Less than two weeks into this second Trump presidency, the fearmongering has already reached fever pitch. “He can’t do it!” the critics have invariably howled in decrying President Donald Trump’s landmark day-one executive order upending the status quo on birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The usual suspects in the punditocracy say Trump’s order is “blatantly unconstitutional” and that it “violates settled law.” Perhaps it’s even “nativist” or “racist,” to boot! Like the Bourbons of old, pearl-clutching American elites have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. Because when it comes to birthright citizenship, the virtue signaling and armchair excoriation is not just silly–it’s dead wrong on the law. Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order on birthright citizenship is legally sound and fundamentally just. The maestro of Mar-a-Lago deserves credit, not condemnation, for implementing such a bold order as one of his very first second-term acts. The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, reads: “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.” The clause’s purpose was to overturn the infamous 1857 Supreme Court case, Dred Scott v. Sandford, and thereby ensure that blacks were, and would forever be, full-fledged citizens. But blacks were here from America’s beginning. The ruinous slavery debate aside, in 1868 blacks were thus universally viewed–unlike, for example, American Indians–as “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. (Congress did not pass the Indian Citizenship Act, which finally granted birthright citizenship to American Indians, until 1924.) Our debate today thus depends on whether, in 1868, aliens–legal or illegal–were considered “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. They weren’t. In the post-Civil War Republican-dominated Congress, the 14th Amendment was intended to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which had passed two years prior. Rep. James Wilson, R-Iowa, then House Judiciary Committee chairman and a leading 14th Amendment drafter, emphasized that the amendment was “establishing no new right, declaring no new principle.” Similarly, Sen. Jacob Howard, R-Mich., the principal author of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, described it as “simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already.” In other words, the 14th Amendment formalized the Civil Rights Act of 1866. And the citizenship clause of that law reads: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” In other words, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” necessarily excludes those “subject to any foreign power.” As then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Lyman Trumbull, R-Ill., said during the 14th Amendment ratification debate, “subject to the jurisdiction” means subject to the United States’ “complete” jurisdiction–that is, “not owing allegiance to anybody else.” The 14th Amendment thus constitutionally requires that neither legal nor illegal aliens be afforded birthright citizenship. (Whether Congress passes additional rights-bestowing laws of its own volition is a separate matter.) This understanding was unchallenged for decades. In the 1873 Slaughter-House Cases, Justice Samuel Miller interpreted the citizenship clause as “intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” And in the 1884 case of Elk v. Wilkins, Justice Horace Gray held that “subject to the jurisdiction” means “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” “It’s true that Gray inexplicably reversed course in an oft-cited 1898 case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Over a powerful and compelling dissenting opinion joined by Justice John Marshall Harlan, the sole dissenter in Plessy v. Ferguson, Gray held that there is some level of birthright citizenship for the children of aliens. But even in that wrongfully decided case, the court emphasized that its holding was limited to children of “resident aliens” who were under “the allegiance” of the United States. The court repeatedly emphasized that its holding only applied to those legitimately “domiciled” here. In no world whatsoever does Gray’s pro-birthright citizenship opinion in Wong Kim Ark apply to children of illegal aliens. Eighty-four years later, in Plyler v. Doe, the court dropped a superfluous footnote indicating that Wong Kim Ark applies to the children of illegal aliens too. But this nonbinding footnote from Justice William J. Brennan Jr., a leading liberal, does not the “law of the land” make. Fourteenth Amendment-mandated birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens is, at best, a live and unsettled legal debate. But the original meaning is quite clear: The amendment’s draftsmen would have been aghast at the notion that people who broke our laws and entered our soil illegally could then be afforded birthright citizenship for their children. The drafters likely foresaw, as so many today do not, the tremendous perverse incentives induced by such an ill-conceived policy. The so-called legal eagles are wrong. And Trump, yet again, is right. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Donald Trump Is Emphatically Correct About Birthright Citizenship appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Dying Establishment Laments

FBI Braces for Kash Cuts?

Previous collections inside the ISS indicate that bacteria has mutated into never-before-seen strains.

Asteroid 2024 YR4 has an almost 99% chance of safely passing by our planet December 22, 2032.

This week's episode of NBC's Law & Order offered a sympathetic portrayal of a woman who kills her father with dementia. The episode, "The Hardest Thing," on Thursday begins with an old man peacefully listening to the music of Handel. Someone with a pistol walks slowly up the stairs to his room and then shoots him in the back of the head. The incident is made to look like a robbery. It turns out that the murderer is the elderly man's daughter, Victoria Beyer (Katie Lowes). According to her, she did it at his request because he had been diagnosed with dementia. His physician testifies on her behalf. Defense Attorney: What was his condition by the time of his death? Physician: He came to see me a few weeks before he died. He reported that his episodes had gotten more pronounced, that it had progressed beyond a point that he was comfortable with. Defense Attorney: Did he ask you to help him commit suicide? Physician: Yes. Defense Attorney: What did you say? Physician: I told him no. Physician assisted suicide is currently legal in ten states, but New York isn't one of them. I wish I could have helped, but I wasn't willing to risk losing my license.  The doctor has no moral qualms about killing, only concerns for her professional standing. There is no indication that she attempted to find him the therapeutic care he needed to prepare for a natural end of life. On the stand, Beyer describes shooting her father as "an act of love." Beyer: Being smart and accomplished, strong, it was his identity, who he was as a person. He refused to become a lesser version of himself. He wanted to end things on his own terms while he still had his dignity. Defense Attorney: And you agreed with that? Beyer: Not at first, and certainly not the way that he wanted to do it. At first, I didn't even think that he was serious. But then he showed me the gun he bought. Defense Attorney: So he's the one who purchased the gun? Beyer: I was horrified. He had it all planned out. He begged me. I had never seen him like that. It broke my heart. I know that it's hard to understand, but what I did was an act of love. That "act of love" was also conveniently an act of insurance fraud since it was made to look like a robbery. Prosecutor Nolan Price (Hugh Dancy) decides to reduce Beyer's charge from murder to manslaughter when he experiences a "change of heart." His change of heart happens after he rejects a feeding tube for his comatose father in the hospital. Upon letting his own father die of starvation and dehydration, he feels more sympathetic to Beyer. In an era when countries like Canada are killing thousands of vulnerable people with assisted suicide programs like MAID, the manipulative propaganda of "The Hardest Thing" feels particularly disturbing. We just ended four years of elder abuse in the White House, during which the media pretended a likely dementia patient could be president of the United States. Now a television show argues it is more "dignified" to just shoot a dementia patient in the head. Compassionate and dignified end-of-life care, rather than elder abuse or murder, is actually possible for those experiencing cognitive decline. To recognize such inherent human dignity, however, we must reject the twisted messages of left-wing media and entertainment.

NBC’s resident open borders advocate Jacob Soboroff traveled over to CBS and The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on Thursday to promote his new anti-Trump documentary Separated and claim that “deterrence doesn't work” as a border security strategy and we “need a new approach” to the issue. Colbert wondered, “The film paints a picture of the bechilling crime perpetrated by the Trump Administration in the past and warns it could happen again in the future. Well, I assume this is being made before the second Trump Administration. What's happening right now?”     For Soboroff, enforcing immigration law is cruel and inhumane: They’re talking about mass deportation. I reported from the floor of the Republican convention. They held up, literally held up signs saying “mass deportation now.” They have based their program off Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1954 program with a name so racist, I'm not going to say it here. I'm never going to say it. They deported not only a million Mexicans, but some Mexican-Americans as well. I heard you talking about American citizens getting caught up in the dragnet. When you talk about mass deportation, translation: mass deportation is family separation by another name. It's not ripping apart children away from their parents at the border, but it's immigration enforcement officials going into the interior and taking parents away from their children. Later in their discussion, Colbert asked, “Why will no one actually address our immigration policy in an honest way? Why can't that happen? The last place this happened was, I'm not saying it's the right thing or wrong thing, but at least the Reagan administration had some courage and they had an amnesty policy. They provided amnesty for people and a path toward citizenship and they made Congress pass it.” Of course, by “honest,” Colbert means “in a way I agree with” because Soboroff would answer the question in a dishonest way: I think because deterrence has been the bipartisan policy of the United States government for the better part of a generation. Bill Clinton built the first wave of border walls knowing people would die trying to come into the country going around them. George W. Bush exponentially increased the size of the border patrol in the wake of 9/11 when they created the Department of Homeland Security. Continuing with his history lesson, Soboroff added: Barack Obama deported more people than any president in the history of the United States, which is why, like that, Donald Trump would separate these children almost immediately, and Joe Biden promised a departure from that system. A fair, safe, humane, and orderly system, but what they ended up doing is lean into these aggressive policies in order to continue to scare people away. They think it works, and let me tell you: deterrence doesn't work. If it works, people would stop coming to this country. People are leaving desperate circumstances all around the world for a better life in the United States of America. It's time for a new approach. Joe Biden reversed course because his initial desire to be Not Trump made the problem worse and was one reason why Kamala Harris lost. As for Soboroff’s “new approach,” he never cared to explain what that might be. Presumably, because it would involve decreased enforcement, which definitely wouldn't work. Here is a transcript for the January 30-taped show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 1/31/2025 12:28 AM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: The film paints a picture of the bechilling crime perpetrated by the Trump Administration in the past and warns it could happen again in the future. Well, I assume this is being made before the second Trump Administration. JACOB SOBOROFF: We had no idea, yeah. COLBERT: What's happening right now? SOBOROFF: They’re talking about mass deportation. I reported from the floor of the Republican convention. They held up, literally held up signs saying “mass deportation now.” They have based their program off Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1954 program with a name so racist, I'm not going to say it here. I'm never going to say it. They deported not only a million Mexicans, but some Mexican-Americans as well. I heard you talking about American citizens getting caught up in the dragnet. When you talk about mass deportation, translation: mass deportation is family separation by another name. It's not ripping apart children away from their parents at the border, but it’s immigration enforcement officials going into the interior and taking parents away from their children. … COLBERT: Why will no one actually address our immigration policy in an honest way? Why can't that happen? The last place this happened was, I'm not saying it's the right thing or wrong thing, but at least the Reagan administration had some courage and they had an amnesty policy. They provided amnesty for people and a path toward citizenship and they made Congress pass it. SOBOROFF: They did and I think because deterrence has been the bipartisan policy of the United States government for the better part of a generation. Bill Clinton built the first wave of border walls knowing people would die trying to come into the country going around them. George W. Bush exponentially increased the size of the border patrol in the wake of 9/11 when they created the Department of Homeland Security.  Barack Obama deported more people than any president in the history of the United States, which is why, like that, Donald Trump would separate these children almost immediately, and Joe Biden promised a departure from that system. A fair, safe, and humane, and orderly system, but what they ended up doing is lean into these aggressive policies in order to continue to scare people away. They think it works, and let me tell you: deterrence doesn't work. If it works, people would stop coming to this country. People are leaving desperate circumstances all around the world for a better life in the United States of America. It's time for a new approach.

President Donald Trump has kicked off his second presidency by making good on his promise to deport illegal immigrants — especially those with a criminal history. One of those illegal immigrants was in for a bit of extra shock when he wasn’t just greeted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement but by world-famous talk-show host Dr. Phil, who was on hand for a Sunday morning ICE raid in Chicago. “You’re Dr. Phil? You look like Dr. Phil,” the immigrant, who was in the U.S. illegally from Thailand, asked. “Yeah. How do you know me?” Dr. Phil responded. “I seen you on ‘Dr. Phil,’ on TV,” the immigrant answered. Dr. Phil wasn’t alone but alongside Tom Homan, President Donald Trump’s border czar. “This is an example of sanctuary cities, right?” Homan said. “We have an illegal alien, convicted of sex crimes involving children, and he’s walking the streets of Chicago.” While comedian Matt McClowry and Dave Landau’s co-hosts of “Normal World” aren’t upset that criminals are being escorted out of the country, they do find the fact that a talk-show host is attending their arrests to be indicative of what a strange time our country is in. “Dr. Phil, he was on the scene in Chicago to see off a convicted sex offender, an internet predator from Thailand, who was their first arrest under Tom Homan,” McClowry says. “Kind of like the celebrity on the maiden voyage of a cruise ship.” “There’s some weird element to it that doesn’t feel natural,” 1/4 Black Garrett comments. “Maybe it’s just a weird, awkward situation where you’re about to be deported, and Dr. Phil walks up, and you’re kind of like a deer in the headlights.” “Wasn’t the thing when you saw that video, you’re just like, ‘It’s 2025, why not?’” McClowry adds. “What is this timeline we’re in,” Garrett laughs, adding, “Dr. Phil is out there on the streets on the beat. What?” Want more 'Normal World'?To enjoy more whimsical satire, topical sketches, and comedic discussions from comedians Dave Landau and 1/4 Black Garrett, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

A Massachusetts man was arrested at the U.S. Capitol this week after he allegedly planned to assassinate several high-ranking officials associated with President Donald Trump.Just after 3 p.m. on Monday, Ryan Michael English approached a Capitol police officer near the south door of the Capitol building, informing the officer: "I’d like to turn myself in," a probable cause statement said. English went on to claim he had multiple Molotov cocktails and knives in his possession and that he intended to use them to kill various Trump officials.English claimed he drove from Massachusetts to Washington, D.C., with the initial intention of killing Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth or Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and perhaps burning down the Heritage Foundation building, located blocks from the White House. However, English learned en route about the confirmation hearing for Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and decided to make Bessent his target, the police statement said. "Originally, ENGLISH’s thoughts were to use the small bottles of vodka to start fires and later to wrap them in rags soaked in alcohol, light them and throw them at Bessent’s feet," it explained.When cops searched English, they discovered at least one knife, a lighter, and two Molotov cocktail-like items on his person as well as similar materials in his vehicle. They also found a receipt with the following note written on it:Judith dear god I am so sorry. You must understand I can feel myself dying slowly b/c of my heart. This is terrible but I cant do nothing while nazis kill my sisters. I love you. This is awful. Im so sorry. I love u. Please stay alive and heal. you can. you are strong enough. F*** them for pushing us so far. you dont deserve this. Im so sorry for lying and plotting and lying. Please survive.The message also included seven hearts, the police statement said. The probable cause statement did not clarify who "Judith" is.English was apparently quite forthcoming with police about his motives and intentions, according to the probable cause statement. He reportedly admitted that he had left his phone at home to prevent the GPS on it from tracking his movements, that he had paid cash for an atlas to help him navigate to D.C. without his phone, and that he had dressed in disguise while purchasing the atlas to conceal his appearance.English also apparently told authorities he had resigned himself that he would likely have to kill several Capitol police officers in pursuit of his mission and would likely die in the process. He "expressed acceptance and content with the possibility of suicide by cop," the statement said.'I felt like I had to do this. I felt like I was on a mission.'English was arrested and charged with unlawful receipt, possession, or transfer of a firearm and carrying a firearm, explosive, or incendiary device on Capitol grounds.On Wednesday, English's public defender, Maria Jacob, issued a memo clarifying that English, 24, preferred the name Riley Jane. The probable cause statement from police likewise referred to the accused as "Ryan Michael 'Reily' English." Media outlets then scrambled to describe English as a woman and use female pronouns in reference to him.They also claimed English was inspired by another high-profile suspect: Luigi Mangione, accused of gunning down UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in early December."I didn’t have a plan in my mind. I felt like I had to do this. I felt like I was on a mission," English allegedly told police, according to WUSA9. "Maybe I told myself to have faith and just see where this goes, and I had been thinking about this for a while because of Luigi Mangione.""I don’t want to hurt anyone," he allegedly added. "I don’t want to hurt people. That’s why I turned myself in."English further supposedly told police he has only months left to live because of a congenital heart condition.Jacob argued in documents filed Wednesday that English should be released from custody pending trial, claiming that he had no prior criminal record and simply demonstrated "poor judgment in effectuating a protest." Prosecutors countered that English's actions were premeditated and that he wanted to "send a message," though they conceded that the vodka in his possession likely would not have ignited.English later apparently conceded detention and waived the written finding of facts, according to the Daily Hampshire Gazette. On Thursday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Matthew Sharbaugh granted the request from the federal government for a speedy trial and scheduled a hearing for April 1.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

HA! Adam Schiff Is NOT Ok After Getting Bodied Over and Over and OVER Again by Kash Patel During Hearing