Four Israeli hostages have been released and reunited with their families following a 15 month captivity. 

The only Republicans who voted against Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense were Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, both of whom mostly vote with Democrats, and Mitch McConnell, who likes wars, constitutionalist Justices, and guns but especially likes Joe Biden and Chuck U. Schumer. So, don’t worry about Pete Hegseth because […] The post Mitch Didn’t Vote for Mr. Hegseth But Was Powerless to Stop Him appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

The Senate on Saturday voted to confirm South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem (R) as Trump’s secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Every Republican backed the confirmation of Noem in a 59-34 vote. Notably, Noem also picked up votes from Democrats like Senators John Fetterman (PA), Tim Kaine (VA), Elissa Slotkin (MI), Andy Kim (NJ), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), and Gary Peters (MI). Noem’s confirmation process has been basically smooth sailing since President Donald Trump tapped her for the position. As noted by Fox News, Noem advanced out of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee by a vote of 13–2, with only two Democrats voting against her. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) quickly congratulated Noem for securing the new position. “Congratulations to fellow South Dakotan [Kristi Noem] on being confirmed as secretary of Homeland Security,” he wrote on X. “I know she’s ready to get to work for President Trump and the American people.” Congratulations to fellow South Dakotan @KristiNoem on being confirmed as secretary of Homeland Security. I know she’s ready to get to work for President Trump and the American people. pic.twitter.com/zH2NqoldEG — Leader John Thune (@LeaderJohnThune) January 25, 2025 As secretary of DHS, Noem’s department will oversee U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which will be crucial in carrying out Trump’s central campaign promise to close the southern border and fix illegal immigration. The department also oversees FEMA, an agency that was recently exposed by The Daily Wire for discriminating against Trump supporters. CELEBRATE #47 WITH 47% OFF DAILYWIRE+ MEMBERSHIPS + A FREE $20 GIFT Noem has visited the U.S.-Mexico border on numerous occasions, and repeatedly criticized the Biden administration for creating a “warzone.” Just days into Trump’s second term, his administration has already arrested hundreds of criminal illegal immigrants, as highlighted by The Daily Wire. Between midnight on January 21 and 9 a.m. on January 22, ICE arrested more than 460 illegal immigrants, including individuals with criminal histories of sexual assault, domestic violence, robbery, burglary, aggravated assault, and those with drug and weapon offenses. Noem is now the fourth of Trump’s picks to be confirmed, following Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and most recently, Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense. Related: Illegal Gangbanger Says He’s Not Going Back To Haiti In Anti-Trump Rant. Tom Homan: He’s Going Back.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said on Saturday that the U.S. military would be ready to destroy its enemies with overwhelming force if need be under his leadership. Hegseth made the remarks at the White House immediately after being sworn into office by Vice President JD Vance after he was confirmed Friday night in a 51-50 vote. “All praise and glory to God. His will be done, and we’re grateful to be here,” Hegseth said. “And as I said in my hearing, it was Jesus and Jenny, I would not be here without you, sweetheart.” He said that he was thankful to serve under President Donald Trump and that he would execute Trump’s vision of “peace through strength, putting America first, and in rebuilding our military.” “I look forward to working with all of you and other senators to ensure the Defense Department has what it needs, that our nation has what it needs, and that we’re prepared to defend it in all moments,” he said. Hegseth said that the three principles he wants to bring to the Pentagon are: restoring the warrior ethos in everything that the military does, rebuilding the military, and re-establishing deterrence. CELEBRATE #47 WITH 47% OFF DAILYWIRE+ MEMBERSHIPS + A FREE $20 GIFT “We don’t want to fight wars,” he said. “We want to deter them and we want to end them responsibly. But if we need to fight them, we’re going to bring overwhelming and decisive force to close with and destroy the enemy and bring our boys home.” WATCH: Secretary of Defense @PeteHegseth‘s full remarks upon swearing in ?? pic.twitter.com/d4ukr5u8qK — Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) January 25, 2025

The following is an edited transcript of an interview between Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief John Bickley and the president and CEO of Alliance Defending Freedom Kristen Waggoner on a Saturday edition of Morning Wire. * * * President Trump has returned to office with an extremely ambitious agenda – and has immediately taken executive action to jump start what he’s promising will be a transformative year for the nation. Among the issues he’s already begun to address is reversing the Biden administration’s policies on gender identity and Diversity Equity and Inclusion. Morning Wire sat down with the president and CEO of Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal group that has been leading the charge on gender and DEI cases, to discuss Trump’s actions and cultural shifts on the issues. * * * JOHN: Joining us now to discuss Trump’s executive action on gender and DEI is Alliance Defending Freedom President and CEO Kristen Waggoner. First of all, thank you so much for coming on. KRISTEN: Thanks for having me. JOHN: I wanted to start with the big picture. We just witnessed a historic – on so many levels – inauguration, the biggest political comeback in American history. In terms of the larger issues that your organization in particular is really concerned with, what does this mean for the future of the country in the coming four years? KRISTEN: We’re thrilled with the promises that President Trump has made with regard to the revolution of common sense. That’s what he referred to in his inaugural speech, that we’re going to return back toward reality, toward common sense, and the rule of law. And I think what it means for practical purposes is that he is intending to use the federal government to ensure we eradicate a toxic ideology that has wreaked havoc on Americans, both in terms of safety, opportunities, and freedom. JOHN: Yes, let’s unpack that. I know that gender ideology has been a key priority for your organization. The Daily Wire has also been very focused on this issue. What are we seeing coming from the Trump administration on gender-related policies? KRISTEN: The Trump administration has issued a number of executive orders that deal with gender identity as well as censorship and DEI in the federal government, and all of those come together to essentially restore the legal and scientifically sound definition of sex in federal law, meaning that we are created male and female, and that sex is neither chosen nor changed. And that will have tremendous implications, both on women’s rights, with regard to sports, fairness, privacy, locker rooms, also what our children are being taught, and in numerous other areas. Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images JOHN: The Biden administration aggressively pushed progressive gender ideology – how much has that impacted schools, local organizations – how pervasive has this actually been? KRISTEN: Well, at Alliance Defending Freedom we have represented scores of female athletes that have been deprived not only of fairness on the athletic field, but also privacy in locker rooms, in dorm rooms, in showers, and safety. We also have represented students who have been deprived of free speech, and counselors and teachers who have been deprived of free speech, compelled to use pronouns that don’t reflect biological truth. We have represented parents who have been deprived of decision-making authority for kids and teachers deprived of conscience rights. And we’ve even seen schools that have been deprived of certain funding mechanisms because of this ideology. President Trump has issued an order telling the agencies in the executive branch that they can, they must stop infusing all of these areas of federal law with this notion that we are created something other than male or female. JOHN: Do we expect to still see states like California undermine this effort or are there federal levers that can push back against the attempts to continue this kind of ideologically crammed down in schools? KRISTEN: I guarantee you, you’ll see states like California, New York, and Washington try to undermine these executive orders. And because of the way that our system of government is set out, there will be bad states that will continue to try to undermine the rights of American citizens. And there will be litigation that continues. But the difference here is they can no longer say that federal law requires this, in terms of the agency action. And now the power of the federal government in all of the places that it shows up is actually on the opposite side of this fight. And in addition, the Trump administration can go a step further, and it can deprive institutions as well as state governments of federal funding when they refuse to recognize biological reality and common sense. JOHN: From a legal perspective, does the federal government coming out against this ideology, does it further expose these local entities, the school boards, etc. to legal ramifications for promoting something that could be dangerous or unfair to women and girls? KRISTEN: It should do so, assuming that the administrative agencies are putting teeth in these actions. So again, the way that the government works is the executive branch, the president sets the agenda and tells the agencies what to do. Then it’s the agencies that create the guidance and enforce what the president has said in federal law. So it will be critical that the agencies follow this direction and put real teeth into this by denying federal funding and by going after those states and those educational institutions that are not honoring the rights of Americans in this area. JOHN: Now, Alliance Defending Freedom has been fighting on this front for a while now. Are you guys seeing progress, generally speaking, in terms of the legal arguments against gender ideology?  KRISTEN: We are seeing progress, but there still is an uphill battle. I think my hope is that we’re turning the corner on this issue. For years, we’ve been fighting it for over 10 years now with regard to bathrooms, locker rooms, and, more recently, eight or so years on the sports front. I think we’re turning the page. But again, we have half of the states that have adopted laws to protect women and girls in sports as an example. And these are state laws. Those are being challenged and argued that they are unconstitutional. So those cases will continue, but we will continue now to have the federal government on the side of women and girls, rather than against us. I also think we can’t possibly underestimate the importance of the federal government saying there are two sexes and that you cannot choose nor change biological reality – because that will play out in many different ways across the government, and it will stop the social engineering that we’ve been seeing that’s happening through the power of the federal government. CELEBRATE #47 WITH 47% OFF DAILYWIRE+ MEMBERSHIPS + A FREE $20 GIFT JOHN: Now, you mentioned at the top that DEI is a big part of what the Trump administration is trying to weed out. This is something the Biden administration heavily focused on in a way we’ve never seen before. What kinds of actions from Trump are we seeing there, and what do we expect in the coming years? KRISTEN: The executive order that President Trump issued today on DEI is so critical because it removes DEI from federal government policies, and he was right to do so because DEI essentially is an attempt to socially engineer gender ideology and race into every facet of American life and the very first step to take that back and to, as President Trump said, have a revolution of common sense is to, again, rid the government of DEI programs because it’s a proven failure. It introduces risk, legal risk, it eliminates people advancing on the basis of merit, and it destroys unity, which President Trump has said is a high priority for him. JOHN: The Daily Wire is very interested in the intersection of politics and culture. We’re very much believers in politics being downstream of culture, and that we have to not only fight against forces cramming down dangerous policies but we have to build and shape culture. How have cultural shifts influenced the issues of gender and DEI? KRISTEN: They’ve been profoundly impactful. I would say that law and culture work together. You can’t have one without the other, and one doesn’t necessarily lead the other, but they both impact one another. And so I would just say, especially the work that The Daily Wire has done has been so critical in our efforts, as an example, on the gender identity front, because the principle that you’re establishing in the court before the Supreme Court, or a principle you’re establishing in a state or federal law, it has to be plausible to the American people. It has to make sense to them. And Daily Wire, for example, has been one of the first that has come out and spoken clearly, succinctly, and without fear, with courage, on the importance of biological reality. When the law doesn’t recognize the biological differences between men and women, families get hurt. And most importantly, women and girls will suffer not only from equal opportunities, but they will lose their rights. The Daily Wire JOHN: Final question. We’ve seen a flurry of activity from the Trump administration and his opening salvo on reshaping the federal government. What else are you seeing in terms of this new administration’s priorities? KRISTEN: I think of all of the priorities that he set out, they come back to one primary theme — he’s recognizing the stifling authoritarianism that we’ve seen at home, here in the United States, and that we’re witnessing abroad. As some of our members of our international team have also said, the entire world is watching right now, and they are rooting for Americans and for President Trump to turn the corner on this – in a moment throughout the world that wants to return to the concept of inalienable rights, that wants to return to the rule of law and to a government that recognizes common sense values. So whether that’s on immigration and what’s happening at the border, whether it’s weaponization of the federal government and the justice system against one’s enemies, as we have seen, to censorship, which President Trump has said is a high priority for him to stop censorship. The world is watching and what is most important now is what happens next. And I think the whole world is cheering for him and his administration to follow through on its promises in these areas. JOHN: Well, there was massive anticipation heading into this week – and now very high hopes for what’s ahead. Kristen, thank you so much for talking with us. KRISTEN: Thanks for having me. JOHN: That was Kristen Waggoner, CEO and president of Alliance Defending Freedom – and this has been a weekend edition of Morning Wire. ***

'The yeas are 59, the nays are 34'

Critical race theory, social and emotional learning, DEI, social justice, and other forms of wokeness are nothing new to the American education system. Some buy into the divisive concepts, but most parents simply want their children to be proficient in math, reading, science, and other subjects when they graduate high school. The past four years saw the public square become overtly obsessed with sexual and gender rhetoric. News cycles have been dominated with divisive education issues, such as attempted changes to Title IX, transgender rights, and the use of locker rooms and restrooms. Again, parents simply want their children to graduate with essential competences and skills that don’t compromise or even sacrifice their ability to become successful citizens. We’re not speaking in the literal sense of children being sacrificed on altars as was practiced in ancient times, but we are sacrificing children in 21st-century terms. Children are graduating without the basic skills and knowledge to be successful in life. Parents send children to day care and public school only to be lost in a cookie-cutter system. Help Is on the Way Voters handed President Donald Trump a decisive win in November. One of his campaign promises was to dismantle the federal Department of Education. However, what his definition of “dismantle” is will determine the future of education in America. There are definitive actions that can be taken to get the federal government out of education and curb the current insanity. One is to use the authority under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as it pertains to states’ rights. Control of education must reside in state authority, because it is implemented by the states and administered at the local level. Communities are better positioned to determine what’s best for their residents. After all, we have seen over time how out of touch the federal government is regarding education. Trump can also make a significant impact by eliminating government control of the student loan program and terminating gratuitous education contracts and grants. The student loan program must be returned to the private sector. When the federal government runs things, it’s all too easy to stick taxpayers with an unnecessary tab. Student loan forgiveness, as former President Joe Biden tried doing, may be a good campaign promise, but it’s not a practice that promotes accountability and responsibility. Terminating contracts and grants that do nothing but pad the pockets of education elites—such as unions, publishers, consultants, lobbyists, and special-interest groups—can immediately save taxpayers billions of dollars. Eliminating those contracts may not put an end to all of the programs that drive much of the woke ideology, but it will go a long way toward removing the heavy hand of the federal government from education. Also, defunding grants will reduce the number of frivolous and unnecessary research projects that end with an unread report and provide no educational value. If states want to invest in education research, then states can fund such projects themselves. A Great Cost to Society Our republic needs a well-educated populace, but when President Jimmy Carter and Congress created the federal Department of Education in 1979, they did a disservice to society. It generated a federal bureaucracy that issues mandates that provide little or no significant value to children’s education. It also set in motion the dumbing down of education through dictating a college-emphasizing, one-size-fits-all model that continually proves to be sacrificing millions of children on the altar of bureaucratic and special-interest group power, control, and profit. When we sacrifice our children’s education, we ultimately sacrifice the future of our republic. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post How Education System Sacrifices Our Kids to the Detriment of Society, What Trump Can Do About It appeared first on The Daily Signal.

We didn’t expect “Saturday Night Live” to actually speak truth to power, did we? The NBC show’s first episode since the California wildfires ravaged the state came and went without an uppercut thrown at the people who made the fires worse. Much, much worse. We can name them. LA Mayor Karen Bass. Governor Gavin Newsom. See? Not so hard.  Just point to their glaring incompetence – be it bone-dry reservoirs, the hyper-focus on DEI over merit or slashing firefighting budgets to fund more important programs like the Gay Men’s Chorus. (Nothing wrong with such a program, but when you’re pinching pennies you have to make cuts) Remember how “SNL” torched Sen. Ted Cruz for fleeing his state during a Texas deep freeze?     Yet crickets when Bass was MIA in Ghana during the worst disaster to strike her city … ever. The show couldn’t even mock Bass’ infamous “URL” moment, a Biden-esque gaffe tailor-made for political comedy. Instead, “SNL” roasted President-Elect Donald Trump. Again. Predictable. Sad. Frustrating. And, for those weaned on “SNL’s” glory days, another sign of the show’s irrelevance.  There’s an upside here, though.  “SNL” no longer holds sway over the culture. We don’t quote the sketches or its comical characters. The show stopped producing movie stars on the level of Will Ferrell, Eddie Murphy, Adam Sandler or Kristen Wiig. That opens a massive lane for other voices to emerge. We’re already seeing it happen. Old-school “SNL” alum David Spade is teaming with comedy rebel Theo Von for “Busboys.” The comedy, set in an Arizona border town, follows two guys who “think becoming waiters will solve all of their problems. They are wrong.”   David Spade and Theo Von are writing, directing, self-producing, self-financing, and starring in the movie Busboys. https://t.co/Clwkwcs0Wt — New York Magazine (@NYMag) November 21, 2024   That’s not all. Spade and Von co-wrote the script and are self-financing the project. That speaks volumes of where the industry is heading in 2025. Hollywood gatekeepers can’t keep the new guard out. Another example? Tim Dillon’s self-titled podcast costs a fraction of your average “SNL” episode and draws millions of views. And he’s far from alone. Institutions like “SNL” and late-night TV will continue to shrink as they avoid reality and speak to a dwindling, hard-partisan base. The late-night landscape is already contracting, with “The Tonight Show” killing its Friday night schedule and “Late Night with Seth Meyers” axing the show’s band. Now, Americans will keep looking elsewhere for smart, savvy comedy that speaks to the times we live in. They’re already doing that via “Gutfeld!”   They arrested 2 people who were hiding in Kamala’s house and some jokes about Karen Bass. Enjoy. #adamhunter #Gutfeld #FoxNews #KarenBass #Karen pic.twitter.com/bXTKmUBflZ — Adam Hunter (@AdamComedian) January 14, 2025   The Fox News smash didn’t ignore Mayor Bass’ gaffes. The show’s comedy lineup tore into them, a refreshing change from the Hollywood status quo. “SNL” and late-night partisans will keep chasing a shrinking progressive base, but will even they stick around for the same ol’ yuks in Trump 2.0? We’re already seeing progressive news outlets like MSNBC and CNN shed viewers at an alarming rate post-election. Some may come back in the weeks to come, but not all of them. Even liberal viewers understand they’ve been fed a false bill of goods about the culture and politics and they’re looking elsewhere for news. Something similar will happen on the comedy front. It explains why a conspiratorial comic like Joe Rogan hosts one of the country’s biggest podcasts. Or when Team Trump wanted to reach wary voters he courted rebel comics like Andrew Schulz, Tim Dillon and Von. Consumers know “SNL” won’t shoot straight with them. The show’s all-too-obvious agenda greets them with every sketch. Even its MSNBC cold open felt off, a lame attempt to mock like-minded souls that pulled every imaginable punch.     Help is on the way. And, by ignoring reality, “SNL” is holding the door open for its replacement.

Do we, as a society, hold the inviolable right to control our sovereignty and, through our elected representatives, prevent individuals from asserting immigration and citizenship rights against our will? Or do foreign nationals and governments possess the authority to assert jurisdiction in our country, obtaining citizenship and its accompanying rights — without recourse for our citizens to oppose it, even prospectively? Those are the key questions before us as we navigate our journey as a nation-state.I argued previously that even activist judges who misinterpreted the 14th Amendment as establishing birthright citizenship for children of legally “domiciled” immigrants would never have extended that right to children of illegal immigrants. These individuals either enter the country unlawfully or overstay their temporary visas, directly violating U.S. law.Asserting that those who willfully violate immigration laws and enter the country without permission can establish jurisdiction for their children defies all logic.Justice Horace Gray’s opinions in Nishimura Ekiu v. U.S. (1892) and Fong Yue Ting v. U.S. (1893) make it evident that when he ruled in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) that children born to legally “domiciled” immigrants qualify as citizens, he would have staunchly opposed granting the same right to illegal immigrants.Here, I want to focus on a specific point: People in the country without legal status — and in clear violation of multiple laws — are not legally considered within U.S. jurisdiction, even in a semi-literal sense. Even if the 14th Amendment’s directive granting citizenship to those born in the U.S. were not qualified by the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” it would still exclude those here in violation of our immigration laws. Legally, it is as if such individuals are not physically present in the country.Don’t ignore precedentIn Shaughnessy v. U.S. ex rel. Mezei (1953), the Supreme Court upheld a decision by the Truman administration to deny re-entry to a Romanian immigrant who had lived in the United States for 25 years. After traveling to Europe to visit his dying mother, the government barred him from returning. Since no other country would accept him, Ignatz Mezei was detained on Ellis Island for 21 months. The court ruled that the denial of entry and his detainment were lawful and did not violate his due process rights, citing the Chinese Exclusion Acts cases and extensive case law developed in the years since.Building on Nishimura Ekiu and subsequent decisions, the court made it clear that Mezei’s temporary presence on Ellis Island did not grant him constitutional rights, even though he had previously lived in the U.S. legally for 25 years. The justices ruled:Such temporary harborage, an act of legislative grace, bestows no additional rights. Congress meticulously specified that such shelter ashore "shall not be considered a landing," nor relieve the vessel of the duty to transport back the alien if ultimately excluded. And this Court has long considered such temporary arrangements as not affecting an alien's status; he is treated as if stopped at the border.Justices Robert Jackson and Felix Frankfurter dissented but only because they felt a longstanding legal permanent resident should not be detained indefinitely without procedural due process, not that he had an affirmative right to remain in the country. “Due process does not invest any alien with a right to enter the United States, nor confer on those admitted the right to remain against the national will,” they wrote. It wasn’t until 2001 in Zadvydas v. Davis that five post-constitutional justices began mandating the release of criminal aliens from detention. But even those justices affirmed the validity of Shaughnessy and 100 years of precedent — though, as Antonin Scalia observed in his dissent, that case now “stands unexplained and undistinguished” and “obscured in legal fog” by the courts’ activism. For our purposes, however, Shaughnessy is incontestable precedent, as it should be in the eyes of a legal profession that idolizes stare decisis. Especially with a better Supreme Court, we should not assume Zadvydas would stand. Jurisdiction rightly understoodThis principle clearly demonstrates that individuals living in the United States illegally cannot meet the jurisdictional requirement outlined in the 14th Amendment’s clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” even under a misinterpreted reading.The 1953 decision referred to Kaplan v. Tod (1925), a case where the court denied citizenship and relief from deportation to the daughter of a naturalized citizen who emigrated from Russia. On July 20, 1914, the Kaplan family arrived at Ellis Island to reunite with the father, who had worked in the United States for several years. The 13-year-old daughter, however, was deemed inadmissible for being “feeble-minded.” Due to the outbreak of World War I, her deportation was delayed, and she was placed in the custody of the Hebrew Aid Society. The society arranged for her to live with her father until her deportation was ordered in 1923.By that time, her father had become a naturalized U.S. citizen. He argued that because his daughter was under 21 and living in the United States at the time of his naturalization, she was automatically entitled to citizenship under longstanding laws. In a terse ruling, the court rejected the petition outright:Naturalization of parents affects minor children only “if dwelling in the United States.” ... The appellant could not lawfully have landed in the United States in view of the express prohibition of the Act of 1910 just referred to, and until she legally landed “could not have dwelt within the United States.”The court backhandedly rejected the notion that the daughter “dwelt within the United States,” even though she physically lived on American soil with her father for nine years, partly with temporary permission from the government. That’s because “she was still in theory of law at the boundary line and had gained no foothold in the United States” and had never “been dwelling in the United States within the meaning of the Act.”Naturalization law and the 14th AmendmentNow, consider the language of the naturalization statute for immigrant children seeking naturalization alongside their parents and compare it to the wording of the 14th Amendment governing those born in the United States.The 14th Amendment stipulates that a child must be born in the U.S. and be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Even in interpretations where “jurisdiction” is understood to mean territorial rather than political jurisdiction — an argument that renders the phrase redundant — the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” remains undeniably more restrictive than the purely geographical and literal phrase “dwelling in the United States.”This distinction is critical. Everyone agrees that children born to members of Indian tribes and foreign diplomats are excluded by the 14th Amendment’s jurisdiction clause, even though they are physically born on U.S. soil.Yet, the court in 1925 ruled, based on uncontested precedent, that individuals living in the United States unlawfully do not meet the meaning or intent of “dwelling in the United States.” This applied even in cases where they were granted temporary permission to remain on humanitarian grounds. Asserting that those who willfully violate immigration laws and enter the country without permission can establish jurisdiction for their children defies all logic and national consent.Even the left acknowledges this as “settled law.” Illegal immigrants are considered “at the boundary line” and are viewed as having “gained no foothold in the United States,” regardless of where they currently reside.Politicians, legal scholars, and judges who grant full constitutional rights to illegal aliens and citizenship to their children have gone beyond debating the meaning of the 14th Amendment. They are declaring that the United States is no longer a nation-state governed by a Constitution established by the people.