Source

From the moment President Donald Trump issued his executive order on birthright citizenship back in January, a Supreme Court showdown on the meaning of the Citizenship Clause was almost inevitable. And, indeed, the nation’s highest court agreed last week to decide whether the order is constitutional, after nearly a year of high-profile litigation that has largely kept the administration from enforcing the order. 

While the task of securing votes of at least five Justices likely remains an uphill battle for the Trump administration, the historical evidence in Trump’s favor is stronger now than ever.  

The Background 

Trump’s order directed federal agencies to stop issuing citizenship documents for children born in the United States unless at least one parent was a citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of the child’s birth. 

As I explained at the time (and again here, here, and here), the order is perfectly consistent with the original understanding and earliest applications of the 14th Amendment. The primary purpose of the Citizenship Clause was to permanently establish the citizenship of the freed slaves, whom the Supreme Court had earlier held were not U.S. citizens, despite having lived and died here for generations.  

Congress clearly sought to remove race-based barriers to citizenship and enshrine birthright citizenship into the Constitution—but not for virtually any person born on U.S. soil under virtually all circumstances, as many people today believe. Instead, the men who drafted and debated the clause understood that birthright citizenship belongs only to the U.S.-born children of parents who, like the freed slaves, owe this nation their political allegiance and are subject to the fullest extent of its political jurisdiction.  

Moreover, the lawsuits seeking to stop it are riddled with flawed arguments that badly mischaracterize the 14th Amendment’s legislative and legal history. In the last year of near-constant litigation seeking to stop Trump’s order from going into effect, the arguments put forward by advocates of universal birthright citizenship haven’t improved.  

On the other hand, as more and more scholars have taken a serious look at the historical record, they’ve increasingly unearthed evidence that undermines the universal birthright citizenship narrative and significantly bolsters the Trump administration’s position.  

Take, for instance, my own additional research on birthright citizenship, which will soon be published as a law review article in Texas A&M’s Journal of Law & Civil Governance. 

Universal Birthright Citizenship Proponents Get History All Wrong 

In the article, I tackle head-on a claim often made in support of universal birthright citizenship—that the Citizenship Clause reflects nothing more than Congress’s adoption of the old English common law rule of jus soli, where the mere geography of birth dictates a person’s subjection to a particular ruler. According to advocates of universal birthright citizenship, this remnant of feudalism had always been the unquestioned legal theory underpinning American citizenship, anyway.  

I argue that this narrative gets history all wrong. Whatever the national consensus on citizenship may have been in the antebellum United States (and it’s not at all clear there was a prewar consensus), the political realities wrought by the Civil War led to a dramatic evolution in how the federal government understood concepts of citizenship, allegiance, and political jurisdiction. 

Contrary to claims by proponents of universal birthright citizenship, when Congress drafted and debated the 14th Amendment, its operative framework of citizenship didn’t strictly adhere to the English common law.  

Instead, the United States government solidified a particular set of operating principles that, at best, represented a uniquely Americanized version of the common law and required consideration of factors such as permanent domicile, intent to fully integrate oneself as a member of the nation, and lawful participation in the national body politic.  

How Earlier Debates Impacted Citizenship Clause Thinking

I make this case by examining the broader political framework of citizenship in the years before and after Congress drafted the 14th Amendment, particularly by analyzing debates over drafting noncitizens during the Civil War and over the expatriation of American citizens after the war.  

Just like debates over the language of the Citizenship Clause, these concurrent debates required Congress and the Executive Branch to wrestle seriously with and ultimately resolve questions about who, exactly, was subject to what extent of U.S. political jurisdiction and under which circumstances.  

Throughout both debates, Congress and the Executive Branch drew practical lines centered around one universally agreed-upon premise: While all aliens residing within the geographic borders of the United States are subject to its laws, not all of them are subject to its complete political jurisdiction.

Yes, the debates provide evidence that when unnaturalized resident aliens avail themselves of legal processes demonstrating their intent to become citizens, the nation may at times consider them as, if not yet full-fledged Americans, then at least as something less than total strangers for purposes of invoking political rights and duties.  

But otherwise, the consistent presumption throughout these debates was that even resident aliens with a lengthy and lawful presence in the country remained subjects of foreign powers over whom the United States had no claim of political allegiance and no pretense of complete political jurisdiction.  

The most logical presumption is that, when these same members of Congress defined and debated the parameters of birthright citizenship, they worked within this same operative framework about who was and wasn’t subject to the nation’s political jurisdiction.  

The jurisdictional qualifiers they added to the Citizenship Clause didn’t reflect their unqualified embrace of the English common law. Rather, they conformed the clause’s meaning to the Americanized understanding of political jurisdiction they employed in parallel debates—in this case, extending birthright citizenship only to the U.S.-born children of citizens and to the U.S.-born children of permanent resident aliens whose lawful integration into American society rendered them at least arguably subject to the nation’s complete political jurisdiction.  

What Did the Author of the Phrase ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Mean?  

Finally, my research helps settle one of the most fiercely contested arguments in the modern birthright citizenship debate: What, exactly, did the man responsible for the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”—Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan—mean during congressional debates over the Citizenship Clause when he explained that this jurisdictional language would exclude “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of [a]mbassadors or foreign ministers.”  

Advocates of a more limited interpretation of the Citizenship Clause believe that Howard meant the jurisdictional language would broadly exclude foreigners, aliens, and members of the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers. Proponents of universal birthright citizenship, meanwhile, insist that Howard meant it would exclude only those foreigners and aliens who are also members of the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers. 

It’s now evident that only one of these interpretations can be squared with Howard’s well-documented attitudes and use of language regarding the nation’s political jurisdiction over noncitizens. 

My article details how, during debates on alien conscription just a few years earlier, Howard consistently and ardently opposed making aliens eligible for the military drafts—even aliens who’d declared their intention to become citizens. In his view, they remained foreigners who owed their political allegiance to a foreign sovereign. The United States government, therefore, lacked sufficient political jurisdiction over them to compel their military service on its behalf.  

While Howard eventually softened his stance on drafting declarant aliens, he always maintained that unnaturalized U.S.-resident immigrants were still, broadly, foreigners and aliens subject to the political jurisdiction of other sovereigns. 

The most reasonable conclusion, then, is that when Howard spoke just years later of the jurisdictional limits in the Citizenship Clause, he likewise considered that noncitizens broadly remained outside of the nation’s political jurisdiction. In other words, he meant that the clause excluded “foreigners, aliens, [and those] who belong to families of ambassadors.” 

Other Legal Scholars Strengthening Trump’s Case  

Importantly, I’m far from the only scholar to uncover additional evidence over the past year that undermines the narrative of universal birthright citizenship. Just look at the critical work of Professor Kurt Lash, a highly respected scholar of constitutional law and constitutional history. His forthcoming law review article demonstrates how the Citizenship Clause, as originally understood, excluded children born to parents bearing allegiance to a foreign government—and likely doesn’t apply to the U.S.-born children of parents who illegally enter the United States.    

Professors Ilan Wurman and Samuel Estreicher have similarly joined the chorus of scholars advancing strong arguments against the universal birthright citizenship narrative.  

It’s true that, over the past year, opponents of Trump’s birthright citizenship order have been the unanimous victors in lower-court battle after lower-court battle. But that year of delay has allowed Trump to secure far more scholarly ammunition than he had back in January. And it may well prove to be the reason he ultimately wins the war.  

The post Trump’s Case on Birthright Citizenship is Stronger Now Than Ever appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent called Govs. Kathy Hochul (D-NY), Jared Polis (D-CO), and JB Pritzker (D-IL) the "Grinches Who Stole Christmas" for their states' refusal to conform to President Donald Trump's July 4 tax relief bill in a Wednesday social media post. 

The post Treasury Sec. Bessent Blasts Democrat Governors: ‘The Grinches Who Stole Christmas’ appeared first on Breitbart.

BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is hailing this week’s announcement by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon that the Justice Department is adding a “Second Amendment Section” to its Civil Rights Division.

“For its first move,” CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb suggested, “we think this new office should focus on states which require a permit to purchase any firearm. Nowhere in this country should a citizen be forced to get permission from a government entity in order to exercise a fundamental right protected by the U.S. Constitution and delineated in nearly all state constitutions. Nobody needs government permission to exercise a right.

“Likewise,” Gottlieb added, “those states which have adopted so-called ‘sensitive place’ restrictions need to feel the heat. They’re trying to turn a right into a regulated privilege, and those responsible for such proposals need to be told ‘no.’ We’re glad the Justice Department has submitted an amicus brief supporting a lawsuit against Hawaii’s ‘sensitive place’ carry ban.

“Earlier this year,” he recalled, “the Citizens Committee identified a dozen states which deserve Justice Department attention on Second Amendment issues. The permit-to-purchase and sensitive area schemes are two of the most egregious infringements on the right to keep and bear arms we’ve ever seen. Special attention should be placed on California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado and a couple of other states where these gun control strategies are in the works.

“Attorney General Pam Bondi has already taken action against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department over concealed carry permit foot-dragging,” Gottlieb continued, “but more needs to happen, and fast. We’ve been delighted to see the DOJ submit amicus briefs or offer testimony in important Second Amendment cases. Anti-rights lawmakers who author permit-to-purchase, and sensitive place legislation need to have the legal door slammed hard in their faces.

“We’re confident Assistant AG Dhillon is absolutely serious about going after states which infringe on Second Amendment rights, whether it’s with permit-to-purchase impairments, or the equally despicable ‘sensitive places’ gun bans,” he said. “Until anti-gun lawmakers feel the heat of Justice Department action zeroing in on their extremism, they’re going to keep pushing to erode, and ultimately erase, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Now is the time to stop these anti-freedom fanatics in their tracks.”

<p>The post CCRKBA HAILS DOJ’S ‘2A SECTION,’ CALLS FOR ACTION ON PERMITS-TO-PURCHASE first appeared on Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.</p>

The Southern Transitional Council (STC), a secessionist group in Yemen, has seized control of the oil-rich provinces of Hadramout and Mahra, threatening to re-ignite the stalemated Yemeni civil war and potentially destabilize the region.

The post Yemeni Separatists Seize Oil-Rich Provinces, Threatening to Re-Ignite Civil War appeared first on Breitbart.

President Donald Trump holds a roundtable meeting at the White House on Wednesday, December 10.

The post Watch Live: Donald Trump Holds Roundtable Meeting appeared first on Breitbart.

Aggressive assimilation is the only fix for the federal government's decision to import Somalia's clannish politics of "amoral familism," says Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a pro-Western refugee from Somalia's tribal culture.

The post Hirsi Ali: Americans Must Suppress Somali Culture of Civic Corruption appeared first on Breitbart.

As Congress looks for a new direction in health care legislation, Obamacare subsidies are not on the list of options being considered by either house. House Republican leaders offered a […]

The post New List Shows Health Care Options Republicans Are Considering to Replace Obamacare Subsidies appeared first on The Western Journal.

Why have major tourist destinations all over America been so depressingly quiet in 2025?  Normally tourism accounts for close to 10 percent of U.S. GDP, and that makes it a critical pillar of the U.S. economy.  We witnessed an enormous downturn during the early days of the COVID pandemic, but that was just temporary.  Now we are witnessing a similar downturn, but this time we don’t have a pandemic to blame.  Needless to say, the overall economy is steadily moving in the wrong direction, and that is certainly affecting tourism.  But as you will see below, there are other factors that are very much within our control that are driving tourists away.

When I claim that the U.S. is experiencing a “tourism industry apocalypse”, I am not exaggerating at all.

This summer, many of the country’s top tourist destinations were so empty that they resembled something out of “a dystopian novel”…

Imagine walking into what was once America’s most vibrant tourist destinations and hearing nothing but the whisper of wind through empty corridors. This isn’t a scene from a dystopian novel — it’s the stark reality of US tourism in 2025.

The summer that was supposed to be bustling with laughter, excitement, and packed attractions has turned into a ghost town of economic uncertainty. Take Florida, once the entertainment paradise of America, where over 15,000 Walt Disney World employees now face the terrifying prospect of reduced hours or complete layoffs — right in the middle of peak tourist season.

In the past, I have written about how a vacation to Disney World has become so ridiculously expensive that it is now out of reach for most middle class families.

But that doesn’t fully explain why international visitors to Florida fell by 38 percent in just one year…

The numbers are brutal. International visitors to Florida have plummeted by a staggering 38% in just twelve months. Hotel bookings from Orlando to Miami have nosedived by 27%, creating what experts are calling a “post-pandemic crisis without a pandemic”.

But this isn’t just about empty hotels and quiet theme parks. It’s about the human stories behind these statistics. Workers who built careers around tourism are now facing an uncertain future. The problem runs deeper than just fewer tourists — it’s about systemic vulnerabilities in tourism-dependent economies.

Many would argue that conditions in Las Vegas are even worse.

There are thousands upon thousands of empty hotel rooms every night, and many casino floors are eerily empty these days…

Agitators in the city have attempted to document the deterioration by posting ominous images of barren casinos, conjuring the perception of a place hollowed out by economic armageddon. The reality is more nuanced, but it is true that practically every conceivable indicator tracking tourism to Las Vegas is flashing warning signs. Hotel occupancy has cratered. Rooms were only 66.7 percent full in July, down by 16.8 percent from the previous year. The number of travelers passing through Harry Reid International Airport also declined by 4.5 percent in 2025 during an ongoing ebb of foreign tourists, for familiar reasons. Canadians, historically one of the city’s most reliable sources of degenerates, have effectively vanished. Ticket sales for Air Canada jets flying to Las Vegas have slipped by 33 percent, while the Edmonton-based low-cost carrier Flair has reported a 62 percent drop-off. Those last data points have provoked the city’s mayor, Shelley Berkley, to engage in some emergency diplomacy. In September, she implored our neighbors from the north to make their prodigal return to the Strip.

“I’m telling everyone in Canada, please come,” she said. “We love you, we miss you, we need you.”

We don’t like to admit it, but we are very dependent on our neighbors to the north.

Canadians normally account for approximately 30 percent of all international visits to the U.S. each year.

But this year it has been a completely different story…

From Washington state to northern New England, American businesses that have long depended on Canadian visitors are seeing traffic dry up — and with it, a crucial source of revenue.

A new report shared exclusively with Fortune by the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) – Minority, a congressional standing committee dating back to 1946 responsible for documenting the economic conditions of the U.S., details how a sharp drop in Canadian tourism is hitting every U.S. state along the northern border.

For many border communities, maintaining a healthy level of visitors from Canada is a matter of economic survival.

If there is a substantial drop in Canadian visitors, many businesses will simply cease to exist.

If you live in a community near the Canadian border, you know exactly what I am talking about.

So the fact that the number of vehicles crossing over the border from Canada has dropped so precipitously is extremely alarming…

From January to October 2025, the number of passenger vehicles crossing the U.S.-Canada border fell by nearly 20% compared with the same period in 2024, according to the JEC analysis, which draws on U.S. Customs and Border Protection travel statistics. In some border states, the decline reached 27%, a shift that local tourism agencies say is showing up in fewer tourists, more hotel vacancies, and weaker sales.

Other than during the early days of the pandemic, we have never seen anything quite like this.

One woman that runs a gift shop in northern New Hampshire says that she can count the number of Canadian tourists that she has encountered this year on one hand…

In northern New Hampshire, the absence of Canadian license plates is especially stark. “Being only eight miles from the border, normally Canadians make up anywhere from 15-25% of visitors. Now, I can probably count the number of Canadian visitors on one hand. I’m just trying to plug along and keep my nose above the waterline,” said Elizabeth Guerin, owner of the Fiddleheads gift shop in Colebrook, New Hampshire.

Everyone knows what has happened to our relationship with Canada over the past year.

And now the Canadians are showing us exactly how they feel about it.

We need people to come here and spend their money.

So it is important to be friendly.

Unfortunately, we continue to implement even more measures that will make it even more difficult for foreign visitors to come to this country.

For example, it appears that millions of foreign visitors will soon be required to submit “five years of their social media history” before entering the United States…

The Trump administration is proposing to ask visitors from several dozen nations that enjoy visa-free travel to the U.S. to submit additional personal information before entering the country, including five years of their social media history, the Department of Homeland Security said in a notice this week.

Citizens of 42 countries enrolled in the visa waiver program can generally come to the U.S. for up to 90 days for tourism or business travel, without needing to apply for a visa at an American embassy or consulate, a process that can take months or even years.

The list of countries in the visa waiver program includes many European nations like the United Kingdom, Germany and France, as well as some U.S. allies around the world, including Australia, Israel, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea.

The tourism industry is already in critical condition.

Are they trying to finish it off?

Of course even if we were as welcoming as possible, a lot of tourists would still shun us because of how expensive the U.S. has become to visit.

When one author wrote that we have built “a tourism economy designed to extract maximum revenue from every interaction”, he was right on target…

America has become too expensive to visit, and the tourism industry refuses to admit it. We’ve turned travel – and living – into an extraction operation, and we’re surprised when people stop coming.

America has lost the plot. We built a tourism economy designed to extract maximum revenue from every interaction, and it’s backfiring spectacularly. We have priced ourselves out of our own welcome mat. What once felt like a promise to the world is now an obstacle course, a trip measured not in miles but in fees, surcharges, and the steady erosion of goodwill.

I’ve spent nearly 15 years observing this industry at Skift, watching as we’ve collectively convinced ourselves that premium travel’s resilience somehow masks the fundamental rot beneath. But the cracks are showing, and they’re widening faster than anyone wants to admit.

If we want tourists to visit, we need to stop ripping them off.

At this stage, the vast majority of America’s most prominent tourist destinations are only affordable for the wealthy and the ultra-wealthy.

And the gap between the rich and the rest of us just continues to grow.

According to one recent report, the top 0.001 percent of the world’s population has three times as much money “as the entire bottom half of humanity”…

Fewer than 60,000 people – 0.001% of the world’s population – control three times as much wealth as the entire bottom half of humanity, according to a report that argues global inequality has reached such extremes that urgent action has become essential.

The authoritative World Inequality Report 2026, based on data compiled by 200 researchers, also found that the top 10% of income-earners earn more than the other 90% combined, while the poorest half captures less than 10% of total global earnings.

Wealth – the value of people’s assets – was even more concentrated than income, or earnings from work and investments, the report found, with the richest 10% of the world’s population owning 75% of wealth and the bottom half just 2%.

If you are at or near the top of the pyramid, life is good.

But for those in the bottom half, things are really rough.

History has shown us that when the gap between the “haves” and the “have nots” gets too large, really bad things can happen.

We have already seen eruptions of civil unrest all over the globe throughout 2025, and I am convinced that this is just the beginning.

Reviving the middle class should be a priority for leaders all over the globe.

And if we want to have a sustainable tourism industry, we need to make tourism affordable for the middle class again.

Unfortunately, the tourism industry has become yet another example of the rampant greed that is now permeating our society, and I don’t expect that to change any time soon.

Michael’s new book entitled “10 Prophetic Events That Are Coming Next” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can subscribe to his Substack newsletter at michaeltsnyder.substack.com.

About the Author: Michael Snyder’s new book entitled “10 Prophetic Events That Are Coming Next” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com.  He has also written nine other books that are available on Amazon.com including “Chaos”, “End Times”, “7 Year Apocalypse”, “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America”, “The Beginning Of The End”, and “Living A Life That Really Matters”.  When you purchase any of Michael’s books you help to support the work that he is doing.  You can also get his articles by email as soon as he publishes them by subscribing to his Substack newsletter.  Michael has published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse Blog, End Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, and he always freely and happily allows others to republish those articles on their own websites.  These are such troubled times, and people need hope.  John 3:16 tells us about the hope that God has given us through Jesus Christ: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”  If you have not already done so, we strongly urge you to invite Jesus Christ to be your Lord and Savior today.

The post We Are Facing A “Tourism Industry Apocalypse” As International Travelers Avoid The USA appeared first on The Economic Collapse.

Guatemala deployed special forces, known as Kaibiles, to guard its northern border with Mexico just days after teams of cartel gunmen from Mexico entered the country and carried out violent attacks in rural border communities. The teams of cartel gunmen also clashed with Guatemalan military forces.

The post Guatemala Deploys Special Forces Soldiers After Mexican Cartel Forces Invade Border Towns appeared first on Breitbart.

The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday on whether the death sentence applied to a convicted murderer represents cruel and unusual punishment based on his debatable intellectual disability.

The state of Alabama argues that five IQ test scores for Joseph Clifton Smith, convicted of capital murder for the 1997 killing of Durk Van Dam, demonstrate that he isn’t disabled. 

Smith’s five IQ tests revealed scores of 72, 74, 75, 74, and 78, which fell within or near the range associated with intellectual disability. Alabama and other states regard IQ scores of 70 or below to be the standard for judging intellectual disabilities.

In Atkins v. Virginia (2002), the Supreme Court set three criteria for determining if someone is mentally competent to be executed: significantly subaverage intellectual functioning, significant deficits in adaptive behavior, and manifestation of these qualities before age 18.

“Atkins created an exception for offenders known to be intellectually disabled, but Smith is not,” Alabama Principal Deputy Solicitor General Robert Overing told the justices. 

Courts ‘Changed the Rules’

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama vacated Smith’s death sentence and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld the district court ruling. These courts “changed the rules,” Overing argued.

“They took the lowest score to represent a possibility that Smith’s IQ is 69,” he said. “Then, to the extent they considered other scores, they took each only in isolation, and moved the line to 75. These maneuvers expanded Atkins, and this court should reverse that expansion.”

Smith is challenging his death sentence under the Eighth Amendment, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment. He also claims the sentence violates his 14th Amendment rights to due process and equal protection under the laws.

Other Factors

Seth Waxman, the U.S. solicitor general during the Clinton administration who is now representing Smith, asserted the relevance of factors beyond IQ tests.

Waxman said Alabama law “requires courts to evaluate all provident evidence as to intellectual functioning offered by either side.”

The lawyer cited Smith’s “grade school records, which showed that on every measure, he was two to four years below grade average, culminating in a diagnosis of mental retardation in the seventh grade.”

The Trump administration has sided with the state of Alabama.

Smith, now 55, beat Van Dam to death with a hammer and stole his boots and $140 from him in the 1997 crime, Reuters reported. 

The Justices Weigh in

“I think what you’ve done is shift this to be all about the IQ test in a way that is not supported by our case law,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a President Joe Biden appointee, told Overing.

After some back and forth, Overing explained his point. 

“IQ is originally how intellectual disability was defined as a condition, and it’s always been the primary criterion, and states are allowed to take the best evidence of intelligence, and to make that the test,” the Alabama solicitor argued.

Chief Justice John Roberts, an appointee of President George W. Bush, asked Waxman about a hypothetically wide divergence of scores. Justice Samuel Alito, another George W. Bush appointee, later asked about a hypothetical of four IQ test scores in the 90s, and one at 71. 

Waxman said the court would hear expert testimony on the matter. 

“There may very well be expert testimony, maybe even agreement, that the 71 is, in fact, the result of the inquiry, or that it is a statistical outlier, and taking into account other evidence relevant to intellectual functioning should be disregarded,” Waxman said. He stressed, however, that this isn’t the question in his client’s case.

“What we have here are two experts who said four of the five scores are within the range of intellectual disability,” Waxman said. “The district court itself specifically found that, and so we’re not in that hypothetical range.”

The post IQ on Death Row: Supreme Court Weighs Relevance of Convicted Killer’s Test Scores appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The United States has seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela, President Donald Trump announced Wednesday afternoon. “As you probably know, we’ve just seized a tanker on the […]

The post BREAKING: Trump Says U.S. Military Captured Oil Tanker Off Venezuelan Coast appeared first on The Western Journal.