iftttwall

Authored by Gabriel Canaan via American Thinker,

On the very day Donald Trump became president again, he signed an executive order prospectively eliminating birthright citizenship for children born to aliens unlawfully present in the United States.

Immediately, lawsuits were filed in a half-dozen jurisdictions across the country challenging this order.

The groups bringing these suits claim the order disrupts long-standing legal norms governing citizenship. Yet, in fact, Trump’s contention — that birthright citizenship is not possessed by children of illegal aliens under the “correct interpretation of the law” — is exactly right.

Birthright citizenship is conventionally understood to apply to any child born in the United States, regardless of the immigration status of that child’s parents. This view is based on the common law principle of jus soli (“right of soil”), which is said to be incorporated in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This understanding of the Citizenship Clause, however, despite its prevalence in academia and political commentary, is based on a mistaken and incomplete reading of controlling Supreme Court precedent.

In fact, birthright citizenship, as provided for in the Citizenship Clause, as that clause has been authoritatively construed by the Supreme Court, is possessed only by children born in the United States to at least one parent who is lawfully residing in the United States.

Ratified in the aftermath of the Civil War with the aim of remedying the injustices of the Dred Scott decision, the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to “all persons born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This latter phrase has been wrongly equated with “subject to the laws thereof,” and thus to entail that all persons born in the United States are U.S. citizens, with only a few narrow exceptions, such as children born to diplomats.

Yet the Supreme Court has construed the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” more narrowly, most notably in seminal cases that have been taught — well or ill — in law schools ever since.

In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, decided when American Indians were increasingly integrating into mainstream American society, presented the constitutional issue of whether Indians who had been born within the allegiance of a tribe were “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth, and thus born American citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court ruled that they were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, on the ground that “jurisdiction” in the Citizenship Clause meant complete jurisdiction, which implied “direct and immediate allegiance” to the United States. The parents of children born in the allegiance of a tribe had only indirect and intermediate allegiance to the United States, through their tribe. (Today, by a subsequent act of Congress, Indians born on reservations are U.S. citizens at birth.)

Twelve years later, in Wong Kim Ark v. United States, the citizenship status of an American-born man of Chinese descent was the issue.

Wong Kim Ark had been born in San Francisco to Chinese nationals, and had been denied entry to the United States after returning from a visit to China as an adult. At the time, Chinese nationals were precluded by treaty from naturalizing as U.S. citizens. Nevertheless, after recounting the history of the common-law jus soli doctrine, and its influence on our Constitution, the Court held that, because the petitioner had been born to parents lawfully residing in the United States, he had been born within the “allegiance and protection” of the United States, and therefore at birth was “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. He was thus born a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment.

That the petitioner’s parents had resided here with the permission of the United States was central to the Court’s holding. Chinese nationals who remain “subjects of the Emperor of China…are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here,” the decision reads, “and are ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the same sense as all other aliens [lawfully] residing in the United States” (emphasis added). The Court explained that to “reside,” in this usage, means to live in a place with the intent to remain there, but not necessarily indefinitely. It is a broader category than “domiciled,” and could apply to long-term visa holders, as well as to lawful permanent residents.

The Court’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment thus limits its application to children of aliens residing in the country with permission. This requirement implies that children born to foreign nationals living in the country without permission are not subject to its jurisdiction, and that mere tourists, since they are only visiting and do not reside here, also are not so subject. This crucial qualification of common law birthright citizenship by the requirements of both residence and permission therefore excludes from citizenship at birth children both of tourists and of those residing in this country without permission — that is, illegal aliens.

To disregard these requirements would involve interpreting the Court to mean that illegal aliens are within the “allegiance and protection” of the United States.

But the Court specifically stated otherwise, holding that Chinese nationals who were not permitted to reside in the United States were not within its allegiance and protection. The Court could hardly have held otherwise. The phrase “allegiance and protection” describes the reciprocal obligations of citizens and the state that are foundational to a nation. Since illegal aliens are at all times subject to apprehension and deportation, they can hardly be regarded as within the “protection” of the United States.

In further evidence that Wong Kim Ark held that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States for citizenship purposes, the Court cited to its own earlier ruling in another immigration case, from 1893, Fong Yue Ting v. United States. There, the Court addressed the legal status of non-resident or unlawfully-present aliens: while they are subject to our laws, they remain outside the government’s “complete jurisdiction.” Had the Court held in Wong Kim Ark that all children born in the United States and subject to its laws — such as illegal aliens—were citizens, it would have run afoul of the combined holdings of Elk — that jurisdiction for citizenship purposes means complete jurisdiction — and of Fong Yue Ting — that illegal aliens and non-resident aliens are outside the complete jurisdiction of the United States. The residence and permission requirements of Wong Kim Ark are therefore necessary to harmonize that case with those prior cases.

Wong Kim Ark’s inclusion of residence and permission requirements marks the Court’s departure from the English common law understanding of birthright citizenship in favor of one more compatible with American constitutional principles.

Indeed, leading constitutional scholars at the time noted that the American approach required residence while the British did not.

The doctrine of jus soli as articulated by common law scholars such as Coke and Blackstone is a product of feudalism: a subject owes a duty of perpetual loyalty to the Crown under the protection of which he is born.

In stark contrast, the American Revolution severed the colonies’ duty to the king in favor of a compact operating by consent of the governed rather than by perpetual, unchosen duty. The purpose of the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment was not to reinstate the common law version of birthright citizenship; rather, it was to extend the principles of the Declaration of Independence to freed slaves and to nonwhite immigrants such as Chinese-Americans.

As it is currently applied, birthright citizenship not only returns us to a feudal past, but also undermines the ability of the people of the United States to set forth standards by which children born to foreign nationals may become citizens. It incentivizes “birth tourism” and mass illegal immigration, both of which treat the United States as a provider of material benefits rather than a political community towards which one owes allegiance and duties. Unlike illegal aliens and temporary guests, lawful permanent residents are incentivized to invest in their political community, and to adopt the customs and civic responsibilities of that community. Their children’s subsequent inheritance of those responsibilities further facilitates assimilation and social cohesion.

The rule of Wong Kim Ark v. United States reflects the compact approach to self-government inherent in the founding principles of this country while serving the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment. Applying the rule as it was intended to be understood would remedy the above-mentioned policy deficiencies of an over-expansive view of birthright citizenship without the need to amend the Constitution, and efficiently resolve the flurry of lawsuits against President Trump’s executive order.

Gabriel Canaan is an attorney at the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) in Washington, DC.  A native of Southern California, he is a graduate of William & Mary Law School, and, prior to joining IRLI, served as a law clerk on the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs.

The U.S. Senate voted 51–44 to overturn California’s ban on gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035, sending the measure to President Trump’s desk for signature.

The vote nullifies a Biden-era Environmental Protection Agency waiver that allowed California to set stricter emission standards than federal rules under the Clean Air Act. The vote also marks a significant blow to leftist climate radicals pushing de-growth green policies aimed at shaping vehicle emission standards at a national level. 

Nearly all Democrats voted against repealing the EV mandate, except Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), who broke ranks to support the measure—likely due to her home state’s deep ties to America’s legacy automakers in Detroit. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) blasted the Biden-era EPA waiver, calling it an “attempt by the Biden administration to impose an electric vehicle mandate across the country.” 

As of May, eleven states, plus Washington, D.C., have adopted California’s plan to phase out new gasoline-powered car sales by 2035. The new requirements faced strong opposition from the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, an auto trade group representing BMW, Ferrari, Ford, General Motors, Honda, and many other manufacturers. Also, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce argued the 2035 target was unrealistic and would harm the economy because it was de-growth in nature. 

Republicans, led by West Virginia Senator Shelley Moore Capito, called Biden-era EPA waiver a federal overreach and a threat to consumer choice and jobs. 

“Today, the Senate voted to end California’s EV mandate and send my joint resolution of disapproval under the CRA to President Trump’s desk. The Biden administration and Congressional Democrats tried to block the will of the American people from this attempt by extreme unelected California and Biden EPA bureaucrats to ban gas-powered cars throughout the country, but Congress has now spoken and soundly rejected this rule,” Capito stated. 

She continued, “The impact of California’s waiver would have been felt across the country, harming multiple sectors of our economy and costing hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process. I’m proud to have led this effort to protect American workers and consumers from this radical and drastic policy.” 

Democrats in the Senate are watching key climate policies—linked to the Green New Deal—begin to unravel under President Trump’s first four months in office. The rollback is evident not only in the automotive sector, with efforts to block EV mandates, but also in utilities, where fossil fuel generation is desperately needed to stabilize fragile power grids amid the surge in demand from AI data centers and overall electrification trends. 

Environmental groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, were furious with the vote, calling the move by Republicans “an unprecedented and reckless attack on states’ legal authority to address the pollution causing asthma, lung disease, and heart conditions.” 

“It is going nuclear,” Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on Wednesday evening, adding this would enable MAGA Republicans to hijack the rules, erode “away at the Senate and undermine this institution they claim to care about.”

Meanwhile, the climate change policies have sparked a number of national security threats, first being the potential for unreliable power grids, plus flooding the nation with foreign solar panels has created a major issue:

• “Rogue” Devices Found Hidden In Chinese Solar Panels Could “Destroy The Grid”

And risk plunging into a net-zero death like Spain several weeks ago… 

• NatGas Generators Rescued Spain From Net Zero Death After Power Collapse

All in all, the Trump administration is bringing back energy policy common sense after four years of disastrous climate change nonsense that only boosted inflation. 

Harvard is having a really bad year. From feds yanking billions in grants, to House Republicans alleging ties to the Chinese military, to President Trump threatening their tax-exempt status, to detained embryo-smuggling scientists (and most of that’s just this month), the university has now been blocked from enrolling international students – which constitute nearly 1/3 of Harvard admissions.

“I am writing to inform you that effective immediately, Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification is revoked,” according to a letter sent to the university by DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, which they promptly shot over to the NY Times. The university has 72 hours to hand over requested information.

The decision followed a back-and-forth in recent days over the legality of a wide-ranging records request by the Department of Homeland Security.

According to Bloomberg, existing foreign students must transfer or lose their legal status, the notice reads.

This administration is holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus.

It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments… pic.twitter.com/12hJWd1J86

— Secretary Kristi Noem (@Sec_Noem) May 22, 2025

In April DHS threatened to block Harvard from enrolling international students if the university refused to hand over detailed records about the student body containing “relevant information” on student visa holders who have been involved in “known illegal” or “dangerous” activity.

“It is a privilege to have foreign students attend Harvard University, not a guarantee,” Noem wrote in an April letter. “The United States government understands that Harvard University relies heavily on foreign student funding from over 10,000 foreign students to build and maintain their substantial endowment.”

Harvard dug in last month following the Trump admin’s demands – with president Alan Garber saying in a statement “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”

Not So Fast?

Concurrently, a federal judge in California has blocked the Trump administration from terminating the legal status of international students nationwide while a court case challenging previous terminations is pending.

The order by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White in Oakland bars the government from arresting or incarcerating the plaintiffs and similarly situated students; from transferring any of them outside the jurisdiction of their residence; from imposing any adverse legal effect on students and from reversing the reinstatement of the legal status until the case is resolved. Students can still be arrested for violent crimes. –AP

According to White, the government’s actions “wreaked havoc not only on the lives of Plaintiffs here but on similarly situated F-1 nonimmigrants across the United States and continues do so.”

Read Noem’s letter below (emphasis ours):

Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program Decertification

I am writing to inform you that effective immediately, Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification is revoked.

As I explained to you in my April letter, it is a privilege to enroll foreign students, and it is also a privilege to employ aliens on campus. All universities must comply with Department of Homeland Security requirements, including reporting requirements under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program regulations, to maintain this privilege. As a result of your refusal to comply with multiple requests to provide the Department of Homeland Security pertinent information while perpetuating an unsafe campus environment that is hostile to Jewish students, promotes pro-llamas sympathies, and employs racist “diversity, equity, and inclusion” policies, you have lost this privilege.

The revocation of your Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification means that Harvard is prohibited from having any aliens on F- or J- nonimmigrant status for the 2025-2026 academic school year. This decertification also means that existing aliens on F- or J- nonimmigrant status must transfer to another university in order to maintain their nonimmigrant status.

This action should not surprise you and is the unfortunate result of Harvard’s failure to comply with simple reporting requirements.

On April 16, 2025, I requested records pertaining to nonimmigrant students enrolled at Harvard University, including information regarding misconduct and other offenses that would render foreign students inadmissible or removable. On April 30, 2025, Harvard’s counsel provided information that he represented as responsive to my request. It was not.

As a courtesy that Harvard was not legally entitled to, the Acting DHS General Counsel responded on my behalf and afforded Harvard another opportunity to comply. Harvard again provided an insufficient response.

Consequences must follow to send a clear signal to Harvard and all universities that want to enjoy the privilege of enrolling foreign students, that the Trump Administration will enforce the law and root out the evils of anti-Americanism and antisemitism in society and campuses.

If Harvard would like the opportunity of regaining Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification before the upcoming academic school year, you must provide all of the information requested below within 72 hours.

Please be advised that providing materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent information may subject you to criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Other criminal and civil sanctions may also apply.

I expect full and complete responses to the following requests:

1. Any and all records, whether official or informal, in the possession of Harvard University, including electronic records and audio or video footage, regarding illegal activity whether on or off campus, by a nonimmigrant student enrolled in Harvard University in the last five years.
2. Any and all records, whether official or informal, in the possession of Harvard University, including electronic records and audio or video footage, regarding dangerous or violent activity whether on or off campus, by a nonimmigrant student enrolled in Harvard University in the last five years.
3. Any and all records, whether official or informal, in the possession of Harvard University, including electronic records and audio or video footage, regarding threats to other students or university personnel whether on or off campus, by a nonimmigrant student enrolled in Harvard University in the last five years.
4. Any and all records, whether official or informal, in the possession of Harvard University, including electronic records and audio or video footage, regarding deprivation of rights of other classmates or university personnel whether on or off campus, by a nonimmigrant student enrolled in Harvard University in the last five years.
5. Any and all disciplinary records of all nonimmigrant students enrolled in Harvard University in the last five years.
6. Any and all audio or video footage, in the possession of Harvard University, of any protest activity involving a nonimmigrant student on a Harvard University campus in the last five years.

Developing…

European leaders have been alarmed in the wake of their May 19 conference phone call with President Trump, as they believe he’s prepared to given Putin a free hand in Ukraine, and is unwilling to impose more sanctions or further confront Moscow in a muscular way. He has also reportedly conveyed that the war is not my problem and that Russia and Ukraine will have to settle it on their own.

He reportedly informed European leaders, which had included French President Emmanuel Macron, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, European Council President Antonio Costa, as well as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – that Putin is not ready for peace in Ukraine because he believes he is winning the war.

“On a call Monday, President Trump told European leaders that Russian President Vladimir Putin isn’t ready to end the Ukraine war because he thinks he is winning, according to senior European officials familiar with the conversation,” The Wall Street Journal, which is the first to reveal the statements, writes.

“European leaders had long believed this—but it was the first time they were hearing it from Trump, these officials said. It also ran counter to what Trump has often said publicly, that he believes Putin genuinely wants peace,” the report continues. They hope with this admission that Trump will escalate in support of Ukraine, but he has remained resistant to this pressure. And of course, this isn’t what his voters want, nor is it (escalation) the majority position of the American people.

The White House has frequently said that it assesses Putin is genuine about seeking peace, in pushback to critics – including in Kiev – who say the Kremlin is just using the talks to stall as the Russian military makes slow advances on the ground, and further weaken Ukraine’s front lines.

The result is that Europe and Kiev want Trump to ramp up support to Kiev and punish Russia, which would lead to escalation in the war, but Trump is refusing to go along with this strategy:

One of the officials, who was on the call, said Trump began the discussion by saying, “I think Vladimir does not want peace.”

Although Trump appears to have come around to the idea that Putin isn’t ready for peace, the officials said, that hasn’t led him to do what the Europeans and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky have been arguing he should do: double down on the fight against Russia.

This elicited surprise among the Europeans, who concluded that Trump seems relatively content at what he’s been hearing from Putin in phone calls. 

Another key line from the WSJ report focuses on Trump’s rejection of an ‘unconditional’ ceasefire in Ukraine:

Some of the Europeans on the call Monday insisted that the outcome of any talks at the Vatican must be an unconditional cease-fire. But Trump again demurred, saying he didn’t like the term “unconditional.” He said he had never used that term, although he used it when calling for a 30-day cease-fire in a post on his Truth Social platform on May 8. The Europeans eventually agreed to drop their insistence on the adjective.

Or to put it another way, Trump simply understands how negotiations work in reality and that Putin holds the cards and Zelensky isn’t holding much, if any.

All of this is also a simple acknowledgement that of course Putin doesn’t want peace which does not result in the Russian-speaking eastern territories being under the Russian Federation, as well as Crimea.

Trump declares it is not his war:
– Ukraine and the Europeans have attempted to pull the US back into the proxy war, the main purpose of the minerals deal. Instead, Trump can now claim victory as he got their money back. Will Trump end the US involvement in the war or flip again? pic.twitter.com/6AYjhdLhD5

— Glenn Diesen (@Glenn_Diesen) May 22, 2025

Moscow certainly isn’t interested in a truce deal which still results in NATO military infrastructure right on its door step. Putin has long warned that NATO expansion means that another war would have to be fought in the future, even if the current Ukraine conflict ends.

The current mainstream media framing of Trump’s efforts are intent on painting him as a Kremlin-sympathetic compromiser, when really he’s just recognizing the reality of the Russian perspective, combined with the realization the West can’t really do anything about it (short of military escalation which risks nuclear confrontation).

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Moderna on May 21 said it withdrew its application for a license for its combination vaccine against COVID-19 and influenza.

The move came “in consultation with” the Food and Drug Administration, which decides on licensing applications, the Massachusetts-based pharmaceutical company said in a brief statement.

The combination shot is known as mRNA-1083.

“The Company plans to resubmit the [application] later this year, after vaccine efficacy data from the ongoing Phase 3 trial of its investigational seasonal influenza vaccine, mRNA-1010, are available,” Moderna stated. “Moderna continues to expect interim data from the mRNA-1010 trial to be available this summer.”

Moderna and some other vaccine makers began testing combination COVID-19–flu shots during the COVID-19 pandemic. The company said in 2024 that its combination vaccine performed well in a phase 3 clinical trial. Moderna researchers said in May that in the trial, the vaccine elicited immune responses that were at least as good as those from standard influenza vaccines and its COVID-19 vaccine.

Moderna had asked for licensure for its combination vaccine for people aged 50 and older, a population that is among the most susceptible to both influenza and COVID-19.

There are no combination COVID-19 vaccines on the market.

Pfizer and BioNTech reported in 2024 that their combination COVID-19–influenza vaccine in a phase 3 trial triggered immune responses against an influenza A strain and COVID-19 that were at least as good as those seen after flu and COVID-19 vaccination, but that the antibody levels were lower against influenza B for people who received the combination shot than the levels triggered by standard flu vaccination.

“We are committed to developing vaccines that will reduce the burden of respiratory diseases and believe that combination vaccines are the most efficient way to do this,” Annaliesa Anderson, a Pfizer senior vice president, said at the time. “Today’s results provide insight and direction towards achieving this goal, and we remain optimistic about our combination COVID-19 and influenza program, for which we are evaluating the next steps.”

Moderna’s announcement came one day after FDA officials said they would not approve COVID-19 vaccines for many Americans without trial data showing that the benefits of the shots outweigh the risks.

“We want to know more about what the products are doing, especially as we enter the seventh, eighth, ninth doses,” Dr. Vinay Prasad, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said at a town hall.

He also noted that the FDA plans to approve vaccines based only on antibody data for people older than 65 and for younger people who have at least one factor that places them at higher risk of severe COVID-19, as determined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, such as obesity. FDA officials estimate that 100 million to 200 million Americans fall into one of those groups.

Just 13 percent of children and 23 percent of adults, according to CDC data, have received one of the currently available COVID-19 vaccine formulations.