Since 2016, credible US sources have verified or alleged Red China’s asymmetric attacks on the US, starting with the 2014-2015 theft of sensitive background-check information on 22.1 million Americans. Then, in 2023-2024, the FBI discovered cyber-infiltration of critical US infrastructure (Volt Typhoon) and core telecommunication networks (Salt Typhoon), which intelligence analysts claim were China’s “advance prep” ahead of war with America.
Meanwhile DOD insiders allege the US military supply chain has been infiltrated by “ghost” Chinese-made microchips, and members of Congress allege the Chinese government gives tax rebates to producers of US-bound fentanyl precursor chemicals, and knowingly allows producers of US-bound vaping products to replace nicotine with harmful adulterants. In short, the CCP is waging non-kinetic war upon Americans, which is why the President continues the fight against birthright citizenship.
After ruling 6-3 in Trump v. Barbara, the Supreme Court now has a chance to live in the real world – outside the confines of case law and precedent – and join the fight by agreeing to hear the President’s new petition to end “birth tourism” in America. Because ruling against Mr. Trump’s original executive order – a modest, prospective attempt to narrow federal practice to the true intent of the 14th Amendment – was tacit approval of “anchor babies” and “birth tourism” and “chain migration” (that did not exist in 1868).
The History
The Court’s June ruling was informed by an ahistorical understanding of American citizenship. Fact: the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795 determined the citizenship status of minor children by the status of their parents, and required citizenship applicants to explicitly renounce allegiance to any other sovereign. Fact: the authors of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 defined “citizens” as those under the complete jurisdiction of the United States, not those temporarily answerable to its laws, such as a foreign diplomat.
The “citizenship clause” was added to the 1868 amendment and ratified just two years after the Civil War’s end to expressly prevent former Confederates from denying rights to freed slaves. It was a targeted Reconstruction measure to combat the Black Codes being enacted in the South, with no intent to confer automatic citizenship on the children of illegal immigrants or temporary visitors. The text, history, and limited jurisdictional language of the framers makes that much crystal clear.
The primary aim of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was to explicitly grant “citizenship” to former slaves. The Senate debates in the 39th Congress focused on the on-going “resistance” in former Confederate states, and the Republican super-majority insisted on a constitutional overrule of the 1857 Dred Scott decision. Their oft-stated goal was to secure citizenship for a specific class, those permanently tied to the United States after emancipation.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull (R-IL) explained: “What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” No question, the goal was NOT to create an unqualified territorial birthright open to the world. When Sen. Jacob Howard (R-MI) proposed the amendment’s language, he stated: “It will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”
The Ruling
Records from the Reconstruction era corroborate the Amendment’s framers’ dominant concerns; i.e. the crisis of 4 million black “citizens” living in former Confederate states. There is simply no way the framers were writing a forward-looking global invitation. Still, writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts presented US citizenship as an American version of English royal subjectship, drawing a line from England’s Calvin’s Case in 1608 to Sir William Blackstone’s 1765 jurisprudence commentaries to antebellum U.S. case law to the 1898 Wong Kim Ark ruling.
That is THE thinking trap of case law; i.e. it’s but a fraction of an issue’s history. When the Colonies revolted, as the Declaration made clear, it was to reject Mother England’s entire theory of citizenship. Whereas an Englishman owed perpetual allegiance to George III simply by being born in his kingdom, an American had to give his consent to be governed. Yes, the two systems occasionally use similar words, but to declare absolute continuity with ye olde English common law is as absurd as declaring absolute continuity with ye olde Dred Scot.
Roberts appears to conflate the “local allegiance” of foreigners (obey US laws while visiting) and the “complete allegiance” of citizens (obey US laws forever). Complete allegiance is permanent, exclusive, and tied to political membership in the community, not mere physical presence within its borders. Such allegiance was implied in the Wong Kim Ark ruling in 1898; he was the son of Chinese parents who were “lawfully and permanently domiciled” in the United States. That’s materially different from children born to parents here illegally or on a 90-day tourist visa.
Suffice it to note that complete allegiance will matter if the US goes to war with Mexico, especially along the border.
The Consequences
Set the constitutional debate aside for a moment, because the 6-3 ruling hands out a very valuable prize to anyone willing to game the system, and the incentives it creates are not hypothetical. Roughly 9% of U.S. births in recent years – around 320,000 annually – were born to “illegal alien” mothers. Even worse are the products of birth tourism, which is a documented, prosecuted industry, not a talking point.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Court directly that birthright citizenship “has spawned a sprawling industry of birth tourism.” To wit, Star Baby Care advertised 20 years of service to “8,000 pregnant women,” and another operator received $3 million wired from China in a 2-year period. In 2019, the DOJ brought criminal charges against these “maternity house” schemes, resulting in 19 indictments and multiple operators sentenced to federal prison.
These crimes are covered in Peter Schweizer’s bestselling book, The Invisible Coup. Citing Chinese government numbers, he estimates 750,000-1,500,000 kids with US birth certificates are now being indoctrinated in Red China…until they return as 18-year-old US citizens with voting rights. Schweizer’s theory of the case against birth tourism should have swayed the high court.
Since 2016, ten close House races have been decided by fewer than 3,000 popular votes (ranging from 6 votes in Iowa’s 2nd in 2020 to 3,000 in New York’s 19th in 2024). And, in 2024, GOP House and Senate majorities were decided by just 7,309 and 26,275 popular votes, respectively. Surely, China saw how tight the margin-of-victory was in 2024 (table below).
| MARGIN OF VICTORY | ||
| HOUSE – 2024 | SENATE – 2024 | PRESIDENCY – 2024 |
| 87 (D) in California 13 | 15,115 (R) in Pennsylvania | 29,397 (R) in Wisconsin |
| 653 (D) in California 45 | 19,006 (D) in Michigan | 46,000 (R) in Nevada |
| 798 (R) in Iowa 1 | 24,059 (D) in Nevada | 80,103 (R) in Michigan |
Real question: with a few thousand votes in a handful of districts deciding who governs our country, do you trust the CCP to stay out of our elections? Democrats believe Russians colluded to thwart the 2016 election. Republicans believe Somalis migrate here to commit entitlement fraud. It is, thus, no sin to believe China will flood swing districts in ten years with “sleeper” voting blocs.
If even a fraction of Schweizer’s numbers return to vote, the Court may have signed our Republic’s death sentence.
A simple solution exists; re-consider Trump v. Barbara, uphold the President’s executive order, and remand the issue to Congress. The view here is that, in exchange for a pathway to citizenship for DACA children, Democrats will agree to laws that end birth tourism and abusive chain migration.
A bipartisan solution. Has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it?