Most Americans have no idea how birthright citizenship is being wildy abused by adversarial nations and actors — turning it into a loophole, a weapon, and a pipeline.

A Chinese billionaire had over a hundred babies via U.S. multiple surrogates. These babies were send back to China, indoctrinated by CCP. After 18, they will come to America to live and vote. Supreme Court should end birthright citizenship. Stop the soft power invasion.

President Trump called on the Supreme Court to do the right thing and abolish birthright citizenship for illegals and migrants

“Birthright Citizenship has to do with the babies of slaves, not Chinese Billionaires who have 56 kids, all of whom “become” American Citizens. One of the many Great Scams of our time!”

“This is a glaring red line for the Supreme Court justices that they don’t get to give away citizenship. They don’t have that power,” Mike Davis,founder of judicial advocacy group Article III Project, told The NY Post. “We the people never agreed to give this away.”
“These justices need to follow the law or they’re going to lose their legitimacy,” he added. “There’s no more important of a case before the Supreme Court.”

POLITICO: Supreme Court justices today seemed skeptical of President Donald Trump’s push to end birthright citizenship, a seismic case with the potential to upend life for immigrant communities in California and across the country. In a precedent-busting move, Trump, himself, sat in the courtroom as Solicitor General John Sauer defended the president’s executive order that would deny U.S. citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants and foreigners on temporary visas, Josh Gerstein reports. The case could have an outsized effect on California, where more than one-quarter of residents are foreign-born — the biggest population of immigrants in the nation. Despite Trump’s presence, the justices lobbed pointed questions at Sauer and took issue with some of the Trump administration’s arguments. Chief Justice John Roberts called the examples it gave to support its claims “quirky.” “I’m not quite sure how you get to that big group from such tiny and idiosyncratic examples,” Roberts said. Even Justice Samuel Alito, one of the court’s most conservative members, expressed some concern about the order’s implications. “We have an unusual situation here because our immigration laws have been ineffectively and in some instances unenthusiastically enforced by federal officials,” Alito said. “So, there are people who are subject to removal at any time … but they have, in their minds, made a permanent home here and have established roots and that raises a humanitarian problem.” Birthright citizenship was established with an 1898 case involving a San Francisco man, Wong Kim Ark, who was born in California to Chinese parents and later had to fight to come back to the United States after leaving to visit his family.

Trump admin faces tough questions from skeptical Supreme Court over ‘quirky’ birthright citizenship arguments

By Ryan King and Josh Christenson, NY Post, April 1, 2026:

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justices from across the ideological spectrum pummeled a lawyer for the Trump administration with biting questions during oral arguments Wednesday over the president’s executive order on birthright citizenship.

While it wasn’t fully clear which way the high court will go in the landmark case, Republican-appointed justices made clear they were far from a lock for the administration — all while President Trump was in the room as the first sitting president in US history to observe oral arguments in person.

“You obviously put a lot of weight on ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ But the examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky,” Chief Justice John Roberts asked US Solicitor General John Sauer early on.

Existing birthright citizenship policy largely stems from the 14th Amendment, which stipulates that “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.”

Trump’s executive order, signed on Jan. 20, 2025, his first day back in the White House, attempts to eliminate birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants and temporary visitors to the US. That order has been blocked by the lower courts, which universally ruled against him on the matter.

Before the Supreme Court, a question was raised on Wednesday about whether Trump can do that based on the 14th Amendment and statutory law, namely the Nationality Act of 1940. GOP-appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh repeatedly questioned why the high court should even get to the constitutional question when there’s a statute involved.

“Our usual practice, as you’re well aware, of course, is to resolve things on statutory grounds and not to do a constitutional ground,” Kavanaugh noted at one point.

Trump, who was joined by Attorney General Pam Bondi during his historic appearance, left the Supreme Court partway through oral arguments. However, it wasn’t fully clear whether that was because of frustrations with how arguments were going or his busy schedule.

All three of the Democrat-appointed justices sounded skeptical of the Trump administration’s arguments in defense of the executive order. The six Republican-appointed justices were very mixed, with Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas appearing sympathetic to the administration and the others asking tough questions of both sides.

Roberts, seen as a crucial swing vote, is often one of the more reserved justices, who typically asks just a few questions, though it varies from case to case. So his tough questions of Sauer were notable, though the chief justice did grill American Civil Liberties Union attorney Cecilia Wang aggressively as well.

Sauer had zeroed in on that language in his briefs to argue that illegal immigrants aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the US, therefore their children aren’t guaranteed birthright citizenship. The solicitor general also pointed to exceptions in the existing birthright citizenship policy, such as foreign invaders, in his briefs. But Roberts seemed uneasy with that.

“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,” Roberts went on. “I’m not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples.”

Later, Roberts asked Sauer about how common so-called birth tourism is in the US, seizing on a key aspect of the Trump administration’s justification for the executive order.

“We’re in a new world now,” Sauer said, suggesting the framers of the 14th Amendment didn’t have to deal with that at the time.

“It’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution,” Roberts shot back.

Looming over the Supreme Court’s decision is precedent from the 19th century, namely the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in US v. Wong Kim Ark, in which the high court held that a man born to Chinese immigrants was guaranteed automatic citizenship. As the Trump administration pointed out, that case involved legal, domiciled immigrants, rather than illegal aliens.

Fellow Republican-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch, who like Roberts, bucked Trump in the tariff case, underscored that the US now has “laws against immigration that are much more restrictive than they were in 1880,” when the Supreme Court last decided major cases on birthright citizenship.

“Why wouldn’t we, even if we were to apply your own test, come to the conclusion that the fact that someone might be illegal is immaterial?” he asked Sauer.

“I’m not sure how much you want to rely on Wong Kim Ark,” he then chided after Sauer began to cite that precedent.

Another key precedent at play is the Supreme Court’s ruling in the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, which held that the children of Native Americans aren’t guaranteed birthright citizenship, something Congress later changed in statutory law. Gorsuch needled at one point Wang that “There’s a lot in Elk, and some of it’s not terribly helpful for you.”

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

POSTS ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.