Democrats PANIC As SCOTUS Set To END Birthright Citizenship In The US
Tim Pool analyzes the impending Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. Barbara, which challenges birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. He critiques the administration's "originalist" claim that the amendment only applied to formerly enslaved people, contrasting it with Senator Jacob M. Howard's intent to prevent foreign adversaries from gaining political power through "birth tourism." While noting media concerns about bureaucratic burdens and the case of a jailed conspiracy organizer, Pool argues the ruling aims to secure borders against foreign influence, potentially reshaping constitutional interpretations regarding "persons" and even abortion rights. Ultimately, this legal shift signals a fundamental restructuring of American identity and citizenship eligibility. [Automatically generated summary]
We are facing a fundamental shift in how our country works as we wait with bated breath to see how the Supreme Court will rule on birthright citizenship.
Now, Donald Trump has made the argument the 14th Amendment was meant for the babies of slaves, not for wealthy Chinese people.
And it is very likely the Supreme Court will overturn birthright citizenship, something that's been around for over 100 years.
Now, the arguments are that when the 14th Amendment was passed, it was supposed to make former slaves citizens.
That's it.
It was not meant to give foreigners citizenship in the United States if it just so happened that their parents brought them here and they were born.
Since then, with this policy, it has been exploited to such an extreme degree that Chinese birth tourism has resulted in arrests.
There are individuals that will fly to small U.S. territory islands, give birth, and then go back to China so that kid who grows up can run for president in this country.
There is no reality where the founding fathers wanted this to be the case.
But times changed.
At the time of the 14th Amendment, we didn't have planes.
So immigration was actually somewhat difficult and communities were rather small.
They knew who each other were.
Someone might show up and they'd say, you're not a citizen of this country.
What did that really mean?
Well, there was no border barrier.
You'd literally ride on horseback from Mexico into a town in the United States and it was just, you're a foreigner here, you're not an American, but they would trade and do whatever.
As populations expanded, vehicles were invented, became easier to travel, border barriers were enacted to protect the economies and the cultures from people who are not American citizens.
So this question has been massive for some time, and now it seems things may change.
Now, I've got for you the media responses and what likely will happen and why, starting with Donald Trump's statement as the principal argument.
But let's take a deep dive into the 14th Amendment to determine whether or not this is the right way to go.
And I'll say outright, my friends, it does not make sense that a Chinese couple will fly to a U.S. island, give birth, fly back, and then 35 years later, that Chinese Communist Party member can become president of the United States.
Regardless of what your thoughts are, something needs to change.
So let's take a look at the news, my friends.
Before we do, we got a great sponsor for you.
It is Rumble Wallet.
Head over to wallet.rumble.com and pick up the Rumble Wallet now.
This is a non-custodial crypto wallet app.
Here's how it works.
It's got Tether.
It's got Bitcoin.
It's got Tether Gold.
And you can exchange value between you and your friends or tip creators you know and love, like yours truly.
And non-custodial means you cannot be banned from it.
So if some company doesn't like you and they say, we want to silence, they can't do it with this app.
Rumble will have no ability to ban you.
That's what it means.
Censorship is feared to be coming back, my friends.
We just saw this basketball player for the NBA.
He had his contract waived for speaking about his faith in Christ and his concerns about Pride Month.
They gave him the boot.
Woke isn't gone completely.
And if it comes back, censorship and debanking will come back too.
So check out wallet.rumble.com now.
But let's jump into the news, my friends, from the post-millennial.
Trump says birthright citizenship was meant for the babies of slaves, not rich people from China.
Ahead of Wednesday's Supreme Court hearing regarding a challenge to President Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants or those in the country only temporarily, Trump said the concept was meant for the children of slaves.
I'm going to go ahead and say Trump is wrong.
It wasn't even meant for the children of slaves.
It was meant for slaves.
The children of American citizens are U.S. citizens.
Quote, birthright citizenship is not about rich people from China and the rest of the world who want their children and hundreds of thousands more for pay to ridiculously become citizens of the U.S.
It is about the babies of slaves.
We are the only country in the world that dignifies this subject with even a discussion.
Look at the dates of this long ago legislation, the exact end of the Civil War.
The world is getting rich, selling citizenships to our country, while at the same time laughing at how stupid our U.S. court system has become, tariffs.
Dumb judges and justices will not a great country make.
Trump is correct.
There are people around the world selling U.S. citizenship.
If you want to make the argument, it should be allowed.
Why are foreigners selling citizenship and we just sit back and let them do it?
That is pure exploitation, right?
The case being heard at the Supreme Court on Wednesday is Trump v. Barbara.
The Trump admin has asked the court to weigh whether the executive order, which was issued on Trump's first day back in office, complies with the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.
The petition to the court stated that the citizenship clause was adopted to grant citizenship to newly freed slaves and their children, not to the children of temporary visitors or illegal aliens, and that this court's earliest case interpreting the 14th Amendment explicitly rejected the notion that anyone born in the U.S., U.S. territory, no matter the circumstances, is automatically a citizen so long as he is subject to U.S. law.
A case involving birthright citizenship made it before the Supreme Court in 2025.
However, the Trump admin only asked the justices to block lower court judges from issuing universal injunctions, blocking the order across the U.S.
The justices ruled in the Trump administration's favor.
If the order was upheld by the Supreme Court, it would apply to children born 30 days after issuance of the order.
This is massive.
They're going to weigh in on Trump's birthright citizenship order this week.
The case is a major test of a key pillar of Mr. Trump's immigration agenda and is the first in which the high court will weigh the legal merits of one of the president's immigration policies.
The citizenship clause states all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
This is, my friends, the perfect example of originalism versus textualism.
Is the Constitution held to the intent of the writers of the amendments and the Constitution, or do we just read what the words say today and apply them?
Do you have any idea how psychotic you would have to be to apply law based on what the text means today?
I wonder.
Let me do this.
Provide for me the text of the Magna Carta in proper Old English as it was written.
Now, I'm sure it was close enough, but I'm just curious.
I'm just curious.
Maybe I'm wrong about this one off the top of my head.
Because the issue is, if you actually listen to someone speak old English, you would not, oh my God.
Wait, what?
I can't read that.
wow the full holy crap is this true uh Let's see.
Latin manuscripts for original 1215 exemplars are known to exist today.
So the funny thing is, there have been many comments made about how English in the 1300s is incomprehensible.
Let's do this.
Provide for me some common phrases in 1300s English.
Imagine if we applied the law like this.
Let's see what we got.
Here's grammar, see?
What?
Write me a sentence.
Let's get it.
We did this on Tim Cast IRL.
It was really, really funny.
I got to give you this example, my friends.
Okay.
Sekinkom midhis shipe.
What does that mean?
What?
I don't know what that means.
Oh, the king came with his ship.
Okay.
Here's one.
What's the pronunciation on this?
Huait, we gerdena in girdegum piodesninga prim gefrunon.
Listen, we have heard the glory of the Speardanes kings in days of yore.
Iksiom hale.
I am well.
I am healthy.
This is insane.
Old English looks and sounds quite different from modern English.
Imagine if we actually looked at that and said, no, no, it's not about the intent.
It's about what it literally says.
We'd be like, those aren't words.
So here's what we have.
The intent of the founding fathers of the 14th Amendment was specifically that slaves had just been freed.
And they were like, listen, all these people, if you're born here, you're a citizen.
Done, okay?
Let me actually pull up the 14th Amendment.
It says, all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protections of the laws.
Here's the issue.
Civil war is over.
They passed the 13th Amendment.
You may not have slaves unless they committed a crime.
Did you know that?
Slavery is actually totally illegal in the United States.
A lot of people don't understand this.
Let me show you.
The 13th Amendment states, if it would load, it's not loading.
What if I just do this manually and go 13?
Can you load that way?
Seriously?
They really don't want me reading the 13th Amendment.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Indeed, my friends, we are allowed to have slavery.
Listen, this isn't really important.
Except as punishment for a crime.
Meaning, if you commit a crime, the court can literally say, you're a slave now.
Seriously, slavery can be implemented as a penalty for serious crimes.
That's just true.
Kanye West said we should abolish that, and everyone thought he was saying to bring slavery back when he was actually saying, no, there should be no instance where slavery is allowed.
So here's what happens.
We pass the 13th Amendment.
No more slaves, unless they're criminals.
Then we say, now hold on.
What do we do with all of these people?
They are citizens if they were born here or naturalized.
That meant some of these people were not.
Some of the slaves who were brought there more recently would not have been.
I don't think there was people coming at the time.
Largely at this point, the slaves were all descendants.
And so they said, look, you guys were slaves.
You're not slaves anymore.
You're free.
And all of you who were born here or naturalized, you're citizens now, okay?
It was descriptive, not prescriptive.
Meaning, they were telling the people, excuse me, sir, were you born here?
Okay, as of now, we're going to make sure you're a citizen.
They didn't mean it to be.
Okay, and now 10 years from now, if someone's born here, they're a citizen too.
It was literally a corrective action because of slavery.
Well, here we go, my friends.
What did these senators say about the 14th Amendment?
The most commonly referenced statement on the topic comes from Senator Jacob M. Howard, the principal author who introduced the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, who wrote, this will not, of course, 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.
Now, some have argued, he was saying, no, no, only foreign dignitaries.
If you're a tourist, because they didn't really have like tourists, but if you're visiting and you have a kid, they're citizens.
They try to play this semantic game, and I don't think it matters because we're talking about function, not form.
So here's what it says.
How do you write a sentence?
Okay, many people have abandoned the Oxford comma, which is a big mistake, but as we can see here, you have several classes.
You have foreigners, you have aliens, the families of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States.
That's why it goes, blah, blah, blah.
The argument from the people who claim this is not meant to include regular old tourists, children, they say, no, no.
It means foreigners, aliens in the same go.
They're saying this is a description of one group of people.
Foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or ministers.
The argument is he's not talking about different groups of people.
He is saying foreigners and aliens who belong to families of ambassadors and foreign ministers is one group.
And all other class of persons are included.
I reject that because it makes literally no sense.
Foreigners, aliens, these are descriptive terms for people who are not from the country.
And illegal alien is the proper statutory term for someone who is here illegally.
And foreigner could refer to someone here for a variety of reasons and who belonged to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government.
These are different classes of people.
At least that makes the most functional sense.
Otherwise, they're literally saying anyone who comes here and gives birth, that person can run for president.
Nobody would want that.
No one at the time thought it would make sense that a Hindu would have a kid in America and then their Christian nation would be run by a Hindu.
Sorry.
And there's a lot of liberals who say this is never a Christian nation.
You're wrong.
Most of the colonies had a requirement you profess faith in a Christian God.
Some as specific as not Catholic, must be Protestant.
And they changed these not because of Islam or Hinduism or whatever.
They changed it because of Catholics and Protestants.
They had blasphemy laws on the books.
They did not believe the country would ever be having large populations of Muslims or Jews for that matter.
There was a small group of Jews in the United States at the time.
However, another senators tied subject to the jurisdiction to complete U.S. authority, meaning no primary allegiance to a foreign power.
They explicitly discussed exclusions for children of diplomats, ambassadors, and in Howard's words, those born as foreigners or aliens.
The point is this, my friends.
Why would anyone, why would literally anyone of a country with borders fighting for a union to be one country then go to say, yeah, but anybody can be a citizen.
What was the point of fighting for a union if you then just say our borders are open and anyone can be a citizen?
It makes literally no sense.
None whatsoever.
Well, here comes the media, my friends.
Of course, all the news outlets are basically saying Trump is wrong and we should allow Chinese babies to run for president.
Look, if you're an American person, you are born, let's say you have parents here.
They've been here for 300 years, like your family's been here for 300 years and you were of Chinese descent.
I got no beef.
Your parents are naturalized U.S. citizens.
They came here, passed a test, became citizens.
You were born.
You're a citizen.
You can run for president.
Totally okay.
But if you are of Chinese Communist Party authority and your parents are here as tourists and you go back to China to serve under the Chinese Communist Party, you should not be allowed to run for president.
In fact, I don't think they're going to go far enough.
They should retroactively revoke citizenship from all of these birth tourists.
Well, here we go.
Babies are an afterthought, says NPR.
Explain it to me.
Bruce Leslie is incensed at one dimension of the debate about birthright citizenship.
It's in the words birthright citizenship.
This is about babies.
During debate on the potential end to the potential end of this, Leslie heard about administrative challenges.
The word child does not cross their lips.
This is a serious oversight.
This impacts every baby born in America.
Right now, when a baby is born in America, hospital, or birth center, that baby is automatically a citizen with immediate access to a range of support and services.
Pregnant women are eligible for Medicaid, blah, blah, blah.
Estimated 300,000 babies were born to parents without legal status in 2023.
A change to birthright citizenship would affect all children.
However, not just those born to immigrant families.
All parents would have to prove their own citizenship status in a bureaucratic process that does not yet exist.
Federal data show approximately 3.6 million babies are born in the U.S. each year.
Actually, actually, it's not that difficult.
When your baby is born, you fill out a form with your social, your name, your address, and you check a box saying, I'm a citizen.
It's that simple.
All you got to do.
I don't think you require any great proof.
And then what happens if they go, yeah, but what happens if these people lie?
That's fine.
If we find out you lied, we revoke your citizenship.
Doesn't matter how old you are.
Don't care.
You could be 30, and we could find out your parents lied, and that's it.
You lose citizenship.
Because here's the point.
If someone came here from a foreign country, from Guatemala or whatever, and you were born here, and they lie, you're going to have, we're going to say this is a citizen of your country from born of individuals.
And you know what people are going to say?
That's really difficult.
Like with DACA.
These people were brought here as children.
What do they do now?
They're 30 years old.
And I say to this, so they've known their whole lives because they received DACA that they are not citizens.
Why is that the problem of the United States?
Guys, I sympathize with these people.
I do.
But you're arguing why someone doesn't just deserve to have someone else's stuff.
It makes no sense.
Well, they were brought here illegally by their parents, so they should receive U.S. citizenship entitlements.
Like, it's not fair that I've lived my whole life in this country and I don't get to have millions of dollars from that rich person.
This is the reality they live in.
Look, if you are not a citizen and you're DACA, I have no, I'm sorry.
There's no easy answer.
You've known you've been here illegally for some time.
You are not entitled to other people's stuff.
That's just it.
Fill out the paperwork, get citizenship the right way, and I'm totally for it.
I am not a fan of DACA.
Well, wait, there's more.
Here we go.
Here's the New York Times with their awful article that's incredibly hard to read because they put Supreme Court documents underneath their black and white text.
In Supreme Court Justices Histories, a story of immigration in America.
Oh, tell me the story.
Samuel Alito Jr.'s father was a baby when he and his mother left their home in Italy bound for New Jersey, where he later became a U.S. citizen.
So he came here legally and they applied for citizenship and got it.
Wow.
And you're saying that Samuel Alito was born here?
Katanji Brown Jackson's ancestors passed his remains unknown.
Indeed, the intent of the 14th Amendment to grant her and her family citizenship.
Justice John Roberts' great-grandparents emigrated in the late 1800s from mining town in Slovakia.
Indeed.
So Albert Podrowski was born before his parents were naturalized, but he was nevertheless an American guaranteed by the nation's principle of birthright citizenship.
Indeed, my friends.
And you know what?
That may have been the interpretation at the time, and it's fine for us to say no to it now.
We're not going to erase third or fourth generation citizenship.
We're just going to say we're correcting this right now because it is being exploited.
The three are among the nine justices who will hear the arguments.
And you know what?
Your arguments are meaningless.
It all goes back to Wong Kim Ark.
This was 1898, a man of Chinese ancestry born in San Francisco to non-citizen parents was a U.S. citizen.
The current justice immigration history spanned much of American blah, blah, blah.
Here we go.
Samuel Alito Jr., Italian heritage, not born a citizen, became a citizen, citizen by birth.
So you mean to tell me that both of his parents were both U.S. citizens?
That one of his family members was a U.S. citizen?
That both of his grandparents were naturalized U.S. citizens and not born a citizen?
You have immigrants who married a U.S. citizen who had, this is interesting.
I don't know which parent this is, but you can see here, one of his parents was born of a U.S. citizen and later became a U.S. citizen.
Or I suppose the argument they're making is, as I stated before, this person was born before, but they both became U.S. citizens.
Hold on there, gosh darn minute.
This person was born here?
Or what, hold on, let me look at the clarification.
I'm gonna make sure I'm getting this right.
Blah, blah, blah.
His father came as an infant with a grandmother in 1914.
Okay, so they both came here.
They both settled.
And then by 1920s, with more restrictive immigration laws, they only came here illegally, they ultimately became citizens.
Okay.
I'm going to also just point this out.
What they're trying to do is pressure and say, see, immigration is a good thing.
Indeed, I love immigration.
It's fantastic.
Wonderful.
Just come here legally.
I don't see how this argument makes sense for Chinese birth tourism.
Here's a story from CNN.
Birth tourism organizer jailed over a scheme to bring pregnant Chinese women to the U.S. Why?
Birthright citizenship is normal and natural.
Why would this be a crime?
I'm curious.
They say U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner gave Phoebe Dong a 41-month sentence and ordered her immediately taken into custody from his federal court in Los Angeles.
Dong and her husband were convicted in September of conspiracy and money laundering through their company, USA Happy Baby.
Sentencing came as birthright citizenship has been thrust into the spotlight.
We get it.
I love this one.
NDTV says, babies of slaves, Trump's bizarre birthright citizenship rant.
Gee, I wonder why they're saying it.
New Delhi, U.S. president.
Oh, I see.
It's an article for foreigners upset that Donald Trump is saying, y'all can't steal from us anymore.
I have a story about my family history.
My dad's side of the family have been in this country for hundreds of years.
My mom's side of the family were immigrants.
On her dad's side, immigrated from Germany.
And this is like late 1800s, I think.
And then on my grandmother's side, Korea.
Can you believe it?
And they did everything illegally.
You know, everything was legal.
The funny thing is, the only thing illegal about it was that my grandmother wasn't allowed to marry my grandfather because of miscegenation laws.
I understand times change and we update for what makes more sense.
And I think getting rid of this miscegenation, Loving V. Virginia was properly ruled.
It's kind of weird to think that in our, There are many people alive today, boomers, in their lifetime.
It was a crime to be in an interracial relationship.
Isn't that weird?
You'll meet many people who are like, I remember that.
If you were a white kid, like, that's why it's so crazy that the interracial kiss on Star Trek, the original series, because at the time, it was considered wrong.
And that just sounded weird to me.
It's crazy by today's standards, right?
It's like white dude and a black chick, darn love.
Like, that's fantastic.
Have fun.
But it was a crime.
So I get it.
Times change.
The purpose of birthright citizenship is because we produce things, we pay taxes to a community, and we provide for ourselves, our families, our friends, our neighbors.
If anyone can just come here and have kids, you will have foreign adversaries running for president.
I think it's coming to an end.
I really do.
I think birthright citizenship will end because you take a look at what the U.S. has been doing with Venezuela, Iran.
It's all about securing U.S. interests and our borders.
Donald Trump's strategy is America will be the capital city like in the Hunger Games.
You know, call it good or bad, call it whatever you want, but that means random people can't just show up and get access to the public coffers.
The Hill reports, Supreme Court's path may hinge on a 1940 law.
They say, let's jump to the specifics here on the 1940 law, if they ever get to it.
They say, so far lawmakers have not done, they say, it would, however, leave it open for Congress to get involved and repeal the 1940s law.
Do they not even reference?
It's so annoying.
All right, let's, here we go.
Decades after ratifying the 14th Amendment during Reconstruction, Congress in 1940 passed a law defining citizenship.
It contained nearly identical language.
Lawmakers recodified it in 1952.
So it gives the justice a pathway to rule in the challenger's favor without reaching the weighty question about the 14th Amendment.
If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of this case, then it is necessary not to decide more, he wrote on his opinion in 2022.
He called it a fundamental principle of judicial restraint.
The justices also have a separate principle to avoid interpreting ambiguous statutes in a way that make them unconstitutional.
There is an after effect here, my friends, that is going to get very, very interesting, and that is the banning of abortion.
Y'all ready for this one?
Let me read the 14th Amendment for you one more time.
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, period.
That is one clause of the 14th Amendment, Section 1.
Meaning, there are persons who are not born and not naturalized.
That means, by the text of the amendment, babies in the womb are persons, but they are not born and not naturalized and therefore not citizens, right?
Because you must be born to be a citizen.
Okay.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, Semicolon, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Person, not citizen.
So if we interpret the text this way, that a person must be, there are persons who have yet to be born, that would imply that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property.
These are individuals who are not citizens or not yet born.
Now, of course, the counter argument is, no, no.
They're saying a human person walking around who was born in Mexico, they're not saying that unborn babies are persons.
Indeed, if that's how you choose to interpret it, I would choose to interpret a different way.
Persons born imply persons not born, in which case a state shall not deprive a person, whether born or not, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
And that would mean if you wanted to have an abortion, you'd have to get a writ from a judge, and there would have to be a defense for the person not yet born.
And I know they're going to argue.
No, no, they're saying non-citizens.
They're saying persons who are not born here are people from Mexico, for instance.
Well, unfortunately for y'all, it doesn't say anywhere that they're persons who were born.
You know, if it said all persons who were born, but not, you know, all persons born, but also born in the United States, it doesn't say that.
So I think my interpretation is equally valid, and it will have to be adjudicated.
You've got fraud running rampant in the United States with the Somali individuals, and they have already begun to denaturalize some of them.
The most interesting of things I've seen in this regard is what's happening to this country.
Nick Carter made this post, which is very interesting.
And he says, y'all don't understand.
Universal basic income is already here.
What's his point?
With the massive fraud that we are seeing and the entitlements, people are already getting everything for free.
We are already paying out from the coffers to people running schemes to steal the money.
Now, you may not like it, but he's saying the fraud epidemic is, he says the fraud is the UBI.
The purpose of the system is that it does what it does.
And the reason why they won't pass the SAVE Act or get rid of the fraud is because it is a function of American politics intentionally ingrained within it.
Well, I think if we're going to save this country and make it great again, we've got to get rid of all of this corruption.
And it is corruption.
There is a UBI.
These illegal immigrants, and yes, they're illegal immigrants when they commit fraud to gain citizenship or residency, need to be stopped and held accountable.
The money needs to be returned to the American people, and these individuals should be denaturalized and deported.
If we don't do this, in 30 years, you're going to have a man from China raised in China, allegiant to the Chinese Communist Party, running for the office of the presidency.
And because he's a U.S. citizen, when they transfer money to him from China, it's his personal money.
He can spend it however he wants.
And they will run schemes to make sure this individual wins the election, and then the U.S. will cease to be.
That seems real dumb.
I guess we'll find out tomorrow how the Supreme Court feels.
Smash the like button.
Share the show with everyone.
You know, you can follow me on X and Instagram at Tim Castle.
We've got more segments coming up for you throughout the day.
Thanks for hanging out, and we will see you all next