Latest News
January 1, Supreme Court Case Could Reshape Birthright Citizenship
Wyatt’s Take
- The Supreme Court will hear a major birthright citizenship case tied to the 14th Amendment.
- The dispute centers on whether “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” covers children of people here illegally.
- A ruling could have major consequences for immigration policy, national identity, and public resources.
The Supreme Court is preparing to hear a massive case regarding the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship.
At the center of the fight is whether the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” applies to people who entered our country illegally.
For too long, the system has allowed a loophole that grants automatic citizenship to any child born on U.S. soil regardless of the parents’ legal status.
This practice has created a massive magnet for illegal immigration and has been exploited by foreign nationals for decades.
The 14th Amendment was written after the Civil War to protect the rights of freed slaves, not to reward those who break our borders.
If the Court makes this a constitutional right for illegal aliens, the damage to our national identity will be permanent and nearly impossible to fix.
Our leaders must prioritize the value of American citizenship and the needs of our own people over those who disregard our laws.
It is time for a ruling based on common sense and the original intent of the Constitution.
Read more about the birthright citizenship case.
Wyatt Matters
Protecting the sanctity of citizenship reflects the Middle America belief that rights come with responsibility and respect for the law.
-
Entertainment3 years agoWhoopi Goldberg’s “Wildly Inappropriate” Commentary Forces “The View” into Unscheduled Commercial Break
-
Entertainment2 years ago‘He’s A Pr*ck And F*cking Hates Republicans’: Megyn Kelly Goes Off on Don Lemon
-
Featured3 years agoUS Advises Citizens to Leave This Country ASAP
-
Featured3 years agoBenghazi Hero: Hillary Clinton is “One of the Most Disgusting Humans on Earth”
-
Entertainment2 years agoComedy Mourns Legend Richard Lewis: A Heartfelt Farewell
-
Latest News2 years agoNude Woman Wields Spiked Club in Daylight Venice Beach Brawl
-
Featured3 years agoFox News Calls Security on Donald Trump Jr. at GOP Debate [Video]
-
Latest News2 years agoSupreme Court Gift: Trump’s Trial Delayed, Election Interference Allegations Linger
Louis Marquez
April 2, 2026 at 12:02 pm
I question the intelligence of Supreme Court justices when they start comparing “stolen wallets in Japan” and “the rights of freed slave” to people who have entered the country illegally. How about this argument, if baby is per chance born in a police station, does that make him a policeman, or a baby born to a devout Democrat, or Republican, does he automatically doomed to be what they are! Furthermore, if I want my child to be a citizen of another country by birth, should I then be allowed to fly to that country just prior to his birth so that at birth he becomes a citizen of that country by birth even tho I am not?
Chris
April 2, 2026 at 1:08 pm
The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was added for one and only one reason — to exclude some births from bestowing automatic citizenship. So, you *have* to ask, which births did those who wrote/approved the 14th intend to exclude?
To me, it’s pretty clear that they intended to exclude the born-here children of those who have no allegiance to the US. What other births could they have meant?
For perspective, consider that one of the few requirements for the President is that they be “natural born”. This was put in place by the founders to avoid the potential pitfalls of having a chief executive who was also the subject of a foreign ruler. However, due to the misapplication of the 14th, we have a large number of “natural born” citizens who are indeed the subjects of a foreign power — but they’re eligible to hold the office of the President! I cannot believe that those who wrote/approved the 14th *intended* for it to be a workaround against the safeguard of disallowing a President with foreign allegiances. Surely, at least in part, they added the clause to prevent such an occurrence and thus had to be their intent. That is the way the 14th should be applied.