The article presents a strong argument centered on the concept of sovereignty in U.S. immigration policy, particularly regarding birthright citizenship. The author emphasizes that sovereign power resides with “We The People,” stemming from divine authority, contrasting this with the idea of monarchy prevalent in the United Kingdom. This foundational argument sets the tone for discussing control over borders—a critical aspect of citizenship that the author believes has been compromised by judicial overreach.
The assertion that judges lack the authority to redefine sovereign powers is central to the author’s argument. Drawing on historical context, the article cites the passage of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments as moments when the sovereignty of the people was clearly defined, reinforcing that nowhere in these agreements did citizens relinquish control over their borders. The author states emphatically, “Judges simply do not have the power to steal We The People’s sovereign power.” This declaration underscores their belief in a direct and unequivocal relationship between the governance structure established by the Constitution and the inherent rights of citizens.
The piece critically examines the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, particularly regarding birthright citizenship. By questioning the extension of citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants—who, according to the author, are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction—the argument pivots around legal precedents such as Elk v. Wilkins. The author provocatively asks, “If birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t apply to American Indians, in what world would it apply to illegal aliens?” This rhetorical question challenges readers to reconsider established understandings of citizenship in light of the author’s perspective.
The effective use of contrast stands out in the discussion of President Trump’s executive order related to birthright citizenship. The article suggests that Trump’s action is grounded in logic reminiscent of military considerations, drawing an analogy to American children born abroad. The author integrates this notion with concrete implications, pointing out the circumstances in which illegal immigrants can exploit birthright citizenship to anchor themselves and their children within the U.S. This framing portrays illegal immigration not only as a legal issue but also as a question of safety, given the risks involved in crossing the border.
The reference to the Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark is significant, as the author argues that its findings are misapplied in the current discourse. The distinction drawn between those born to permanent residents and those born to illegal immigrants is pivotal. The author insists that Trump’s focus on limiting birthright citizenship to those who have legitimate ties to the U.S. is not merely a legal maneuver but a necessary step towards reclaiming “We The People’s most crucial sovereign power.”
Moreover, the article touches on the broader implications of unchecked illegal immigration, citing the societal dangers that arise when sovereignty over citizenship is not upheld. It references dire statistics, suggesting that a staggering number of illegal immigrants pose significant threats to public safety. The assertion that individuals among these immigrants may be linked to violent crime adds emotional weight to the author’s argument, demanding attention to the perceived failings of current immigration policy.
Ultimately, the call for Supreme Court intervention is presented as essential to restore order and clarity to the immigration debate. The author’s final words resonate with urgency, labeling the usurpation of sovereign power as a “red line” that must not be crossed. This plea encapsulates the article’s overarching message: a firm denouncement of judicial decisions that undermine the principles laid out by the Constitution, urging a retake of power by the citizens of the United States to secure a safer and more unified nation.
"*" indicates required fields
