti-democratic coup in plain sight — and we will save what’s left of the United States.