Birthright Citizenship: American Sovereignty Dangling By a Thread in the Supreme Court

The Post Email Newspaper ^ | 12 Apr 2026 | Alan Wall

[CDR Kerchner]

(Apr. 12, 2026) — The news is full of foreign policy crises, scandals, conflicts, and trends in all directions.

However, a current case before the U.S. Supreme Court tops it all.

It’s the birthright citizenship case, which determines the future of our nation and what sort of country it will be.

Does the U.S. have sovereignty to confer its own citizenship, or does anyone from any point on the globe have the right to take it from us? Are we an autonomous nation or a colony of the world?

Under current policy, any child born on U.S. soil to a foreign mother (regardless of her citizenship or legal status) becomes an American citizen for life.

A female illegal alien can cross the border and give birth to a child five minutes later. That baby is now a U.S. citizen, with the eventual right to vote and bring in more foreign relatives.

It’s not just illegal aliens — well-off foreigners come to the U.S. on tourist visas, birth offspring, then return home with dual citizens.

Decades later, that child can return and claim all the benefits of U.S. citizenship.

It’s insane and the policy must be abolished.

In Mexico, where I resided for many years, U.S. citizenship is seen as a valuable possession.

But this is not because they want to convert from being Mexicans to being Americans — it’s so they can reap the benefits of U.S. citizenship, while remaining “Mexican.” ... continue reading at: https://www.thepostemail.com/2026/04/12/birthright-citizenship-american-sovereignty-dangling-by-a-thread-in-the-supreme-court/

[A strike]

"How you could possibly read the above words from the United States constitution and determine that it doesn't mean that American's are entitled to birthright citizenship is beyond me." Ummm, maybe because they Are Not Americans ?

[jerod]

With regards to mental stability... You may want to check your own. You're inability to understand simple wording from a paragraph is a sure sign that something is obviously wrong with your thought patterns.

What do you not understand about this wording in the 14th amendment?

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.

It is as simplistic as it gets... Anybody who can read can only come to one conclusion when reading those words. People born in the United States, are citizens of the United States. Period!

Any other interpretation is craziness personified. You can disagree with it, but you can't dispute the meaning of those words and to change them you will need to change the United States constitution as it has already been written and agreed to by the established method for modifying your constitution.

If you can convince two thirds of congress to propose a different method for obtaining citizenship... Feel free to do so.

[A strike]

I clearly understand the simple, granted sloppy, inadequately articulated wording of the 14th.
That you so strongly defend such a stupid interpretation of its intent in spite of all evidence to the contrary is strong evidence that you prefer its insane application.
Why is that ?

[A strike]

Why did they insert the clause “,subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” ?

They obviously didn’t mean ‘subject to the laws thereof’ because everyone IN the UnitedStates was already subject to the laws thereof, with only diplomats having a certain immunity..

but go ahead, continue to be a fool and contend that the enactors of the 14th meant what you say it means..

[A strike]

If you had any use for ‘due diligence’ you may have investigated/understood something else from the debate prior to the passage of the 14th..
Go ahead, I double dog dare you to read that and with a straight face suggest that they EXPLICITLY did not intend for native Americans (who were of course BORN in the UnitedStates) to be designated citizens of the UnitedStates..

[jerod]

Mental stability... It’s essentially if you are going to make a point that makes sense. Without it, there is only nonsense.

[A strike]

Of course you cannot address/refute my comments, but
u go gurl

[4Zoltan]

Reading the debates over both the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment in chronological order and context reveals the meaning of the citizenship clauses.

For example:

January 30, 1866, Senator Trumbull introduces the citizenship clause for the CRA. It reads:

“That all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign Power, are hereby declared to be Citizens of the United States”.

Senator Guthrie asks if Senator Trumbull intends by his amendment is to “naturalize all the Indians of the United States?”

Senator Howard says he was going to ask the same question.

Senator Trumbull response “Our dealings with the Indians are with them as foreigners, as separate nations.” He goes on to say that the citizenship clause is “not intended to include them.”

Senator Cowan then asks if the clause will have the “effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?”

Senato Trumbull’s one word answer is “Undoubtedly.”

Senator Cowan then warns that if the Chinese are allowed to become citizens that the “day may not be very far distant” where California will no longer belong to the “IndoEuropean race” but “belong to the Chinese.”

Senator Trumbull asked Cowan if the “children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens.”

Senator Cowan answers “I think not.”

Senator Trumbull then says that as he understands it “the children who are born here of parents who have not naturalized are citizens. That is the law, as I understand it, at the present time.” Trumbull then asks if the children born here to German parents are citizen?

Senator Cowan answers the “children of German parents are citizen; but Germans are not Chinese.”

Senator Trumbull asks Cowan to show him in the law where there is a distinction made between the children of German parents and those of Asiatic parents. Trumbull says the law “makes no distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European.”

Congressional Globe, 39th Congress Session 1 Part 1 January 30th page 498.

From this exchange between Senator Trumbull, the author of the CRA citizenship clause, and Senators Guthrie and Cowan, the phrase “not subject to any foreign Power” applies to Native Americans (Indians) but not to children born to alien parents.

[jerod]

While you can argue all you want about the 'intent' of the 14th amendment... The language used is rather simple and very easily understood. Just keep reading it over and over again until you can figure it out.

Section 1

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Remember to read it over and over again for as many times as it takes... It will come to you eventually.

[Texan4Life]

1. Here is the Truth Social link to the re-post of a DR. Michael Savage post:
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/116450605050795046

2. Here is a quote from the post:
“A baby here becomes an instant citizen, and they bring the entire family in from China or India or some other hellhole on the planet,” Savage wrote in the post. “They’re not like the European Americans of today and their ancestors…they all integrated and became Americans in the melting pot.”

“They’ve done more damage to this nation than all the mafia families put together, in my un-humble opinion,” he wrote. “Gangsters with laptops. They’ve robbed us blind, treated us like second-class citizens, let the turd world triumph, stepped on our flag, et cetera.”