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 confronted Americans with an uncomfortable reality: one common denominator links them all.

All four attacks were apparently committed by those who were either “integrated” into the fabric of American society through America’s naturalization process, or, perhaps more ominously, the children of naturalized citizens.

The conclusion is inescapable: contrary to the assertion of pro-immigration Republican politicians such as Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who believe that so long as immigration is “legal,” it is by nature “good,” America’s “legal” immigration system has failed.

Mistaken Idea of a Melting Pot

At the root of this crisis is not only the failure of assimilation, but the very myth of assimilation itself — especially in the modern age. This has brought tens of millions of people from incompatible cultures into America, such as from Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Turkey, Senegal, and Lebanon.

Americans have been taught from a young age that their country is a melting pot, a sort of universalist stew where, regardless of where the ingredients originated from, the resulting dish will only get better.

Under this belief, America has ceased to be a particular people in a particular place. Instead, it has become a global welcome mat where people from every corner of the world can come, wipe their feet of all that came before, and “assimilate” into an overarching and unified “American” family.

What’s more, it is said that the children of newly minted Americans are instantly “just as American” as anyone else. In this view, these birthright Americans retain none of their parents’ cultural or ideological priors, quickly becoming indistinguishable from those Americans with generational ties to the land.

This is, of course, nonsense.

Subscribe now

Share

New York City Case

New York’s “ISIS-inspired attack,” allegedly attempted by two well-off children of naturalized U.S. citizens outside the home of New York’s first Muslim mayor, Mamdani, should immediately put such myths to rest.

By all accounts, Emir Balat, 18, and Ibrahim Kayumi, 19, the two men caught on camera attempting this alleged homemade bomb attack against “far right” protestors, were living the “American Dream.” Their parents, naturalized citizens, were the beneficiaries of “legal” immigration — the “good kind,” according to Cruz.

Yet, despite growing up in an affluent Pennsylvania county, Balat and Kayumi allegedly chose to pledge their allegiance not to the American Republic, but to the Islamic State, and launch a potentially deadly attack against innocent people in the name of their militant Islamic ideology, as the Justice Department documents.

Virginia’s Case

Then we have the shooter at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, identified as Mohamed Jalloh, a naturalized citizen from Sierra Leone and former Army National Guardsman who was arrested in 2016 for attempting to provide material support to ISIS.

Though he was sentenced to 11 years in prison, he was released two-and-a-half years early and was free to kill an ROTC instructor and wound two more before being killed himself.

These two examples expose the central lie of our era: that assimilation from culturally divergent societies into a dominant American fabric is viable at scale, and that multiculturalism leads to societal harmony.

By prioritizing “diversity” over a dominant American culture, our institutions have traded social cohesion for a volatile state of permanent friction, where the “welcomed” are increasingly at war with the “welcomer.”

Era of Mass Migration

The post-1965 Hart-Celler era of mass immigration has not produced a unified populace but rather a fractured landscape of competing interests. The myth of the melting pot, once touted as America’s strength, has completely shattered, leaving behind a collection of disconnected people and cultures that share geography but little else in common.

Nothing illustrates the sheer scale of this cultural displacement better than the 90-foot bronze Hanuman deity at the Sri Ashtalakshmi Hindu Temple in Sugar Land, Texas. This statue is a literal monument to America’s new cultural reality, where elements of a foreign culture now tower over America’s traditional landscape.

But proof is not just found within American communities, but perhaps more consequentially, in the halls of American power.

Mayor Mamdani recently transformed City Hall into a prayer hall, hosting a formal Iftar on the building’s historic floor — a symbolic centering of a specific religious identity within a supposedly secular civic space.

This ideological and cultural shift is mirrored and amplified in the halls of Congress, where foreign-born representatives like Shri Thanedar, Salud Carbajal, and Ilhan Omar routinely demonize the very agencies charged with protecting our borders and enforcing immigration laws within our cities. Omar has even gone as far as openly boasting of her intent to use her American office to advance the interests of her birth nation, Somalia.

American Leaders Once Understood This Threat

In 1915, former President Theodore Roosevelt vociferously championed what he called Americanism in an effort to unify the United States in the face of cultural friction and fragmentation. Roosevelt lambasted the concept of “hyphenated Americans,” which he labeled those who elevated their ethnic or ancestral backgrounds and allegiances above that of their American nationality, going so far as to say that “a hyphenated American is not an American at all.”

Later, in 1923, President Calvin Coolidge recognized the danger posed by immigration in his first annual message to the nation. In his address, Coolidge correctly stated that “American Institutions rest solely on good citizenship,” and that they were created by people who already “had a background of self-government.” For this American trait to be retained, he believed that “new arrivals should be limited to our capacity to absorb them into the ranks of good citizenship.”

Coolidge stated clearly that “America must be kept American,” and so he believed it was necessary to continue with policies that restricted immigration.

With this goal in mind, Coolidge later signed the Immigration Act of 1924, which drastically reduced immigration by setting strict quotas based on the 1890 census. It aimed to preserve American, Northern, and Western European homogeneity and allowed for a form of ethnogenesis to occur, which lasted until 1965, when the passage of the Hart-Celler Act ultimately began America’s cultural unraveling.

Cultural Suicide

Today, this form of Americanism, as championed by Roosevelt and Coolidge, is, effectively, dead — as evidenced by the recent terrorist attacks by “American” citizens, as well as the words and actions of naturalized elected leaders in Congress. This is the logical conclusion of a decades-long experiment akin to committing cultural suicide.

If we continue to prioritize a project of culturally incompatible “diversity” over a robust, dominant form of Americanism, we will continue to see foreign ethnic conflicts play out on the streets of America’s communities. We must recognize that our capacity to absorb newcomers is not infinite, and that our primary duty is to the welcomer, not the welcomed.

We must end the myth that America’s magical soil transforms foreigners into patriotic Americans and re-establish a standard of citizenship that demands more than a passing test score and a signature on a form.

But most importantly, American leaders must pass new immigration legislation that will either curtail or outright end the scourge of mass immigration into the United States.

One such bill is the PAUSE Act which would effectively freeze most immigration into the United States until certain security conditions are met.

Another is the recently introduced ASSIMILATION Act, whose stated goal is to “end replacement migration and ensure American cultural cohesion.” According to Rep. Andy Ogles, if this bill were to pass, net migration would immediately decrease by 85%.

Bills like these would allow the time and space for cultural cohesion to form, much like it did during the decades of immigration restrictions stemming from the 1924 Immigration Act that reduced the percentage of America’s foreign-born population from around 13 percent to under 5 percent.

If bills like these are not passed into law, the “homefront” will inevitably cease to be a home at all, becoming instead a permanent cultural battlefield where the American people become strangers in their own land.

As Coolidge warned a century ago, “America must be kept American.”

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

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.

A version of 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.

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

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!

In recent weeks, the term “her…

Read more

“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

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, or donate to help support all their great journalism. Thank you!

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

The Trump a…

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.

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 th…

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 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

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!

Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral victory in New York City is widely seen as a rad…

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.

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…

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.

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

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!

This weekend, a reported 2,500 “No Kings” events are scheduled to occur across all 50 states in what is expected t…

Read more

Last week, tens of thousands of anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian demonstrators flooded the streets of Italy, most notably in Milan, clashing with police, setting fires, blocking roads and ports, and paralyzing schools and public transit.

The reason? Italy refused to recognize a Palestinian state, a move that would legitimize Hamas’s brutal terrorist regime. …

Read more

Within the last two weeks, the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and the targeted shooting of a Dallas Immigration and Customs Enforcement office have confirmed a grim reality. The so-called “fringe” left is not fringe at all, but a fully entrenched, violent, mainstream force.

More concerning, the …

Read more