If you’ve been wondering why America’s 250th feels so hollow, the Supreme Court’s June 30th ruling on birthright citizenship should provide ample clarity.

If anyone, from anywhere in the world, can travel to America and give birth to an ‘American’ citizen, then American citizenship is meaningless.

And make no mistake, this is exactly what a majority of unelected Supreme Court justices just decreed.

Incredibly, mere days before the anniversary of America’s declared independence from the British Crown, our misguided Supreme Court has essentially negated everything the Founders pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to reject and, in its place, has resurrected a form of medieval English feudal rule.

As Justice Samuel Alito noted in his dissent, this system of “soil and servitude” was emphatically rejected by our Founders in the Declaration of Independence. Yet, the Court has once again saddled our nation with this ancient understanding, effectively declaring that our borders and sovereignty are secondary concerns to an empty technicality of mere physical presence at the time of birth.

The Fourteenth Amendment was drafted to ensure that freed slaves were recognized as full citizens, given that, as Justice Clarence Thomas argues in his dissent, freed slaves “had no other homeland” and were “liable to be called upon to defend [America] in time of war.”

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Constitution’s Citizenship Clause demands that one not only be born in the United States but also be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Legal scholars who reject universal birthright citizenship under consent theory argue that full jurisdiction requires mutual political consent.

According to this view, a tourist or illegal immigrant is not fully “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States merely by being physically present. Instead, the United States, as a sovereign nation, must affirmatively consent to the person’s permanent presence and membership within its borders and political community.

Senator Lyman Trumbull, a principal architect of Reconstruction-era legislation, explained that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else” and “subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.”

Without that consent, children born on American soil under these circumstances lack the jurisdictional relationship the Fourteenth Amendment requires for automatic birthright citizenship.

To this point, Justice Clarence Thomas explained in his dissent that this jurisdictional requirement was historically understood as demanding a legal domicile, meaning a permanent home, rather than a fleeting visit to our shores.

This conclusion stands in direct contrast to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s “universalist” vision of citizenship.

In our modern context, visitors such as tourists, temporary foreign workers, and illegal aliens clearly remain subject to the political jurisdiction and allegiance of their home nations.

The author of the Citizenship Clause, Senator Jacob Howard, stated during the Senate debates over the 14^th Amendment that automatic birthright citizenship would not “include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

The Supreme Court majority’s response to Howard’s assertion is to argue over commas, insisting ‘foreigners’ and ‘aliens’ merely describe diplomat families. But if diplomat families are foreigners by definition, why even list foreigners and aliens separately? Should birthright citizenship truly rest on grammatical semantics?

By ignoring the plain words of the Amendment’s own authors, the Court’s majority has relegated citizenship to mere happenstance of birth.

For decades, open-borders advocates have repeatedly told the American public that this debate was permanently settled in 1898 by the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark because this understanding benefits the left demographically and electorally.

When the children of illegal aliens and birth tourists turn 18, they are eligible to vote in our elections. When they turn 21, they unlock the power of chain migration, allowing them to sponsor their foreign parents for legal permanent residency.

One only needs to look at the wave of Democratic Socialist victories in recent municipal elections, driven by rapidly shifting urban demographics, to see where this leads.

But the current understanding of Wong Kim Ark is wrong, and the dissenting opinions take direct aim at this lie.

As Justice Alito thoroughly explained, the holding in Wong Kim Ark was explicitly limited to children whose non-citizen parents had established a “permanent domicil and residence” in the United States.

Because the legal category “lawful permanent resident” did not exist in 1898, Wong’s parents were considered “lawfully domiciled” in the U.S. under common law because there was no statute making their presence unlawful. Additionally, being Chinese, they could not apply for naturalization.

They had done, as Justice Alito stated, “everything within their power to express their desire and intent to become Americans.” As such, they were fully part of the national community to the extent that the law allowed at the time.

The real-world consequences of this decision represent nothing short of an existential threat to our national sovereignty.

Share

The promise of American citizenship remains a massive incentive for illegal immigration, while the subversive ‘birth tourism’ industry will continue to profit openly from the Court’s refusal to defend the nation.

In 2023 alone, mothers who were unauthorized immigrants or held only temporary legal status accounted for an astounding 320,000 births in the United States, representing nine percent of all U.S. births. If the restrictions of President Trump’s executive order had been properly upheld, roughly 260,000 of those children would not have qualified for automatic citizenship.

Even more alarming is the strategic weaponization of this loophole by adversarial nations such as China. As Peter Schweizer has documented in his book, The Invisible Coup, we are currently facing what he terms “civilizational warfare”.

Wealthy Chinese nationals, sometimes with ties to the Chinese Communist Party, exploit visa loopholes in U.S. territories like Saipan, turning them into tropical maternity wards.

A sophisticated industry charging upwards of $45,000 coaches these birth tourists on how to deceive customs officials so they can deliver their children on American soil and instantly secure a U.S. passport.

In some horrifying instances, this pipeline has shifted into the literal manufacturing of citizens through commercial surrogacy pipelines, viewed by adversarial elites as a cold, strategic acquisition of ‘American’ citizens.

The result is the creation of what Schweizer calls a “Manchurian Generation”.

There are an estimated 750,000 to 1.5 million of these “American citizens” currently being raised and indoctrinated in mainland China, taught to hate America and Western Civilization as a whole.

As Justice Alito warned, this ruling continues to allow a person whose only connection to this country is a brief stay on American soil at birth to travel the world on a U.S. passport, enter our country freely, vote in our elections, run for political office, and retain citizenship even if they harbor deep hatred for America or actively plot to harm it.

If an adversarial government can effectively manufacture U.S. citizens at will through birth tourism, then birthright citizenship needs to be seen as the massive national security threat that it is.

The American Revolution itself was premised on the idea that governments derive just powers from the consent of the governed, which means citizenship and government must be considered a two-way relationship.

True citizenship requires mutual political consent between the individual and the sovereign nation. Without it, a person may be physically present on our soil, but they unequivocally remain legally and philosophically outside our political community.

As Justice Alito pointed out, while Congress holds the power to confer citizenship on others by statute, the Constitution itself does not mandate the degradation of American citizenship for everyone who happens to cross our borders.

Birthright citizenship was never intended to serve as a constitutional loophole for trespassers, temporary tourists, or hostile foreign powers.

American citizenship is a priceless inheritance, not a cheap commodity to be harvested by those who wish us harm.

No sovereign nation can survive if it abandons the right to decide who belongs to its national family.

A condensed version of this article is featured at The Federalist so be sure to head over there for more great Conservative content. You can also subscribe to The Federalist, and donate to help support all their great journalism. Thank you!

Recently, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani published a map of New York City’s extensive immigrant enclaves, highlighting thirty ethnic neighborhoods across NYC’s five boroughs.

The carveouts ranged from well-known ethnic neighborhoods such as Chinatown and Koreatown (of which there are multiple) to new additions like “Little Egypt,” two “Little Africas,” and incredibly, three “Little Mexicos.”

Predictably, the backlash from conservatives was immediate.

Also predictably, it completely missed the mark.

The outrage was not over the fact that New York City has been transformed from America’s premier city to a balkanized patchwork of ethnic enclaves representing every third-world country you can imagine.

No.

Their ire was because the Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs decided to leave off “traditional” ethnic enclaves such as Little Italy.

Sigh.

Welcome to America in 2026, where Italian-Americans battle a Ugandan-born mayor for the historic claim to New Amsterdam and the English colony that succeeded it.

The truth is, we should not be fighting for a third-world-minded mayor’s recognition of Little Italy, of which few Italians remain.

Instead, we should be fighting for, as Teddy Roosevelt did, American cities that are completely devoid of “Hyphenated-Americanism.”

Arguing that your preferred ethnic enclave be recognized on Mamdani’s map, conservatives are unknowingly accepting the left’s multicultural framing.

This thinking not only needs to be thoroughly rejected, but the underlying mechanisms that brought us to a map of thirty ethnic enclaves need to be reversed.

The Great Lie

Mamdani’s map thus illustrates the great lie of mass migration—what Stephen Miller has called importing entire societies, not individuals.

The statistics bear this out. Officially, nearly 40% of NYC residents are foreign-born, up from 18% in 1970, demonstrating that an entirely new population has been imported into America’s largest city.

It is with this in mind that the deeper, and more civilizational threat from Mamdani’s map materializes. These enclaves, which are exponentially expanding, show that immigrants, especially in the modern sense, do not assimilate.

Instead, they balkanize existing territory into ever-expanding ethnic enclaves. Then their foreign-born leaders celebrate it as a good thing during “National Immigrant Heritage Month,” which of course is a month that never ends.

As Miller put it, “At scale, migrants and their descendants recreate the conditions, and terrors, of their broken homelands.”

His point is not about the morality or worth of individual immigrants, but rather the larger structural reality of modern immigration.

This is why assimilation, especially in the modern context, is a myth.

Subscribe now

Ask the Kids

Now, there is someone out there who reads that last sentence and resorts to a personal anecdote to counter this assertion. It typically goes something like this:

“My neighbor is an immigrant and they love America.” Or “My great-great grandfather arrived in this country with nothing, worked hard, and became a model American,” or “my landscapers are awesome.”

While that’s certainly nice to hear, these statements completely miss both the moment, and the SCALE, of non-assimilation in America.

And so, I’ll meet these anecdotes with one of my own that demonstrates the exponential problem with mass immigration in our modern times.

My parents, now retired, were public school teachers in an area that is estimated to be 60% foreign-born in a school district with a 95% Hispanic student body.

These schools were located just outside New York City, within walking distance of the Hudson River.

Every year, as schools approached their long breaks, my parents would ask their students what their plans were for the extended time off.

Those who had immigrant parents would routinely say “I’m going back to my country.”

My parents would then ask, “Oh, were you born outside the United States?”

They’d respond, “No, I was born here.”

“So, this is your country then. You were born here,” my parents would respond.

The students would laugh at the assertion. What was so hard for these silly teachers to understand?

But to them there was no confusion.

“Their country” was not America. Their “home” was where their family came from.

This is what is happening on a massive scale in similar immigrant-concentrated school districts across the country.

Year after year, classrooms full of immigrant and first-generation American students are demonstrating that their true “home” is not America.

This lack of full cultural assimilation, especially in the modern context, is not attacking the “character” of immigrants.

It’s an objective reality of modern mass immigration.

How It Used to Work

Contrary to America’s past, there are NO mechanisms in place to facilitate assimilation. In fact, the celebration of multiculturalism demands the opposite.

Historical assimilation, to the extent that it did work, wasn’t automatic.

It was forcibly manufactured.

Companies like Ford had an “Americanization Program“ and offered a high wage of $5 a day, but workers had to undergo surprise inspections at their homes by Ford’s “Sociological Department.” Inspectors would show up unannounced at workers’ homes to ensure they were speaking English, eating “American” food, and maintaining middle-class American hygiene. If they continued to keep their old cultural habits, they were eventually fired.

Additionally, some states passed legislation that prohibited the teaching of foreign languages to young children. 37 states even passed laws making English the official language of the state during this push for Americanization.

Then, immigration was severely restricted for around 40 years from 1924 to 1965 – that is until the Hart-Celler Act reopened the immigration floodgates.

This gave existing immigrant populations time to assimilate into what was then a dominant American culture without it being further diluted by constant new arrivals.

None of those mechanisms exist today, and so we get cities like New York that are completely balkanized and led by the likes of Zohran Mamdani.

Objection, Overruled

I can hear the critics of these assertions now.

“Listen up, xenophobe. Studies routinely show that assimilation in modern America is happening at an equal or even faster pace than before!”

What these critics don’t acknowledge, either out of ignorance or deliberate malfeasance, is that these studies rely on the early 1900s (and late 1800s) model of the world prior to modern forms of mass communication and travel that have helped to keep immigrants thoroughly connected to their homelands.

Additionally, the studies pertain to the Ellis Island wave of immigrants, and by extension, their descendants who, as we have discussed, experienced more direct forms of coercive assimilation measures.

Lastly - and this is the immigration enthusiast’s sleight of hand—the definition of assimilation has changed dramatically from the traditional understanding of the American melting pot—which was long ago deemed racist.

Today, assimilation now simply means ethnic and economic coexistence.

And so, if an immigrant speaks passable English, has a job, pays taxes, and goes to school, that is now considered full “assimilation.” They’re just as American as George Washington.

It says nothing about whether that immigrant is culturally American - which is of course discouraged at every level of society because “diversity is our strength.”

Thankfully there is new research that is beginning to dismantle the official narrative, showing that assimilation is, in reality, regressing.

In this peer-reviewed study published in Social Sciences, researchers found a “resurgent ethnicity” among immigrants who arrived as children.

Unsurprisingly to anyone outside the church of diversity, these children were more likely than their parents to live in ethnic enclaves - and these were often more affluent areas outside metropolitan areas, called “ethnoburbs,” not just self-segregated enclaves within the confines of a city.

A few points worth highlighting from the study:

Kids who grow up in modern America are more likely than their first-generation immigrant parents to live in self-segregated enclaves.

But what about financial success? Sure, poor immigrants might cluster together but as their economic success increases, they will integrate more, correct?

Nope. Increased family income is associated with a higher propensity to cluster in ethnic areas, completely upending the old melting-pot theory. These upwardly mobile, educated immigrants are not dispersing into the mainstream; instead, they are using their financial success to fund and buy into affluent “ethnoburbs”.

In short, this balkanization is driven by a deliberate cultural choice to live apart from everyone else.

By the way, we didn’t need an official study to show this.

The 90-foot statue of the Hindu deity, Hanuman, towering over Fort Bend County, Texas and the proposed Muslim-centered EPIC city designed to operate like a nation within a nation should have sufficed.

Want more? How about the High school graduations that are conducted entirely in Spanish, the city governments flying Palestinian flags above their halls, and growing crowds of Mexican flag waving immigrant protestors calling for an end to federal immigration enforcement?

To the proponents of mass immigration, these are, no doubt, symbols of America’s diverse “strength.”

To everyone else, these are signs of civilizational collapse, or, at the very least, demonstrate that America is losing its sense of self.

And so, we circle back to Mamdani's map of our balkanized New York City.

Rather than pointing to a map that highlights how America's largest city is missing our preferred ethnic enclave, how about we strive to enact policies that will reverse the damage of Hart-Celler immigration and once again create a New York City full of unhyphenated-Americans?

The multiculturalists on both sides of the political spectrum will say no, of course.

But I’m not going to Fuhgettaboutit.

Happy Friday!

I joined Federalist Managing Editor Kylee Griswold to discuss why the “Heritage American” debate matters, why America 250 feels so different from the bicentennial, and how we can tell that America is more than just a creed, proposition, or set of ideas—it is a specific people and a specific place.

Watch it here! 👇 (Be sure to like and subscribe as it helps expand the video’s reach!)

This conversation is centered around my most recent essay for The Federalist which you can read below. 👇

➡️ Leftists Replaced The Constitution With These Four Texts To Enable Mass Migration

If you want a deeper dive into the concepts we discuss, I expanded upon everything in greater detail here. 👇

➡️ Why America’s 250th Birthday Feels More Like a Funeral

✅ If you aren’t following me on X, please do so! Follow Adam on X

✅ Follow Kylee on X and subscribe to her YouTube Channel.

Share

America’s 250th birthday feels more like a funeral.

The lack of enthusiasm most recently presented itself when a number of musicians set to play in the Great American State Fair concert series this summer recently withdrew, pointing to the polarizing and political nature of the event that had, in their words, been sold to them as a non-partisan and neutral celebration of America.

Popular country music singer Martina McBride wrote as much on social media stating that though she was presented with the opportunity to perform at a “nonpartisan” event, that invitation “turned out to be misleading.”

Yet, despite the fact that America was hardly a nonpartisan harmonious nation 50 years ago, the country still found a way to enthusiastically celebrate its 200th birthday.

In the lead-up to the bicentennial the nation was still dealing with the aftershocks of the Civil Rights era, while the Weather Underground had spent years bombing courthouses, banks, and government buildings in a leftist fueled domestic terror campaign.

Only a year prior, the Vietnam war had ended in heart wrenching defeat - shaking the nation’s confidence in itself.

America was no better off economically. The nation was mired in massive inflation, rising unemployment and pervasive economic despair thanks in part to staggeringly high oil prices.

And yet, despite all the political division and economic headwinds, America’s 200th birthday still featured some of the biggest musical acts in American history.

Legendary artists such as Elvis Presley, The Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, ZZ Top, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Aerosmith, and Bob Seger, among many others, all performed in front of tens of thousands of Americans in packed stadiums all across the country while over 6 million spectators witnessed events like Operation Sail.

Sure, the celebrations were also a product of corporate commercialism in an attempt to reap the financial rewards around the occasion. But underneath the over-the-top advertisements, and despite the immense political divisiveness and continuing social unrest, the American people, as a people, still managed to unify in an outpouring of patriotism and pride.

But how?

Because despite very real differences in opinions over where the country was and where it was headed, Americans were still largely a people with a historic memory and a sense of national “self.”

This sense of self was developed, in part, due to the cohesion forged during forty years of restricted immigration that allowed a singular American identity to solidify beginning in 1924 and ending with the Hart-Celler Act in 1965.

The decision to limit immigration came from a considered belief, held by members of both parties, that national identity required continuity, not just paperwork.

Theodore Roosevelt railed against “hyphenated Americanism,” warning that a man who carried a divided loyalty was no American at all. President Calvin Coolidge, signing the Immigration Act of 1924, was explicit about its purpose: to keep America, American.

These were far from fringe positions, but rather the mainstream conviction of a nation that understood itself as a people, not merely a set of propositions.

America in 2026 is no longer the same nation. In fact, in far too many crucial ways, it is no longer a nation in the traditional sense at all.

The ethnic and cultural composition of the country has been altered so fundamentally from 1976 that inherited national memory, cultural continuity, and common civic reference points have all but evaporated.

It is within this demographic restructuring that America fell victim to a decades-long effort by academic, media, and political elites to redefine America as a “propositional” nation, weaponizing the modern myth that anyone can become an American by simply adopting a set of ideals.

This myth has been pushed by both modern Democrats and Republicans alike, replacing America as a distinct people and place with an America that functions merely as an economic opportunity zone for the world to take advantage of.

These architects have substituted a shared homeland for a hollow, abstract ideological creed that they falsely claim can be traced back to the nation’s very founding.

To accomplish this redefinition, political elites have relied on four specific historical touchstones - what I deem The Four Myths of American Civic Universalism.

Proponents of ‘America is an idea’ use the following texts as a cudgel to redefine the nation - shifting it from a specific people and place to an abstract ideological creed that anyone can adopt, yet, increasingly very few do.

Subscribe now

Share

Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence

America as an idea begins with none other than the nation’s founding document, the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

Contained within Jefferson’s preamble is a universalism that at the time perfectly espoused the essence of enlightenment thinking. Two phrases in particular, “all men are created equal,” and “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” have been interpreted today to apply not just to Americans, but to the world at large.

Most people, including our elected leaders, stop short of reading beyond the Declaration’s ‘Enlightenment’ preamble. As such, for the vast majority of Americans, its grand assertions that “all men are created equal” and that they have the “right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are all that is understood about America’s colonial break from England.

However upon closer inspection, the Declaration served as a carefully crafted diplomatic sales pitch to gain French sympathy and support for the war.

After all, it’s no coincidence that Benjamin Franklin went to Paris soon after, armed with the Declaration’s overt appeals to Enlightenment ideals which resonated deeply with the French.

In reality, the core of the Declaration of Independence is legal in substance, not philosophical, citing 27 violations of the colonists’ rights specifically as Englishmen, which were rooted in the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights.

Also worth remembering that the Declaration followed the Olive Branch Petition which argued that the colonists were being denied rights as British subjects.

In short, America’s grievances were more legal in substance, not philosophical.

Ultimately, it is in our English heritage, and not just Enlightenment universalism, that the meaning of this founding document makes the most sense.

Yet, today, “All men are created equal” has morphed into the claim that all cultures are equal. Anyone who seeks “the pursuit of happiness” should be welcomed here, regardless of cultural compatibility. The right to “life” and “liberty” turns into the universal right to immigrate to America and claim its promise for oneself.

Liberals then, under this logic, posit that mass immigration, especially from cultures antithetical to America’s founding culture, is what actually makes America “stronger,” while also functioning as a form of atonement for America’s original sin of slavery and restrictive (i.e., “racist”) immigration laws.

For much of the right, the framing is eerily similar. According to many mainstream conservatives, the American founding was nothing short of a glorious war for universal human principles and ideals.

And so under this framework, anyone who espouses the beliefs of liberty, freedom, and equality and dedicates himself to working hard in his “pursuit of happiness” is definitionally an American-in-waiting.

What gets lost in the lofty rhetorical prose of the Declaration is that the Constitution of 1787 was effectively a counter-revolution to correct for the radical excesses of 1776.

There’s a reason universalists, such as Lincoln, point to the Declaration’s preamble to justify their universalist goals while the American traditionalist position grounds itself in the Constitution’s preamble - “to ourselves and our posterity.”

Without the grounding of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence becomes the justification for continued demographic transformation via mass immigration which is required to fulfill the Declaration’s “original promise.”

Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.

GK Chesterton wrote the following in 1922

“America is the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed. That creed is set forth with dogmatic and even theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence; perhaps the only piece of practical politics that is also theoretical politics and also great literature.”

Though Chesterton is revered by Conservatives today, for good reason, it’s important to note that he was an English outsider describing America as it existed after the revolution that was the Civil War.

What was this revolution? It was Lincoln’s deliberate substitution of an appeal to the Constitution and American heritage with the ‘universal creed’ found in the Declaration of Independence.

Lincoln’s invoking the ‘proposition’ of the Declaration of Independence at Gettysburg served a practical political purpose.

He was fielding a force that was 25% foreign-born which rose to nearly 45% when including second-generation immigrants and so he needed an aspirational and ideological hook.

He couldn’t call upon a shared ‘American’ heritage to unite the German revolutionaries and Irish immigrants that comprised nearly 17% of the Union Army to fight an American South that was 95% native born.

And so Lincoln used the Gettysburg address to shoehorn a universalist rationale for a war initially launched to preserve the Union.

This is not a modern critique. Some newspapers at the time, including those in the North, criticized Lincoln’s universalist framing as a political maneuver.

The Chicago Times wrote on November 23, 1863 in condemnation of Lincoln’s universalist revisionism by stating the following,

“It was to uphold this Constitution, and the Union created by it, that our officers and soldiers gave their lives at Gettysburg. How dared he, then, standing on their graves, misstate the cause for which they died, and libel the statesmen who founded the government?”

Famously adding, “The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly, flat and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States.”

The Times of London also criticized it, writing, “The ceremony was rendered ludicrous by some of the sallies of that poor President Lincoln. Anything more dull and commonplace it would not be easy to produce.”

Subscribe now

Share

The Statue of Liberty

There is an egalitarian ethos that dominates modern liberal thinking, especially around immigration, and it has permeated both the political left and right in America.

In what could be called the “Statue of Liberty rationale” for mass immigration, American political elites have turned Emma Lazarus’s “New Colossus” poem affixed to the Statue of Liberty into a form of de facto immigration law, citing it as sacrosanct when any form of immigration restriction is debated in Congress.

In truth, the Statue of Liberty was never intended to be the center of gravity for mass immigration. Rather, it was a gift from France to America commemorating the friendship between both countries as well as America’s 100th Birthday in 1886.

It was 17 years later, in 1903, that Emma Lazarus’s “The New Colossus” poem was affixed to the statue, permanently altering what the statue originally represented, and yet even then it was not directly tied to immigration.

Yet, it wasn’t until the 1930s, in direct response to the restrictive immigration legislation of the 1920s, that pro-immigration advocates, most prominently the Slovenian-American journalist Louis Adamic, took the poem up as a political rallying cry. It was then that the decorative plaque at the base of the Statue was transformed into an ideological cudgel against immigration restrictionism.

Under this new rationale, liberals believe immigrants should be admitted primarily based on how poor or persecuted they are, without any further consideration.

For those on the right who adhere to economic liberalism, immigrants should be admitted primarily based on their economic potential. If they can increase the GDP, they’re welcome.

Tired, poor, hungry? Come on in. Wretched refuse and homeless? The more the merrier.

Using this as a standard for who America admits and who it doesn’t is suicidal. This rationale completely discards the notion that immigration and refugee policy should serve more than abstract feelings of compassion or economic consumerist concerns. Immigration must also, and more importantly, serve the cultural and civic continuity of the nation itself. The reality is that not all refugees or immigrants pose equal benefits — or equal risks — to that goal.

And so the copper Statue of Liberty, once a symbol of friendship between two nations, became a magnet for unfettered immigration

JFK’s “A Nation of Immigrants” and the Civil Rights Act.

Today the phrase, “America is a nation of immigrants” is treated as multicultural gospel on both the political left and right.

But where, and how, did this phrase embed itself so deeply into the American lexicon?

For the answer, we need look no further than President John F. Kennedy.

John F. Kennedy first published an essay titled, “A Nation of Immigrants” in 1958. The essay was commissioned by the Anti-Defamation League, and then was subsequently expanded into a book that was released posthumously in 1964.

That year is significant as it was used to help justify the passing of the 1965 Hart-Celler Act which reframed America as a nation that should be welcoming to all immigrants after the 40+ years of immigration restriction that began in 1924.

Today, this phrase and the policies that have arisen under its banner, have done incredible damage to America’s social fabric by radically changing American immigration law.

Since the Immigration Act of 1924, America had operated on a National Origins Formula. This system calculated immigration caps based on the existing ethnic proportions of the country, specifically favoring Northern and Western Europe in an effort to maintain cultural continuity.

Hart-Celler completely abolished these quotas and banned any discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas based on race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.

In many respects The Hart-Celler Act of 1965 became an extension of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

While the CRA sought to end discrimination for those already living in the U.S., Hart-Celler extended this principle outward, arguing that America had no right to discriminate against who could become Americans.

In essence, it made it illegal to prefer immigration from mainly European countries and restrict immigration from third-world countries, granting a de facto “right” for anyone in the world to become an American.

But it gets worse. It also instituted a rigid 20,000 per-country cap that treated foundational European nations no differently than third-world countries, and handed 80% of visas over to a family reunification preference system. This system unleashed a wave of uncapped chain migration that exists to this day.

By eliminating the preference for European lineage, Hart-Celler stripped America of its lawful ability to protect its heritage.

The 1965 Hart-Celler Act deliberately changed the ethnic makeup of America, even when those who supported it promised Americans it wouldn’t.

(D) Sen. Ted Kennedy stated, “The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society.”

Republican Hiram Fong said, “Our cultural pattern will never be changed as far as America is concerned.”

Secretary of State Dean Rusk added, “Additional workers would not even be competitors for jobs held or needed by Americans.”

After signing the Hart-Celler Act into law, (D) President Lyndon B. Johnson said: “It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives.”

Of course, none of what our elected leaders said was true.

Subscribe now

Share

In 1960, 84% of legal immigrants were from Europe or Canada. Only 6% were from Mexico. 4% were from South and East Asia. 4% were from Latin America. 2% were from other parts of the world.

Additionally, the total foreign born U.S. population was around 5%.

By 2023, Mexico alone accounted for 22% of all immigrants, with India, China, and the Philippines making up another 16% combined. Europeans and Canadians had fallen to just 12% of the foreign-born population, while the total foreign born population hit a record high of 15.8% in 2025.

Keep in mind these are “official” legal immigration statistics. The official numbers are assuredly higher once illegal immigration is factored in.

Hart-Celler became the legislative instrument that officially severed the American people from their national heritage — and the politicians who passed it knew exactly what they were doing.

Towards Renewal

In the relatively brief 50 years since America celebrated her 200th birthday the nation has undergone a dramatic cultural transformation - the seeds of which can be traced back to the very founding of the nation itself.

Though not the whole story, four separate texts, selectively misread, distorted, weaponized, and enshrined into law, combined to sever over 200 years of American heritage from the collective consciousness.

For most of that time, America understood itself to be a people, and not a proposition.

These were unhyphenated Americans who, despite the ebbs and flows of immigration, still managed to hold on to their collective identity right up until it was made illegal to do so in 1965 and beyond.

If America is to ever experience a renewal, it must first understand not only what was taken from it, but the mechanisms, etched in American mythos, that allowed it to happen.

A condensed version of this article is featured at The Federalist so be sure to head over there for more great Conservative content. You can also subscribe to The Federalist, and donate to help support all their great journalism. Thank you!

Share

America is increasingly under siege, and the weapon being used against her was forged by her own immigration system.

In the span of just weeks, a mass shooting at an Austin bar, a murder on a Virginia college campus, a truck attack at a Michigan synagogue, and a bomb plot outside a New York City mayor's residence have confro…

Read more

For more than a century, the United States has granted citizenship to virtually everyone born on American soil. But contrary to popular belief, this idea of citizenship by “birthright” is not explicitly written into the Constitution or even federal law. Instead, the idea that anyone born on U.S. soil is entitled to all the benefits of U.S. citizenship arose out of a blatant misreading of the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, states, “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” (emphasis added). The amendment was passed to affirm that freed slaves are indeed full citizens.

But open borders immigration advocates have used the Amendment to justify granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, despite the fact that these individuals, and by extension their children, remain subject to the political jurisdiction and allegiance of their home nations.

Thankfully, on his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order abolishing this practice, requiring that for a child born on U.S. soil to be an American citizen, at least one parent must be a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

The order effectively targets children born to illegal aliens as well as temporary visa holders, such as children whose parents are in the U.S. lawfully, but on temporary status, such as student visas, work visas, or tourist visas.

Predictably, the Administration faced immediate legal challenges that blocked the implementation of the order.

Now, the battle over birthright citizenship rests entirely with the Supreme Court, and a decision is expected by the end of June or early July.

The problem that Trump is addressing is not theoretical or trivial.

In 2023, mothers who were unauthorized immigrants or held only temporary legal status accounted for 320,000 of the 3.6 million babies born in the U.S.

That’s a staggering nine percent of all U.S. births.

The stakes of the Supreme Court’s decision are significant. If the restrictions within Trump’s executive order were in effect in 2023, roughly 260,000 of those children—nearly 80%—would not have qualified for automatic citizenship.

Birthright citizenship hinges on the meaning of one phrase: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Proponents of birthright citizenship have often simply ignored this phrase, treating the first part of the 14th Amendment – “all persons born or naturalized in the United States” – as absolute. As a result, the opening sentence of the Amendment remains one of the most misunderstood yet consequential lines in our Constitution.

While we are taught that mere presence on American soil is an instant golden ticket to U.S. citizenship, a deeper look at “consent theory” reveals a different story.

Consent theory holds that birthright citizenship requires more than just being born on U.S. soil – it requires mutual allegiance or consent between the individual (or their parents) and the United States. “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means full political membership, not merely being subject to U.S. laws, as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson erroneously suggested on Wednesday.

Under this principle, citizenship for newborn children shouldn’t be treated as a reward for those who break our laws or merely temporarily visit our shores for work or leisure; it is a mutual contract that both parties must willingly enter into.

Without that mutual agreement, an individual may be physically in the United States, and even subject to the nation’s laws during their stay, but they are legally outside the political community, as they would lack the deep jurisdictional bond required for citizenship. This would naturally extend to their children born on American soil.

Yet, this misunderstanding and misapplication of the 14th Amendment is precisely what the “birth tourism” industry currently exploits.

When affluent citizens from an adversarial power such as China can simply board a flight, give birth on our soil, and secure an American passport for their child before flying home, the very concept of national identity is hollowed out and citizenship becomes meaningless.

Even worse, if American citizens can be literally manufactured via IVF and surrogacy companies at the behest of a foreign government such as China, then birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment becomes a national security threat.

The scale of this exploitation is what writer Peter Schweizer describes as “civilizational warfare.”

Share

Take, for example, the American territory of Saipan, which is located around 2,000 miles from Shanghai, China. According to Schweizer’s book, “The Invisible Coup,” more than 70 percent of all newborns on the island are the children of Chinese “birth tourists.”

These parents deliberately exploit a 45-day visa-free visitation rule for Chinese nationals – an Obama-era loophole – that turned the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory, into a “tropical maternity ward.”

Determining the exact number of these “birthright” citizens is difficult because the federal government does not directly track birth tourism. However, the estimates are staggering.

According to Schweizer, Chinese officials suggest 55,000 of their citizens participate annually, while other scholars put the figure closer to 100,000. This has created what Schweizer calls the “Manchurian Generation”: an estimated 750,000 to 1.5 million “American citizens” who are currently being raised and indoctrinated in mainland China.

These children attend CCP-controlled schools where they are taught to hate Western Civilization and are brainwashed into the cult of a hostile communist state.

Collectively, that’s millions of individuals raised in China who, because of our current interpretation of the 14th Amendment, have the right to return to the U.S. at any time and gain access to America’s social welfare programs – and elections.

The industry facilitating this is sophisticated and brazen.

As noted by Chadwick Moore in The New York Post, companies like “Global Baby 8” openly advertise “Supreme” packages that start at $45,000. These packages include luxury villas, private chefs, and “visa specialists” who coach expectant mothers on how to deceive U.S. Customs and Border Protection by wearing loose-fitting clothes or flying through less-scrutinized ports like Las Vegas or Honolulu.

Another company, China Mifubaby Group, offers services catering to Korean and Japanese mothers-to-be. Their website advertises “expedited visas,” “American citizenship,” and “short direct flight distance” to Saipan.

Once on our soil, the exploitation continues. Some wealthy birth tourists are instructed to lie to hospitals, claiming they are indigent to receive reduced medical rates, while others simply flee the country without paying their hospital bills.

Even more alarming is the shift into the “manufacturing” of citizens through the largely unregulated American surrogacy industry.

Schweizer’s book highlights the case of Guojun Xuan, a businessman with ties to the CCP, who allegedly operated a “surrogacy command center” out of a $4.1 million mansion in California.

Authorities found upwards of 21 children connected to Xuan, born through a multi-state “embryo pipeline” involving American surrogate mothers. This practice is reportedly being integrated into the Chinese government’s “Belt & Road Initiative,” with official expos held in China to match CCP elites with American “carriers.”

Share

The transactional nature of these births is chilling. American surrogates have reported that these Chinese clients often show “no sense of joy” upon receiving the child, viewing the process as a cold, strategic acquisition. In some cases, a third party is sent from China to pick up the newborn.

The ultimate goal of this “Manchurian Generation,” as explained by Schweizer, is a deliberate long-term demographic and political shift within the United States.

When these “American” children turn 18, they can vote in U.S. elections. When they turn 21, they gain the power of “chain migration,” allowing them to sponsor their parents – many of whom are pillars of the Chinese elite, intelligence officers, and government ministers – for legal permanent residency.

It is this combination of birthright citizenship and chain migration that directly threatens the sovereignty of the United States.

Of the 574,000 new green card holders from abroad in 2024, 77 percent arrived via this chain migration process. This allows an adversarial power such as China to bypass standard immigration scrutiny and “inject” millions of loyalists into the American body politic.

This tidal wave of foreign influence is set to hit American society in full force by 2030, as the first major wave of these “birth tourism” children reach adulthood.

As President Trump correctly asserted in his March 19 brief, the “main object” of the Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment was to “grant citizenship to freed slaves and their children.”

What began as an effort to correct for the injustices of slavery has now been weaponized by foreign and domestic elements to subvert the very sovereignty of the nation itself.

The Supreme Court has the opportunity to ensure that American citizenship remains a bond of mutual allegiance and inheritance, rather than a Constitutional loophole to be exploited by trespassers or a frivolous commodity to be harvested by our adversaries.

If the “consent of the governed” means anything, it must begin with the right of the American people, as a sovereign political community, to determine who belongs to our national family and who doesn’t.

The Senate voted Friday morning to fund the Department of Homeland Security; however, it does not include funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol, nor does it include the “welding” of the SAVE America Act to the DHS funding bill as President Trump has pushed for.

Thankfully, House Republican leaders are showing more backbone tha…

Read more

The political transformation of Virginia from a reliable Republican stronghold to a deep-blue monolith was made apparent by the recent drubbing of Republicans in Virginia’s statewide races.

While economic issues were cited as one of the keys to Democrats’ strong showing last November, a closer look at the data reveals a different story not rooted in pers…

Read more

In recent weeks, the term “heritage American” has predictably come under sustained attack in left-wing media circles, where it is characterized as a form of white supremacy, dismissed as bigotry masquerading as philosophy, or rejected entirely as an incoherent concept.

While such pushback from the left is to be expected, similar objections have surprisingly been raised by those on the right. This framing from both sides sidesteps the deeper question the term raises: whether America can endure without acknowledging and defending the cultural and historical inheritance that made it a nation in the first place.

Against this backdrop, Ohio Republican gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy recently took aim at the term “heritage American” and those on the right who argue that being an American is more substantive than merely working hard and professing a belief in abstract ideals like “liberty” and “freedom.”

“The idea of a ‘heritage American’ is about as loony as anything the woke left has put up,” Ramaswamy said. “There is no American who is more American than somebody else. … It’s crazy talk. … We believe in ideals. That is who we are.”

But what is more “loony”?

1. The idea that heritage and lineage are important factors in forging and perpetuating America as a cohesive nation?

Or…

2. The idea that anyone from anywhere can become an American, meaning there are 8 billion potential Americans on Earth?

A nation that cannot answer this question honestly has little chance of surviving.

Unfortunately, both the radical left and much of the modern right have retreated from defining America as anything other than a purely credal nation. Surprisingly, both sides routinely point to the same source for this credal justification: the Declaration of Independence.

On the left, although America’s founding is widely described as racist, Thomas Jefferson’s “hypocritical” claim that “all men are created equal” is nevertheless treated as a promise America must eventually fulfill — but a promise to whom?

Jefferson’s preamble may have articulated universal truths, but it was never intended to establish universal jurisdiction. It was written for a specific people living within a specific place. Today, however, it is interpreted as an open-ended invitation, if not an obligation, to the world. “All men are created equal” has morphed into the claim that all cultures are equal. Anyone who seeks “the pursuit of happiness” should be welcomed here, regardless of cultural compatibility. The right to “life” and “liberty” turns into the universal right to immigrate to America and claim its promise for oneself.

Under this logic, mass immigration, especially from cultures antithetical to America’s founding culture, is what actually makes America “stronger,” while also functioning as a form of atonement for America’s original sin of slavery and restrictive (i.e., “racist”) immigration laws. Thus, demographic transformation becomes the means by which America’s “original promise” is finally realized. Whether this immigration is illegal or legal is beside the point. After all, “no human is illegal on stolen land.”

For much of the right, the framing is eerily similar. According to many mainstream conservatives, the American founding was nothing short of a glorious war for universal human principles and ideals.

The “proof” for this can also be found in the Declaration of Independence, which is said to be a promise to “all men” of the world — a promise that conservatives also say the founders fell short of fulfilling in their time. Under this framework, anyone who espouses the beliefs of liberty, freedom, and equality and dedicates himself to working hard in his “pursuit of happiness” is definitionally an American-in-waiting.

This appeal to “civic nationalism” is now a pillar of mainstream conservatism, which is then used to justify mass immigration from anywhere in the world — but only the “legal” kind, of course.

Though the justifications are slightly different, one rooted in a disdain for the nation as founded and the other rooted in Reagan’s “anyone can become an American” optimism, the outcome is the same: a pincer movement that dissolves both American heritage and inherited national identity.

However, to define and promote the importance of “heritage American,” or whatever you’d prefer to call it, is to acknowledge that the United States did not emerge from a vacuum of abstract philosophy committed to parchment but from a specific cultural lineage.

American Heritage

This heritage is primarily rooted in the Anglo-American and later Western European people who settled the continent and established its foundational institutions. This is not merely an ethnic distinction, though it is important, but a recognition of the “cultural water” in which the United States swam for nearly two centuries.

The ethnogenesis into a distinct American people was further solidified when Calvin Coolidge effectively shut down immigration with the Immigration Act of 1924, a law that allowed the existing cultures to meld into a singular, cohesive American identity over a period of nearly 40 years. At that time, the nation was nearly 90 percent white (i.e. European), and the move was seen not as a departure from the founding but as a preservation of it, as Coolidge stated in 1923:

America must be kept American. For this purpose, it is necessary to continue a policy of restricted immigration.

American life, law, and social cohesion were predicated on a shared European ancestry. Within this framework, “American” was never intended to be a universal label available to all people on Earth but was instead a specific inheritance passed down by a people who shared a common history, faith, and English legal tradition. This idea was so important to the Founding Fathers that they specifically appealed to the need to secure the “blessings of liberty” not to the world but to “ourselves and our posterity.”

It was this very inheritance, not a global promise of abstract rights, that the founders sought to protect in 1776, which ultimately held despite immense friction during the Ellis Island immigration waves — that is, until the seismic shift of the 1965 Hart-Celler Act began America’s cultural unraveling.

Subscribe now

Share

This historical reality of pre- and post-Hart-Celler America reveals a profound truth: The restricted immigration of the early 20th century was not a departure from or a betrayal of America’s founding but a much-needed defense of its original architecture.

In fact, John Jay, in Federalist No. 2, explicitly argues that America’s success before and during the war for Independence was due to America being…

…one united people — descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established their general liberty and independence.

The Credal Myth

When we look back to 1776 through this lens, we see that the Declaration of Independence was never a universal admission slip for the world. It was a promise made by a particular people, for a particular people, who resided in a particular place, first to secure their rights as Englishmen and ultimately their rights as Americans. This endeavor would not have been successful if not for their united heritage — but don’t tell Ramaswamy.

The American Revolution, according to Ramaswamy, “marked the first time a people went to war explicitly in the name of universal human principles & ideals.”

As nice as this sounds, it is simply not true. Worse still, the promotion of this myth is designed to further erode the tangible bonds that bind a people to a specific nation, substituting the importance of heritage with the superficial bonds of civic nationalism.

In 1842, a Dartmouth student named Mellen Chamberlain interviewed 91-year-old Levi Preston, who had fought at Concord as a Massachusetts Minuteman in the American Revolutionary War. When asked why he took up arms against the British on April 19, 1775, Preston brushed aside the familiar list of grievances historians often cite when discussing what caused the Revolution. As told by Levi, he “didn’t feel” any of the intolerable oppressions, “never saw one of those stamps,” and, as for the tax on tea, he “never drank a cup of the stuff.” Preston also dismissed the idea that he had been inspired by the philosophical writings of Algernon Sidney or John Locke, saying he had “never heard of ’em.”

What animated Preston and others like him who fought for independence was far simpler and far more tangible. He explained: “We always had governed ourselves, and we always meant to govern ourselves. [The British] didn’t mean we should.”

Contrary to Ramaswamy’s assertion that Americans “went to war explicitly in the name of universal human principles,” the truth of the Revolution lies not in the preamble’s prose but in the Declaration’s legal heart.

While most Americans stop reading after the aspirational “all men are created equal,” the document’s core consists of 27 specific violations of the colonists’ rights as Englishmen — rights rooted in the Magna Carta in 1215 and the English Bill of Rights in 1689. The Declaration of Independence is much more of a legal brief than a philosophical manifesto.

We often forget that the Olive Branch Petition preceded the Declaration, explicitly arguing directly to the king of England that the colonists were being denied their birthright as British subjects. When this was rejected, a pivot to asserting the “natural rights” of the colonists was made, not as a rejection of their English heritage but as a strategic “sales pitch” to the world, most notably France.

It is no coincidence that Benjamin Franklin departed for Paris shortly after the Declaration was signed, armed with its idealistic preamble, to secure war material and a badly needed alliance.

This is not to say the founders were not steeped in Enlightenment ideals; they most certainly were. However, the strategic shift to natural rights and independence was also due, in part, to the 18th-century Law of Nations, which stated that a monarch could not legally intervene in the “domestic affairs” of another sovereign. This was for self-preservation. If the conflict in the American colonies had remained framed as a civil war between a king and his subjects over securing their rights as “Englishmen,” neither France nor Spain would have risked an alliance.

Thomas Paine admitted as much in Common Sense, writing:

Under our present denomination of British subjects, we can neither be received nor heard abroad; the custom of all Courts is against us, and will be so, until by an independence we take rank with other nations.

To “take rank with other nations,” the colonists had to rebrand their specific struggle from a civil war into a movement for national independence.

Ultimately, the meaning of America is not found in a vacuum of universalism but in the tangible heritage that made those ideals possible. To suggest, as Ramaswamy and other civic nationalists do, that American identity is merely a set of propositions that any of the 8 billion people on Earth can inhabit by simply working hard is to participate in the left’s deconstruction of American identity.

The civic nationalist vision of an America that exists for everyone is an America that exists for no one. America’s 20-plus years of spreading “liberal democracy” to the Middle East should serve as proof that aspirational propositions alone do not make nations.

If America is to survive, we must stop defending a “proposition” and start defending a home. A creed cannot sustain a people who have forgotten their lineage, and a nation that views its own heritage as “crazy talk” will eventually cease to exist.

This article is featured at The Federalist so be sure to head over there for more great Conservative content. You can also subscribe to The Federalist, and donate to help support all their great journalism. Thank you!

Subscribe now

Share

“These are the times that try men’s souls; the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.”

- Thomas Paine, “The American Crisis”

History is rarely a straight line of progress. More often, it unfolds as a series of recurring …

Read more

This article is featured at AMAC. If you liked this article, be sure to head over there for more great Conservative content. To learn more about AMAC and how you can become a member to receive exclusive benefits - CLICK HERE.

A planned terrorist attack at a Christmas market in Germany. Another foil…

Read more

For the first time in decades, long-standing assumptions surrounding America’s immigration system are being directly challenged.

The Trump administration has halted immigration applications from more than 30 countries after an unvetted Afghan national — brought into the U.S. during Biden’s chaotic 2021 withdrawal — allegedly ambushed two National Guard members, killing one and leaving another in serious condition. Additionally, increased ICE operations have led to a reported 2.2 million illegal aliens either self-deporting or being forcefully removed from the country.

These policies, among others, mark a dramatic shift toward restoring control over America’s borders while boldly reasserting sovereignty across all facets of America’s immigration system. But while these policy battles are significant, the constitutional battle now arriving at the Supreme Court will dwarf them all.

At the center of this contentious shift lies a question that has been avoided for generations: Who actually qualifies for American citizenship under the 14th Amendment?

Americans have been repeatedly told that the first sentence of the 14th Amendment makes it clear that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” But the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has many interpretations.

Under “consent theory,” legal scholars who reject universal birthright citizenship argue that full jurisdiction requires mutual political consent.

According to this view, an illegal immigrant is not fully “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States merely by being physically present. Instead, the United States, as a sovereign nation, must affirmatively consent to the person’s presence and membership within its borders and political community.

Without that consent, the argument goes, illegal aliens, and their children born on American soil lack the jurisdictional relationship the Fourteenth Amendment requires for automatic birthright citizenship.

Yet, we have also been told that in 1898, the Supreme Court affirmed that anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen and that this argument has been settled. This is untrue.

Contrary to proponents of mass immigration, the oft-cited United States v. Wong Kim Arkdid not decide the question of children born to illegal immigrants, or even temporary legal immigrants, such as guest workers, but rather only immigrants with lawful, permanent residency.

The truth is, no Supreme Court case has ever held that the children of illegal immigrants are constitutionally required to become citizens at birth. Because the legal category “lawful permanent resident” did not exist in 1898, Wong’s parents were considered “lawfully domiciled” in the U.S. under common law because there was no statute making their presence unlawful.

As such, the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether the children of illegal immigrants are covered by the Citizenship Clause, which is why the legal battle over Trump’s executive order has now made its way to the Supreme Court.

So despite what “experts” on CNN repeatedly say, the 14th Amendment is anything but clear on birthright citizenship.

It’s also important to note that the Constitution has been considered “clear” many times throughout U.S. history, right up until the moment it wasn’t, forcing the Supreme Court to step in. Rights have been discovered, expanded, narrowed, and even eliminated without a single word of constitutional text changing.

Segregation was once upheld as constitutional until it wasn’t. The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states until courts decided it did. Abortion was not a constitutional right, until it was for nearly fifty years, and then it wasn’t again. Marriage was redefined nationwide through judicial declaration, not through a Constitutional Amendment. The list goes on and on.

In each instance, the Constitution’s supposedly “obvious” meaning turned out to be fluid. The left knows this. We know this. And that is why they are terrified that birthright citizenship has the potential to be reinterpreted.

Subscribe now

Share

However, it is amusing to watch the political left discover a newfound love for interpreting the Constitution in the strictest of ways. These are the same people who historically cited the Constitution as a document that should be “torched,” or considered a “living document” to be twisted and adapted for modern times. This is the same left that has repeatedly stated that they “can’t win without a new Constitution.”

Yet with birthright citizenship for illegal aliens hanging in the balance, they now argue for a strict textualist reading of the 14th Amendment without any consideration for alternate readings and understanding.

This is also the same left that says “hate speech” and “disinformation” shouldn’t be protected by the First Amendment and that the Second Amendment only protects the right to own muskets. But Birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment? That’s chiseled in stone.

Why the sudden change of heart? Because the current interpretation of birthright citizenship serves Democrats’ long-term political interests.

Decades of post Hart-Celler large-scale immigration, combined with automatic citizenship for anyone born on U.S. soil, has produced a growing demographic that significantly favors the modern left, as immigrants overwhelmingly vote for the Democrat Party. In short, nullifying birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants would fundamentally reduce the number of future Democrat voters.

The numbers are staggering. Every year, an estimated 250,000 children are born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents and long-term temporary visitors, according to the Center for Immigration Studies.

That’s 250,000 new American citizens, accounting for 7 percent of total U.S. births. Every. Single. Year.

And these are just the “official” estimates as no one truly knows the official number of illegal immigrants in the country, which has ranged from 11 million to 14 million, to 22 million. And these numbers were all estimated before Biden took office and opened America’s borders to millions more.

No sovereign nation can survive if it doesn’t have the right to decide who belongs to its political community, and who doesn’t.

The question in front of the Supreme Court is existential: Is American citizenship a cheap prize for anyone who manages to be born within our geographic territory, or is it priceless, based on a mutual bond, rooted in history, culture, and protected by law?

The answer to this question will decide not just the scope of the 14th Amendment, but the future of the United States.

Share

This article is featured at AMAC. If you liked this article, be sure to head over there for more great Conservative content. To learn more about AMAC and how you can become a member to receive exclusive benefits - CLICK HERE.

Last month in Washington, D.C., two West Virginia National Guard troops were ambushed by an Afghan nation…

Read more

This article is featured at The Federalist. If you liked this article, be sure to head over there for more great Conservative content. You can also subscribe to The Federalist, or donate to help support all their great journalism. Thank you!

Recently, the Trump administration announced that it had not only paused processing all immigration applications from Afghanistan, but also halted immigration applications of people from 19 countries subject to travel restrictions earlier this year. Officials are also seeking to remove legal immigrants who were born in countries the White House deemed “high risk.”

This comes on the heels of the Washington, D.C., ambush in which an Afghan national attacked two West Virginia National Guard members, killing one and leaving the other in critical condition. The alleged shooter, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, came to the U.S. during the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal in 2021, one of thousands of unvetted Afghans brought over by the Biden administration as part of Operation Allies Welcome. Under Biden, more than 190,000 Afghans were flown into the United States — an unprecedented influx from a nation grappling with deeply unstable institutions and decades of violence.

Predictably, much of the corporate media was apoplectic at Trump’s announcements. The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board insisted that Afghan immigrants, as a group, “shouldn’t be blamed for the violent act of one man,” insisting that “collective punishment of all Afghans in the U.S. won’t make America safer.”

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller vehemently disagreed, calling the Journal’s claim “the great lie of mass migration.”

“You are not just importing individuals. You are importing societies,” Miller wrote. “At scale, migrants and their descendants recreate the conditions, and terrors, of their broken homelands.”

Miller is correct. His point is not about the morality or worth of individual immigrants, but rather the larger structural reality of modern immigration.

Though individual applicants are processed separately, the flows themselves are group-based, such as refugees from specific conflict zones like Afghanistan or visa categories dominated by particular regions like India. Subsequent chain migration networks expand initial arrivals into larger, and separate, culturally cohesive clusters.

When groups of immigrants arrive in significant numbers, they put tremendous pressure on the economic, fiscal, political, and perhaps most importantly, cultural fabric of the United States, not only in the short term, but generationally.

In The Culture Transplant, George Mason economist Garett Jones points out that immigrants bring distinct values and behaviors from their places of origin, passing them down to their descendants, thereby perpetuating these cultural characteristics in their adopted homeland. This observation aligns with Miller’s point: mass immigration produces ethnic enclaves rather than isolated, assimilable individuals.

Consider Minnesota, and the Somali ethnic enclave known as “little Mogadishu.” A major story revealed that fraudsters have stolen billions of dollars in taxpayer funds during Tim Walz’s tenure as Minnesota governor, with ethnic Somalis allegedly playing an outsized role in the schemes.

Share

To make matters worse, some of the stolen millions were funneled to Somalia and specifically to the terrorist network Al-Shabaab, according to reporting by Christopher Rufo and Ryan Thorpe. The U.S. National Counterterrorism Center notes that Al-Shabaab has “killed more US citizens than any other al-Qa’ida affiliate” since 2014.

Is it fair to attribute this pattern of widespread fraud to broader cultural dynamics? According to prosecutors, 78 of the 86 people charged across various fraud cases are of Somali ancestry. The short answer is yes.

That doesn’t mean every Somali immigrant is guilty of wrongdoing by association. It does, however, reflect the predictable outcome of a large population, originating from one of the world’s least stable and most corrupt countries, forming an enclave with limited assimilation pressure.

Christopher Rufo illustrates this point by juxtaposing two immigrant cultures in Minnesota.

“The national culture of Somalia is different from the national culture of Norway. Somalis and Norwegians therefore tend to think differently, behave differently, and organize themselves differently, which leads to different group outcomes,” he writes. “Norwegians in Minnesota behave similarly to Norwegians in Norway; Somalis in Minnesota behave similarly to Somalis in Somalia.”

As a result, he continues, “the fraud networks aren’t so surprising; they reflect the extension of Somali institutional norms into a new environment with weak enforcement and poorly designed incentives.”

The problem is fairly obvious, but it’s compounded and perpetuated by Americans’ fear of being branded “racist.” The fear of “stigmatizing” minority groups has grown so acute that it now overrides the obligation to speak plainly about reality, risk, and responsibility.

This was the case in Minnesota. Prosecutor Joseph Thompson suggested the fraud was allowed to continue for so long because people were afraid of being called “racist” for noticing it.

“This was a huge part of the problem,” Thompson said. “Allegations of racism can be a reputation or career killer.”

This paralysis is not uniquely American; it is Western.

In the United Kingdom, a series of British government inquiries revealed that, for more than a decade, police and local authorities in towns such as Rotherham repeatedly ignored and covered up reports of large-scale child sexual exploitation rings, in which at least 1,400 children were abused by mostly Pakistani Muslim men between 1997 and 2013. Officials hesitated to act in part because they feared accusations of racism and Islamophobia.

Across the West, the threat of reputational destruction has been weaponized to silence legitimate concerns about conflicting cultural practices and assimilation failures. This climate has allowed the formation of parallel societies, like Minnesota’s “Little Mogadishu,” balkanizing entire regions of the United States and the West to the detriment of national cohesion.

For decades, newly arrived immigrants have been immersed in a form of anti-culture that abandons the requirements of assimilation in favor of “multiculturalism.” Such an approach is not only antithetical to maintaining a dominant host culture, but also eventually leads to its destruction, elevating every foreign culture above that of the host country. If America is to reestablish stability, unity, and cultural coherence, it must rethink the scale and origin profile of migration accordingly.

For decades, Americans and other Westerners have been told to ignore what they can see with their own eyes. But the Afghan ambush, the Somali fraud scandal, and the U.K. grooming gang cover-up reveal a truth too dangerous for elites to admit: the myth of assimilation has collapsed, and a religious adherence to multiculturalism has left Western societies unable to protect their own citizens.

The United States must confront the reality that immigration at scale imports foreign societies and entire cultural systems, many of which are antithetical to Western traditions and norms. Adopting a more selective, culturally informed immigration policy is not racist; it is realist, and required if America is to remain the “United” States.

This article is featured at The Federalist. If you liked this article, be sure to head over there for more great Conservative content. You can also subscribe to The Federalist, or donate to help support all their great journalism. Thank you!

Subscribe now

Share

This article is featured at AMAC. To learn more about AMAC and how you can become a member to receive exclusive benefits - click HERE.

As the United States approaches the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, filmmaker Ken Burns has released his long-anticipated six-part PBS special, The American Revolution. Unfortunately, …

Read more

Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral victory in New York City is widely seen as a radical response to the cost-of-living crisis and economic hardships facing not only New Yorkers but Americans across the country.

During his victory speech, Mamdani leaned into that interpretation, declaring that his mandate was not only to make New York “a city we can afford” but to “prove that there is no problem too large for government to solve, and no concern too small for it to care about.”

Reaganite conservatives, such as Sen. Mike Lee, wasted no time in pushing back against the notion that government can solve anything, while Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis posted a variation of Reagan’s oft-used quip, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

Unsurprisingly, when confronted with questions on how to combat this very real affordability crisis, mainstream conservatives have once again failed to meet the moment by regurgitating empty “free market” rhetoric and the same tired, soulless “conservative” talking points.

Case in point: On a recent episode of TRIGGERnometry, popular conservative commentator Ben Shapiro weighed in on New York City’s affordability crisis and the appeal of politicians like Mamdani.

While acknowledging that it “absolutely is unaffordable” to live in and around New York City, Shapiro returned to the same libertarian prescriptions that “conservatives” have championed for decades: deregulation and the “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” mantra of personal responsibility.

“We have trained an entire generation of people to believe that if their lives are not what they want them to be, it’s the fault of systems as opposed to decisions that are in their own control,” he argued.

He later added, “If you are a young person and you can’t afford to live here, then maybe you should not live here. I know that we’ve now grown up in a society that says that you deserve to live where you grew up. But the reality is that the history of America is almost literally the opposite of that.”

The dismissiveness of Shapiro’s last statement, belittling the human desire for rootedness and framing it as entitlement, triggered immediate blowback. He later posted a video response claiming his words were taken out of context.

But the problem for the right runs deeper than one comment. For conservatives like Shapiro, solving the affordability crisis still boils down to free markets, hard work, and, when all else fails, moving.

What goes unaddressed is the obvious fact that “conservatism,” as a political ideology, has failed to conserve anything meaningful. The long-term health of a nation rests on the ability of young people to financially afford to get married, buy a home, and raise children. Conservatives have unfortunately outsourced this responsibility for community cultivation, and leftists have welcomed their abdication.

For millions of Americans priced out of the towns and cities where their families remain, “just move” isn’t a serious solution but rather a callous dismissal of the deep, conservative, human need to build families, maintain community, and preserve continuity across generations. That human instinct is precisely why socialists like Zohran Mamdani are resonating with a larger swath of Americans: They at least acknowledge that people are not fungible cogs in an economic machine.

Fortunately, a growing postliberal right is beginning to challenge the stale orthodoxies of Reaganite economics.

Seven years ago, Tucker Carlson warned about how the failures of conservatism would lead to the rise of socialism, ironically, in a conversation with Ben Shapiro. In discussing how conservatism needed not simply to cater to those who seek to lower marginal tax rates but rather to focus on the needs of American families, Carlson correctly observed:

“If the goal is preserving the family as the core building block of any successful society … what are you doing about it? If you wake up one morning and find yourself in a society where 23-year-olds with four-year college degrees and initiative … can’t make enough to buy a car, much less a home, much less get married, much less have children, then why should you be surprised when half of them say they prefer socialism?”

Fast forward seven years, and America now has a card-carrying socialist leading America’s largest city, in part because conservatives refused to take that warning seriously. Instead, conservatives continued to insist that government remain “limited” in its scope, and any notion from those on the right that government could play a role in fostering a better society is instantly decried as collectivist or “woke right.”

In reality, the question is not whether we have a “small government” or a “big government” but whether we have an effective government that provides the social structures that allow Americans to flourish without having to abandon their roots and move across the country.

Share

The unrestrained worship of markets has created a widening chasm between the few and the many, thanks to conservatism’s embrace of globalization and mass labor importation. Championing GDP maximization above all else led to globalization and the offshoring of American jobs. This has not only decimated entire regions like the Rust Belt and hollowed out communities due to the loss of manufacturing but also led to a feeling of despair that has fueled an opioid epidemic, all while enriching America’s chief geopolitical rival: China.

The globalization of the labor market has also allowed untold numbers of immigrants, through H-1B visas and the Optional Practical Training program, to undercut American workers, as companies pay immigrants below market value, while also driving up housing prices.

We are told this is the price we must pay for our system of “free market” capitalism, but there are two problems with this that conservatives must grapple with.

First, capitalism, while a successful economic system, is not sacrosanct. As Carlson emphasized to Shapiro,

“Capitalism is the best economic system…that anyone’s ever thought of, but that doesn’t mean it’s a religion and everything about it is good. There’s no Nicene Creed of capitalism.”

America’s economy should work for Americans. And if certain expressions of “free market” capitalism begin tearing at the social fabric of our nation, as offshoring and the hollowing-out of manufacturing communities clearly have, conservatives must be willing to acknowledge this and adjust accordingly.

Second, we are not even living under a true free-market system. America is increasingly mired in a crony form of capitalism that predominantly benefits the wealthy and connected.

Take, for example, the 2008 financial bailouts. In a genuine “free market” system, these large banks would not have been “too big to fail.” After all, American small businesses that mismanage themselves don’t get multimillion-dollar lifelines at taxpayer expense.

Thus, conservatives must reorient their allegiance to the well-being of the American people over their religious adherence to an economic system, big businesses, GDP charts, or libertarian abstractions. Fortunately, we have a guide for fostering the common good within our American tradition: the U.S. Constitution.

Its preamble lays out the true ends of government, specifically the goal of forming a more perfect union, ensuring domestic tranquility, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and future generations.

The founders saw liberty as ordered freedom, a freedom that is tied to moral responsibility, balanced by duties to others and the community. In short, they believed in promoting the common good. This vision rejects the libertarian model of economics entirely. We are not atomized individuals but members of a political community with obligations to one another.

As Edmund Burke wrote, society is a contract “between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.” Mainstream conservatism, in its reflexive hostility to governance, has forgotten this. As such, it has ceded political ground, moral ground, and now America’s largest city to the likes of Zohran Mamdani.

What the right needs is a fundamental reorientation toward the well-being of its own citizens. A conservatism worthy of the name must conserve what matters: our culture, the stability of American families and communities, job opportunities, and wages. What it must stop doing is catering to multinational corporations, fetishizing GDP metrics, and clinging to stale “free market” dogma.

The choice ahead is clear: MAGA or Mamdani. Until conservatives are willing to confront the orthodoxies that have defined their movement, they will remain incapable of addressing the problems that produced Mamdani’s victory in the first place.

Subscribe now

Share

This article is featured at AMAC. To learn more about AMAC and how you can become a member to receive exclusive benefits - click HERE.

At his election night victory party within Brooklyn’s Paramount Theatre, a defiant Zohran Mamdani took the stage and framed his win in thinly veiled Marxist terms. “The working people of New York”…

Read more

Just weeks before the official start of the holiday season, America’s second-largest employer, Amazon, announced it would lay off 14,000 corporate employees, citing the company’s desire to streamline operations while investing the anticipated savings into key “strategic areas.”

One of those areas of strategic areas is not the development of human employe…

Read more

This article is featured at AMAC. To learn more about AMAC and how you can become a member to receive exclusive benefits - click HERE.

As self-described socialist Zohran Mamdani stands on the cusp of becoming the most powerful and influential local elected official in the United States, he is proving that all one needs for a Marxist revolution is to import new voters amenable to a radical rejection of American culture. While foreign-born New Yorkers overwhelmingly back Mamdani, native-born New Yorkers are spurning him in similarly decisive numbers.

In his 2011 classic work of political science, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Dr. Samuel P. Huntington observed the following about multiculturalism and universalism both at home and abroad:

Some Americans have promoted multiculturalism at home, some have promoted universalism abroad, and some have done both. Multiculturalism at home threatens the United States and the West; universalism abroad threatens the West and the World. Both deny the uniqueness of Western culture.

At the heart of multiculturalism and universalism lies mass migration. The unrelenting influx of migrants throughout the West, whether via legal or illegal pathways, has not just deeply influenced American and Western culture. It has also changed the electorate, leading to what could be an irreversible shift in political power toward the left.

Nowhere is this multicultural shift in political power more evident than in the New York City mayoral election, where Mamdani, a newly naturalized citizen, holds a commanding lead in the polls.

According to a recent survey, the Ugandan-born Mamdani (and he has refused to renounce his Ugandan citizenship) maintains a significant lead among foreign-born New Yorkers, garnering an astounding 62 percent of their support. By comparison, former Governor and Queens native Andrew Cuomo only holds 24 percent of foreign-born support, while Brooklyn-born Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa holds a paltry 12 percent.

Among American-born residents, however, the picture reverses dramatically. Cuomo holds the highest level of support of native-born New Yorkers at 40 percent, with Mamdani following at 32 percent and Sliwa at 25 percent.

This means, collectively, that Mamdani’s two American-born challengers account for 65 percent support among native-born respondents, mirroring Mamdani’s dominance within the foreign-born population.

Many political pundits on the left are attributing Mamdani’s ascendancy to the rise in popularity of his overtly socialist platform, such as free public buses, city-owned grocery stores, rent freezes, and criminal justice reform (he previously advocated for cutting hundreds of cops from the already understaffed NYPD).

Others, such as writer and social justice activist Shaun King, believe that it is Mamdani’s talents as a politician that have him in a position to win. As King recently posted, “To be a Muslim and win as Mayor of New York City, you basically have to be the single most gifted politician of this generation.”

While there is some truth to both explanations, something deeper and more consequential is at work: The deliberate changing of America’s demographics by way of mass migration.

As populations change through immigration, so too does the local electorate. As the electorate changes due to the influx of foreigners, so do the politicians who inevitably rise to represent their constituents. And when those politicians begin to reflect foreign values, cities, states, and eventually the nation itself change to reflect those values – many of which are at odds with traditional American values.

In short, demographics are destiny, and this demographic shift in New York City can be seen spreading across the United States.

Subscribe now

Share

Take, for example, the city of Hamtramck, Michigan, with a population of around 28,000.

In 1970, 90 percent of Hamtramck residents were of Polish ancestry, but the vast majority were born in the United States. Today, that number has dwindled to around 10 percent. According to Census data, more than 40 percent of the city is foreign-born, and almost 70 percent of its residents are Muslim.

Unsurprisingly, the elected representatives of Hamtramck now reflect this demographic shift to a majority Muslim immigrant population.

The mayor of Hamtramck is Muslim and was born in Yemen. The police chief, as well as the six members of the Hamtramck city council, are all Muslim.

Landmarks have also changed. Main Street in Hamtramck, once called Holbrook Avenue, was recently renamed to Palestine Avenue, while signs at City Hall are now presented in three languages: English, Arabic, and Bengali.

In nearby Dearborn, Michigan, a street was recently renamed after Osama Siblani, a prominent Muslim who vocally opposed the U.S. designating Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations. When a Christian man spoke out about the renaming at a city council meeting, Dearborn’s mayor, Abdullah Hammoud, told him that he is “not welcome” in the city.

These demographic shifts inevitably lead to cultural shifts and eventually electoral shifts within cities that can swing entire states from red to purple to blue.

In his book The Stakes, author Michael Anton details how “California was the greatest middle-class paradise in the history of mankind. Yet, in barely one generation, that California was swept away and transformed into a left-liberal one-party state.”

How did this happen? The answer lies once again in demographics.

Today, nearly one in three Californians is foreign-born, marking one of the most dramatic demographic shifts in modern American history.

In Los Angeles, one of the epicenters of today’s unrest over immigration enforcement, more than 35 percent of residents are foreign-born, and nearly half identify as Hispanic or Latino.

Within a single generation, California went from a state Ronald Reagan won twice in landslides to one that Republicans now struggle to reach 40 percent in.

The irony is inescapable: the very amnesty bill Reagan signed in 1986, granting legal status to nearly three million illegal aliens, helped set in motion the demographic changes that would ultimately turn his home state permanently blue.

But while amnesty policies were devastating, America’s dramatic demographic shift was primarily driven by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, otherwise known as the Hart-Celler Act.

That law abolished immigration quotas based on nation of origin, paving the way for chain migration and an enormous influx of arrivals from nations that, in many cases, were openly hostile toward the United States and American culture.

Subscribe now

Share

In 1970, soon after the passage of Hart-Celler, the foreign-born population of New York City stood at around 1.4 million, which represented 18 percent of the city’s population. However, nationally, the total foreign-born population of the United States stood at just 4.7 percent.

Today, the Big Apple is home to about 3.1 million immigrants, only half of whom are naturalized citizens, which comprises an astounding 38 percent of the city’s total population.

Meanwhile, the total foreign-born population of the United States surged to nearly 16 percent prior to Trump’s efforts at stemming and reversing the damage of unchecked mass migration under Biden.

Incredibly, this dramatic demographic change has taken place all in a span of a little under 55 years – less than one lifetime.

Now, the entirety of today’s political left, but also on the “open borders” economic libertarian right, view this as a good thing. After all, they claim, multiculturalism and diversity are “our strength,” while the free flow of cheap labor across borders is necessary because immigrants “do the jobs Americans won’t do.”

But nothing could be further from the truth.

Replacing a nation’s population effectively ends the nation as it exists. It may retain the same name, but that name now represents a completely new identity and set of values.

Of course, noticing the negative effects of demographic change will result in one being branded as “xenophobic” at best and “racist” at worst.

But acknowledging demographic reality isn’t racist. In fact, this “conspiracy theory” has been regularly discussed and celebrated among liberal elites for decades. In fact, replacement is at the center of Democrats’ electoral strategy.

Anton laid this out in his essay, titled “Unprecedented”:

The ‘Great Replacement’ is happening, not just in America but throughout the West. Elites both deny and affirm it… They get to say it; you’re required not merely to pretend that you didn’t hear it but also to insist that they never said it. No majority stock in any nation has ever deliberately sought its own replacement, much less insisted that those who might have misgivings lie to themselves that it’s not happening.

When relatively small numbers of new arrivals come to the United States, it encourages assimilation and the folding of cultures into the dominant American culture. But when large numbers of people arrive all at once, it encourages Balkanization and the creation of ethnic enclaves that erode and ultimately replace American culture.

Every nation faces a moment when it must decide whether to continue as itself or dissolve into something new. America’s moment is now. The transformation of its cities, from Hamtramck to Los Angeles to New York, shows how easily and quickly a people can be replaced not only demographically, but also culturally and spiritually.

A nation is more than an abstract “idea” or a measure of economic output; it is a people with a shared inheritance, bound by collective memory and meaning. To preserve that inheritance for our posterity, we must reject the lie that we can replace the American people with people from elsewhere and still remain the same country.

A nation that forgets who it is cannot endure.

Thanks for reading! CLICK HERE to read more of my articles over at AMAC.us.

To learn more about AMAC and how you can become a member to receive exclusive benefits - and to receive 47% off a 5-year membership for a limited time, click HERE.

Share

This article is featured at AMAC. To learn more about AMAC and how you can become a member to receive exclusive benefits - click HERE.

In a story that sounds like it’s straight out of The Onion or The Babylon Bee, the British Prime Minister and the United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS) are now on the record defending first-cousin mar…

Read more