The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 1805 - Dismantling the Disastrous 'Birthright Citizenship' Decision in 45 minutes

Episode Date: July 1, 2026

SCOTUS just made the worst ruling in modern history and it's not even close. We will discuss the details today. Ep. 1805 - - - Today's Sponsor: PureTalk - Go to https://PureTalk.com/WALSH to switch to the only wireless company awarded five stars in every category by Consumer Reports. No service contract. No cancellation fees. Just phenomenal U.S. customer service on the 5G network that powers America. - - - Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://dwplus.watch/MattWalshMemberExclusive - - - DailyWire+: Become a Daily Wire Member and watch all of our content ad-free: https://dwplus.watch/RealHistorySubscribe 📲 Download the free Daily Wire app today on iPhone, Android, Roku, Apple TV, Samsung, and more. 🎆 Celebrate Independence Day with a DailyWire+ membership! 🇺🇸 Our 4th of July SALE offers 3-Months of DailyWire+ for $17.76 📜 📜 Real History with Matt Walsh is available ad-free, exclusively on DailyWire+ https://dwplus.watch/RealHistory 👕 Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://dwplus.shop/MattWalshMerch - - - Socials:  YouTube — https://youtube.com/@mattwalsh Facebook — https://www.facebook.com/mattwalshblog Instagram — https://www.instagram.com/mattwalshblog TikTok — https://www.tiktok.com/@mattwalsh_ X — https://twitter.com/mattwalshblog - - - Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The grill is shot. The chairs are held together by optimism. And what happened to the rug? Sounds like your outdoor setup is not ready for patio season. Fix it all with Wayfair. Shop Wayfair for grills, rugs, furniture, and more. With 20 million five-star reviews, room of choice delivery, and experts set up on qualifying orders,

it's never been easier to do more for less. Get 10% off your first eligible purchase. Hurry to Wayfair.com or download the app now. The Supreme Court's ruling on birthright citizenship, which awards citizenship to anyone whose parents managed 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, and there really 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 Democrat Party wants. They're openly campaigning on it, as a matter of fact. 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 country. She wants to open the borders and law enforcement and make every foreigner a citizen. Here she is laying out some of her bright ideas. Abolishing ICE is just one step, right? Democrats have been in power multiple times over the last few decades and did nothing to address the immigration reform that we actually need. Increased expenditures, increased spending. Exactly. Yeah. And so if we're, I think there has to be an immediate pathway for every single undocumented immigrant that's here in this country today that does not require them to,

shell out thousands of dollars to go through their process for it to take decades at a time to be able to get to citizenship an immediate pathway to citizenship do you believe that the 9-11 terrorist attacks on america were the inevitable consequence of american foreign policy inevitable in the sense that we destabilized a lot of the middle east um that forced people to believe that another act of violence was the only response and again just like i said before our responsibility is to getting rid of those conditions that lead to violence in the first place. Force them to believe. We forced them. We forced them to believe that mass murder was the only option. Now, this woman was backed by Hassan 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 secretive about it. He's not American in any sense of the word, but because of the fixed, of birthright citizenship, he's legally untouchable, and now he's helping to elect political candidates who are determined to sabotage the country. We're seeing similar election results all over the country from Maine to D.C. to Pennsylvania to New York, 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 all out for us. Listen. We are the owners of that document, the Constitution, an elastic document that will stretch to include everybody. And so we will continue

to stand united, to defend that document, protect our freedoms, and fight for America, for every child, so that every child has the opportunity to achieve

the American dream. Oh, I know the Constitution, and he won the American. Donald Trump intento. We are the owners, he says,

of the Constitution. And when he says we, he doesn't mean me. He doesn't mean you. He means him. This guy from the Dominican Republic. You know, apparently, I didn't realize this. Apparently, some guy

from the Dominican Republic owns the Constitution. Which is, he says, he says, an elastic document that will stretch, stretch to include everybody. Well, what's a country that includes everybody? It's not a country at all, of course. I mean, what is anything, any kind of institution, country, anything? If it literally includes everybody, it's nothing. Whatever defined that thing is gone. But that's the whole point. It's a... It's what they want.

You know, it's a failed state that's guaranteed to go bankrupt and to destroy hundreds of millions of lives in the process, and this is their intention. And 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 14th 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, okay? It's not a trick question or a brain burner or anything like that.

This is 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 far away country, is the child automatically a Mexican citizen? Yes or no? What about 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? How about if the mother is from El Salvador? How about if she's from Honduras or the Philippines? 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 happened to be born? Well, 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, 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 are born, you are automatically American as well. Another way of saying this is that regardless of where you may be born, you are 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, depending on the laws.

In every relevant respect, even though you were not born in that particular country, you are subject to their jurisdiction. Okay, with that in mind, here is the text of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was ratified in 1868. Here it is. Quote, 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. I'll say that again. 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. Well, you're probably starting to see the issue. Under the plain text of the 14th Amendment, it's not enough to be born or naturalized in the United States. If that was the case, the framers of the amendment would have stopped there, but they added another requirement. In addition to being born or naturalized in the United States in order to become a citizen. A child must be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. So what does that mean exactly? Well, one clue is that elsewhere in the Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause applies to, quote, any person within a state's jurisdiction. So we can infer that within a jurisdiction does not mean exactly

the same thing as being subject to a jurisdiction, since these are two very different phrases that appear separately 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, which is why they have these two different phrases in the same document. Now, the obvious translation here is that the child cannot be an anchor baby. He cannot be subject to the jurisdiction of some far away country where he's automatically become a citizen. Because if he's a citizen of that other country, which he is, then he is subject to their jurisdiction. That is the only way to make sense of this provision.

Otherwise, the provision doesn't make any sense. It's redundant at best. The framers could have simply written, all persons born are naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States. And the left, and now the Supreme Court, they're pretending that that is all that the 14th Amendment says. But it doesn't only say that. If that's all it was intended to mean, it would have just said that,

but that's not what it says. That's not what they wrote. They added that the child must also be subject to the jurisdiction of this country, meaning they cannot be foreign nationals, obviously. They cannot be the children of illegal aliens who are citizens of some other country. Obviously, 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 pretty much how every other country on the planet handles this issue. Try going to Beijing or Tokyo and giving birth and then demanding they

recognize your child as a Chinese or Japanese, as a Chinese or Japanese citizen. You know, they'll probably get a kick out of that. And yet on Tuesday, day, and 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-Barrant and John Roberts, decided otherwise. In their view, the words subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are completely redundant. You know, the framers of the 14th Amendment apparently had no reason to include those words at all. They don't mean anything. Because according to John Roberts, quote, every freeborn person in this land is automatically a citizen in 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 pregnant in a scheme, you know, on a fake visa for the sole purpose of giving birth to an American citizen on a technicality. Even if the child's clan in Somalia exists to defraud the United States at every available opportunity, still they are all United States citizens. In every single case, we're told, the framers of the 14th 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. That there's something magical about the dirt itself. As long as you're standing on the dirt, as long as you're standing on this dirt, automatically you're a citizen. As long as you, yeah, if you are born on this dirt, then the dirt, the magical dirt, confer citizenship onto you. And we're all supposed to believe that the child is just as American as you or I. They're entitled to all the benefits of American citizenship for the rest of their lives

because of the precise location where they were located when they were born. We have to subsidize that child for the rest of his life, which is what ends up happening in many of these cases. Advertising can say just about anything. Every wireless company claims they have the best deal, according to their own commercials. They're all number one. That's why it's worth paying attention when somebody else does the judge. And Consumer Reports just completed a massive survey of wireless providers across America. Only one company earned five out of five stars in every category, including coverage, support,

value and data. And that company is Pure Talk, which really says something. Good companies don't have to tell people they're good. Their customers will do it for them. So if you're still paying inflated prices to one of the big wireless companies, it's worth asking why you're paying more without getting better service. I use Pure Talk because they actually deliver on what they promise. And right now, there's another reason to make the switch. Pure Talk is matching donation dollar for dollar until they reach $250,000 for America's Warrior Partnership, an organization on the front supporting our veterans. Go to PureTalk.com slash Walls to switch to the only wireless company awarded five stars in every category by consumer reports.

No service contract, no cancellation fees, just phenomenal U.S. customer service on the 5G network that powers America. Again, it's Pure Talk.com slash walls to make the switch to Pure Talk, a wireless company that actually lives up to your expectations. Now, I'm going to discuss all the problems with this reasoning in just a moment because while it's somewhat technical, it's also important from a historical perspective. We all have an obligation to understand our history and how it's being rewritten in front of us. But at the outset, 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. Okay. 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, clearly. And so if the authors of the 14th 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. But we're not morally required to kill the country and destroy our children's future because some people 150 years ago thought we should. But as it happens, they did not think that we should.

They did not intend any of this, as we'll get into. Now, what makes America so desirable to all of these foreigners is that Americans live here. We can govern ourselves, unlike Somalis or 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 or France and the UK, through our hard work and ingenuity, we've generated more wealth than these people can ever comprehend. We have a shared history, language, a religious tradition, one that is not 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 heat stroke 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, again, a suicide pact. And as Stephen Miller said yesterday, it's such an obviously self-destructive decision, one that will so clearly hasten the end of the United States that it can't possibly be right. As Samuel Alito pointed out in his dissent, if anything, this is a very few.

fuel way of thinking. You know, 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. And that's why in our citizenship test, the framers required allegiance to the United States. We transcended the futile way of thinking and adopted our own system. Now, when I made this argument yesterday on social media, a few people tried to add a community note to one of my posts. Their argument was basically, well, you know, this has been the law of the land forever. We've always awarded, 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 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act of 1866 that preceded the amendment, very clearly did not intend to give citizenship to everyone who was born in the 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 who were born in the United States. Now, 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. And therefore, regardless of where they were born, the members of the Indian tribes were not awarded automatic citizenship under the 14th 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 were 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, which were located in America. So why are the Indian children not subject to the authority in the United States, while every other illegal alien is? Now, the majority of the Supreme Court never answered this question. They didn't even attempt to. As Alito writes in his dissent, quote, the court cannot explain why the 14th 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 14th 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. Now, the point is, it's completely wrong to suggest that the 14th Amendment always guaranteed birthright citizenship to everyone who happened to be born here. There were limitations on that principle, and pretty much everybody understood that. and that's why in 1910, the Department of Justice issued a report stating, quote, 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 U.S. operates to invest such child with all the rights of American citizenship. Now, additionally, as Clarence Thomas wrote in his dissent, quote, Representative Bingham, the architect of the 14th Amendment, believed that the citizenship clause would not apply to the children of temporary visitors. Senator Trumbull, a principal champion of the amendment, agree. Jacob Howard, who introduced the Citizenship Clause, agreed. Congressmen after congressmen 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's decision makers 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. Indeed, Senator Jacob Howard, who was cited very selectively in the majority opinion, was pretty explicit on this point. Quote, this amendment will not, of course, include persons

born in the U.S. who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers. So it is pure fantasies to suggest that we've always had birthright citizenship, or that this was ever a settled issue. What happened is that an amendment would, was ratified containing a rule with one particular scenario in mind. The rule came with several exceptions right off the bat. It was never a bright line mandate. And then the rule was interpreted with all kinds of exceptions over the following decades. All amendments work like this. We have restrictions on the first and second amendments, for example, if the founders never could have considered at the time. They didn't come up with a law against private citizens

owning fighter jets because fighter jets didn't exist at the time. They also didn't come up with laws restricting your ability to pirate DVDs because those didn't exist either. Instead, the founders came up with a general principle. And then we've applied that principle to new scenarios as they arise. In 1898, the Supreme Court decided a case called Wong Kim Ark. And as Kavanaugh pointed out, this case established that there were at least four exceptions to the idea of birthright citizenship, children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers or born on foreign public ships or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory and children of members of the Indian tribes. Now, those were the exceptions that were necessary at the time. That doesn't mean we're stuck with

those exceptions forever. If anything, that case established that so-called birthright citizenship is not absolute. And we can limit or even eliminate the entire concept at will. all it established is that, of course, you have to have exceptions that apply to the situations that you're facing. And circumstances have certainly changed to the point where that solution is long overdue. You know, the authors of the 14th Amendment were not concerned about addressing the citizenship of hordes of illegal aliens, nor were they concerned about birth tourism. And we all know why. The rate of illegal immigration and birth tourism was essentially zero at the time. As Samuel Lino points out in his dissent, which is worth reading,

in its entirety if you haven't. We didn't have a significant population of illegal aliens in this country until the 1960s. And our legal immigration population was very, very different as well. I mean, back then, only around 5% of our total migrant population came from Africa and Asia. Only around 10% came from South and Central America. The vast majority came from Europe, Canada, and Australia. Well, today, by contrast, half of the migrants are coming from South and Central America. 40% are coming from from Africa and Asia. That adds up to 90% of the total. It's coming from these continents, these regions. And that's just one way of summarizing the change we've all seen.

Sixty years ago, we didn't have a deluge of statistically low IQ, impoverished anti-American foreigners raiding our country and getting on the welfare rolls. Now we do. No sane person can possibly believe that the authors of the 14th Amendment had anything like our current situation in mind when they wrote the text. They did not intend and could not have intended to grant automatic citizenship to millions of third world illegal immigrants sneaking across the border because no such scenario was even conceivable at the time. And for that matter, 60 years ago, we certainly didn't have any birth tourism because no pregnant woman was going to get on a boat and spend a few months making her way to the United States. But now we have airplanes.

So this happens all the time. Watch. An alert Smithtown-town employee noticed a strange pattern of birth certificates, five babies from one house at one time. An investigation led to an international fraud scheme and alleged birth tourism ring, operating on Long Island for three years. The defendants fraudulently facilitated the births in the United States of approximately 119 Turkish children. And those children now hold birthright U.S. citizenship. It's the 14th Amendment that grants citizenship to any child born in the U.S.

officials say in this case ringleaders brazenly advertised in Turkey. Translation, if you believe your baby should be born in the USA and become an American citizen, you're in the right place. What's illegal alleged lies to obtain travel visas. Fraudulent Medicaid claims for babies and moms who stayed at seven birthhouses across Suffolk County. Women paid up to $10,000 each for accommodations and free health care paid by U.S. taxpayers. They're doing it on the backs of the taxpayers. They're milking the Medicaid system. Six people arrested, charged with money laundering and $2 million in Medicaid fraud.

So this is a lot like the Somali frauds. The feds might catch a handful of them, but it's happening so frequently that they really aren't making a dent. And in a moment, we'll talk about ways to end this practice for good. But for now, the point is that birth tourism, was not a problem that the authors of the 14th Amendment considered or had any reason to consider. Instead, the main purpose of the 14th Amendment was to award citizenship to newly freed black slaves. That was the primary focus of the framers of the amendment. In her concurring opinion, our most eloquent Supreme Court justice, Contagy Brown-Jackson, tried to make the argument that the 14th Amendment was really about awarding citizenship to everybody in the country rather than just slaves.

and here's how she made that argument. Quote, The amendment caused a paradigm shift in the trajectory of our nation. The teacher who scolds a student for bullying a classmate hopes the student learns the broader lesson of treating everybody with kindness, not just that one kid.

In the aftermath of the Civil War, those who championed the 14th Amendment, both within and beyond Congress, understood the assignment. Their work product used language that transcended race and region and thereby changed. and brought in the meaning of freedom for all Americans. Well, yes, the supporters of the 14th Amendment understood the assignment, writes Cantonje Brown Jackson.

That's her argument for why the 14th Amendment applies to every foreigner who's born in the country, which it was never intended to. She's using TikTok lingo to explain it away. And it's not the first time she's done this, by the way, used the language of a 14-year-old on TikTok. Recently, she used the phrase, wait for it. in one of her dissents. She was trying to passive-aggressively make the point that district judges

can't possibly be overstepping their authority by shutting down everything the Trump administration is doing, even though it's obviously what was happening. And she used Gen Z cliches to get the point across. I mean, at this rate before long, we're going to see Katanji Brown Jackson say that the Trump administration is giving fascism or something like that.

She'll say the Democrats ate. They left no crumbs. We're just months away from Jackson using LMAO and a laughing face emoji in an official legal document. It's going to happen. She's going to sign off of a concurring opinion by writing 10 out of 10 no notes or some bulls like that. It's going to happen. I mean, we're almost there.

In the citizenship case, it's obvious why Jackson decided to start talking like a 15-year-old. She understands that she had no real argument. In her view, having allegiance to a country means that you're in town and, you know, you steal a wallet and the police arrest you. That's all it takes, according to Katanji Brown's action, for you to be. subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and to have complete allegiance to our country. Watch. I was thinking about this, and I think there are various sources that say this, that you can have, you obviously have permanent allegiance based on being born in whatever country you're from.

That's what everybody recognizes. But you also have local allegiance when you are on the soil of this other sovereign. And I was thinking, you know, I, U.S. citizen, am 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 can they control you as a matter of law. I can also rely on them if my wallet is stolen to, you know, under Japanese law, go and prosecute the person who, has stolen it. So there's this relationship based on, even though I'm a temporary traveler, I'm just on vacation in Japan, I'm still locally owing allegiance in that. Now, even if you know

nothing about the law, as Contagia Brown Jackson apparently knows nothing about the law, hearing this, you know she has no clue what she's talking about. You could pull a random woman off the street and she'd be about as convincing as a Supreme Court justice as Jackson is. As best like I can tell. She's trying to make the argument that if you could be arrested by the police, then you're subject to this jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. But there's no reason to believe that the 14th Amendment was ever supposed to work like that or that the 14th Amendment was ever intended to award citizenship to everybody born in this country because it didn't do that at the time. Again, to give just one example, Indians were not awarded

citizenship, even though they could theoretically have been arrested if they stole somebody's wallet. Additionally, none of the senators debating the law ever suggested otherwise. It was mainly about giving citizenship to freed slaves because they weren't loyal to any other country. They were they were they were domiciled here. Many of them had just fought in an American war. They had all the obligations of citizens. And in short, they were nothing like today's illegal aliens from the third world. It's an entirely different situation that they were trying to solve in this with this amendment. Lyman Trumbull, the author of the Citizenship Clause in the Civil Rights Act, which provided the backbone of the 14th Amendment, was very clear that birth did not automatically grant citizenship. And what's incredible about Trumbull is that like Senator Howard, he actually cited, he's actually studied several times in the Supreme Court's majority opinion yesterday, as if he would support their ruling. But Trumbull is also cited in the dissents because it turns out, if you don't selectively quote him, he clearly did not favor the idea of universal

birthright citizenship. Describing the 14th Amendment, Trumpel said, quote, the provision is that all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens. And that means subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. What do we mean by subject to the jurisdiction of the United States not owing allegiance to anybody else? That is what it means. Well, those statements are very different from saying, if you're born here, then you're a citizen no matter what. He's clearly alluding to a much more specific test, one that requires complete jurisdiction, not merely partial jurisdiction. That means no other country can have a claim to jurisdiction over the child, and a child, in turn, cannot owe allegiance to anybody else. Additionally, Trouble's test requires that the alien owes no allegiance to anyone else.

These are major additional criteria, obviously. But Kataji Brown Jackson ignores all this because who needs history when you have TikTok. And according to Jackson, you have allegiance to a country if you steal a wallet and get arrested by the police. That's how seriously she's taking this whole exercise. And on top of that, for most of this country's history, the idea of universal birthright citizenship was seen as totally insane. And this wasn't really even a controversial point. Harry Reid, the leader of Democrats in the Senate, arguably the most powerful Democrat of the country, introduced legislation declaring that the child of an illegal alien or temporary visitor would, quote, not be a citizen of the United States or of any

state solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth. As Reid put it, quote, no sane country would offer a reward for being an illegal immigrant. Every prominent Democrat was talking like this, up until very recently, which you might not realize. Watch. Broken borders. That's an oxymoron, something we can't tolerate. Borders of their nature are definition as a nation and our protection as a country. Broken borders that doesn't, they don't exist.

We can't tolerate them. So let's say from the start that we all in this body, and I know I can speak very firmly for the Democrats, support strong border control. And it must be part and the first part of any comprehensive immigration reform. We have, it is our obligation as elected officials to keep the American people safe and our borders are our first line of defense, one of our early lines of defense to do that. So this is one of those times when the Democrats say something or do something or support something and they say, you know, everyone's always agreed. What are you talking about? Why are you

objecting to this? Everyone's always agreed with it. But then in reality, it's like you didn't even agree with it. What are you talking about? Nobody agreed with what you're saying right now, including you until about 15 seconds ago. You didn't even agree with yourself 15 seconds ago on this issue. Nancy Pelosi, by the way, was not out of step with California voters on this. In the 1990s, California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 187, which required that quote, every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States

regarding any person who's arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws. Now, it's hard to imagine that Californians would support a law like that, but they did. This was before California became a colony of Mexico. Nevertheless, the voters were still ignored. A judge quickly shut down the law, overriding the will of the voters. And as a result of the demographic transformation of this country, we now face a crisis that would have been unthinkable to the men who drafted the 14th Amendment.

In just one nine-month stretch under the Biden administration, as Justice Kavanaugh pointed out, in his dissent, more than 3 million illegal aliens entered into the United States that we're aware of. I mean, the actual number is probably five times that amount. That's just one nine-month period. Over the course of Biden's full term, more than 10 million illegal aliens crossed the border and were allowed to remain in the country. This was a deliberate policy choice. Just two months into Biden's administration, the DHS secretary, made this announcement to the entire third world. Watch. Some loving parents might send their child to traverse Mexico alone to reach the southern border, our southern border. I hope they don't undertake that perilous journey, but if they do, we will not expel that young child. Well, you can't get more explicit than that.

They invited an invasion. They wanted foreigners to come here and produce as many anchor babies as possible. And that's exactly what happened. And that's obviously, again, not. what the authors of the 14th Amendment had in mind when it was written. At every level, Democrats permitted all of it, even now as socialism, the trademark ideology of the Third World, is ascendant in the United States as a result of their open borders policies. Democrats are capitulating. Adam Schiff just went on CNN to declare that socialism is a new idea and that he welcomes these socialists to Congress.

Watch. She has sympathetic references to communism, talks about a Marxist ideology, talks about seizing the means of production, abolished police, prisons and borders, wiping her hands on a U.S. flag. She now says, quote, I have grown considerably in the year since these tweets, and I'm focused on our community and our community's future, which is not exactly disowning the comments. What do you make of these comments and the fact that this is a growing brand of the Democratic Party? Well, I wouldn't say that those comments are reflective of a growing brand in the party. I understand that she's advocated closing all prisons, defunding police departments, opening borders. None of those views are within the mainstream of the Democratic Party. But I will say this, it is reflective, among other things, of the power of Mamdani, of Mayor Mabdani.

I think he is incredibly charismatic leader. I think he is inspiring New Yorkers and winning people over and has enormous clout in New York. There was a lot of fear when the AOC first ran for office that she was going to be this dangerous influence. She's been a great member of Congress. She's been articulate and forceful and made a profound case for change. So I'm not afraid of new members or new ideas on the party. I welcome it. One thing, though, I think is an absolute takeaway in these races as in others, and that is the status quo is just deeply unacceptable to the American people and they're looking for change agents.

Ah, yes, the bold new idea of socialism. What an amazing new concept. You know, you just seize the means of production, give everybody free stuff. What could go wrong? Certainly never been tried before to catastrophic results in hundreds of millions of deaths all over the world. Now, Schiff is not alone on this. Here's Senator Gillibrand of New York saying, Socialism is a good trend because it shows younger voters are fired up. Fidel Vargas, President CEO, HSF. What is your explanation for what happened in New York with the primaries and especially those in New York City? How are you taking that to heart as a senator from New York as the head of the senatorial campaign and as a member of the Democratic Party? Yes.

So New York had a very strong change election. There was a huge interest in new candidates, candidates, younger candidates in some instances, the next generation of candidates. And so there was several instances where incumbents lost to challengers because of that trend. And that trend is a very good trend for nationwide elections because it shows how deep the interest in change is and how fired up new voters are, younger voters are, different, demographics of voters. Now, when Senator Trumbull and the other lawmakers were debating the 14th Amendment,

this is not what they had in mind. They were not interested in destroying the United States. And we can be sure of that because from the transcripts, we had none of these senators were socialists. None of them talked about ending capitalism or abolishing the police or opening the borders. But when you open the borders to everybody and grant citizenship to every third world alien who happens to be born here, this is what you get. To use a phrase, can Tanji Brown Jackson can understand John Ron.

Roberts and Amy Coney-Barritt simply don't understand what time it is. The federal society, which drives the selection of these conservative judges, these allegedly conservative judges, is simply too weak on immigration. They pick judges who, unlike the left-wing judges, often vote against the interests of their party. As a result, as J.D. Vance pointed out last night, desperate measures are necessary to reverse the downward trend that we're clearly on. We need to get rid of the filibuster for one thing and immediately pass the Save Act. Watch. Save America Act legislation itself. The problem that they have, with all due respect, is that they're worshipping, dying institutional norms when the Democrats are in fact bragging that as soon as they get control, they're going to throw that stuff aside and make it so much harder for Republicans to even win elections.

So what some of these Republicans are saying is they don't want to give up on the norm of the filibuster, this sacred Senate institutional norm that a few senators are obsessed. with, including, of course, Mitch McConnell, the problem, Laura, is that Democrats themselves are saying the minute that they get power, the filibuster is going out the door. So unilaterally submitting and surrendering as Republicans when Democrats are openly bragging that they're going to get rid of the filibuster, it's just handing your enemy a weapon that they're going to use to strike you down. It's absurd. It doesn't make any sense. But that's why we frankly have to get better senators in there in the future. Yeah, you've been following what's going on with the Democrat Party and the rise of socialism.

Now, there are plenty of discrete steps we can take along these lines. After abolishing the filibuster, we can make birth tourism, a serious felony offense, imprison any foreigners who enter this country to have a child, which is immigration fraud by any definition. Eliminate all visas of any kind from every third world country. Don't let them get a tourist visa, a work visa, an academic visa. visa, anything. It's just going to lead to them scamming us even more. Most importantly, launch new immigration raids in every major city in the country. When the blue-haired lesbians show up, start blowing their whistles and crying about it, who cares? Arrest them for obstruction. Throw them in Guantanamo Bay if you have to. We simply don't have the luxury of tolerating these

people anymore. While I've just outlined the case that birthright citizenship is a fake concept, The truth is the legal argument isn't actually that important in the end. I mean, as the saying goes, he who saves his country violates no law. Donald Trump reposted that quote recently, and now it's time for him to act on it. This is a principle that holds true regardless of the opinions that John Roberts cooks up when he's trying to make the court seem nonpartisan. It's a principle that holds true to matter what Amy Coney-Barritt writes when she's done crying over George Floyd's overdose. The actual birthright, the real birthright, belongs to my children.

Not the child of some Guatemalan woman who just showed up here, belongs to my kids and the kids of all real Americans. They have a birthright to live in a country that resembles the one our ancestors established and intended. And now that birthright, the only true birthright, has been destroyed in favor of the imagine. birthright of children born to parents who don't even belong to this country and who have no ancestral or cultural ties to it whatsoever. It's total madness. I mean, it's suicide. Words cannot describe how evil it is. 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 the 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 Aquinas for the proposition that, quote, 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 hurt. hurtful to the people. This has been the default understanding of Western civilization for a very long time, hundreds of years, thousands of years. And now our institutions are rejecting this principle, a principle which amounts to basic 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 Philibaba, Declare war on the third world, not simply the communists and the birth tourists, but all of it. Use existing authority under the Immigration Nationality Act to ban not only all third worlders, but also all women of childbearing age from entering the United States. Expell Maria Salazar from the GOP, along with every other Republican who's endorsed the birthright citizenship ruling, block existing foreign nationals from getting identification numbers, which they're using in lieu of Social Security numbers

to apply for jobs and housing and other benefits. I mean, 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 that they'll vilify in 50 years. Become a Joseph McCarthy.

Become a Richard Nixon. They'll 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'll 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 is left of the United States. I'll do it for the show today.

Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you. Tomorrow, have a great day. Godspeed. Terror warning in Northern Virginia. Radicalism has designs openly on the West. The FBI ordered a terror plot on New Year's Eve. Violence attack over the Halloween weekend in Michigan.

Protests on college campuses showing no signs of stopping.