ATTENTION NEWS JUNKIES: We are the new Drudge, be sure to check our news feed by CLICKING HERE

With the all-important issues of Covid lockdowns, sustained violent BLM riots, and an imminent Color Revolution against Donald Trump dominating the news-cycle, concerned citizens will be forgiven for not staying up to date on the latest developments pertaining to immigration policy—not to worry, Revolver News has you covered.

One source in the White House Counsel’s office and one source close to the Counsel’s office have told Revolver that various open borders agents have been promoting Federal Judge James C. Ho for the Supreme Court short list. What is disturbing about this development is that Judge Ho has an extensive public record as an activist on behalf of Birthright Citizenship, the current practice whereby any child born on American soil is automatically considered a US Citizen, even if both parents are here illegally. 

Here is a representative passage from Judge Ho’s defense of Birthright Citizenship and anchor-baby policy titled “Defining ‘American.’”

These proposals raise serious constitutional questions, however. Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. That birthright is protected no less for children of undocumented persons than for descendants of Mayflower passengers. [Gibson Dunn – PDF]

Here Judge Ho responds to many arguments questioning whether the anchor baby policy truly is mandated by the Constitution:

Of course, the interpretation of the Constitution proposed by Judge Ho is by no means a consensus position. Common sense might even cause us to doubt that the Framers of the 14th Amendment had in mind a principle that could be used to justify the outrageous abuse of American sovereignty that is our present Birthright Citizenship policy. Claremont Institute constitutional scholar John Eastman is just one of several jurists who have called the birthright citizenship practice into serious question:

In a nation such as the United States, which is rooted in the idea that governments are formed based on the consent of the governed, the notion that foreign nationals can unilaterally confer citizenship on their children as the result of illegal entry to the United States (and therefore entirely without our consent) is a bit bizarre.

It rewards lawlessness, undermining the rule of law. It deprives Congress of its constitutional authority to determine naturalization power.

And it essentially destroys the notion of sovereignty itself, since a “people” are not able to define what constitutes them as a “people” entitled, as the Declaration of Independence asserts, to “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.”

That the 14th Amendment settled the question without ever explicitly addressing it is even more bizarre.

The actual language of the 14th Amendment actually contains two requirements for automatic citizenship, not just one. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States” — that’s the birth-on-US- soil part — “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” It is that second requirement, “subject to the jurisdiction,” that is the source of much confusion today, because to our modern ear, that just means subject to our laws.

That is one meaning, of course, but not the only one, and not the one that the drafters of the 14th Amendment had in mind. For them, being merely subject to our laws meant that one was subject to our “partial” or “territorial” jurisdiction. It was a jurisdiction applicable to “temporary sojourners” — what we today call temporary visitors. It was not the kind of jurisdiction that was codified in the 14th Amendment. For that, a more complete, allegiance-owing jurisdiction was required. [NY Post]

Many serious constitutional scholars oppose birthright citizenship on constitutional grounds. President Trump himself agrees with this position—in fact, long ago, he even pledged to sign an Executive Order to repeal birthright citizenship.

President Trump’s pledge to end birthright citizenship, his commitment in 2016 to build a wall, and his recent encouraging gestures to support United States tech workers all indicate that the President has good instincts when it comes to a pro-America, pro-worker, pro-family immigration policy. Unfortunately, too often those instincts are undermined or even thwarted entirely by disloyal personnel. This is exactly what appears to be the case in the mysterious promotion of Judge Ho, who has a stated intention to do the exact opposite of what Trump and his supporters want, to the Supreme Court short list.

Revolver’s source at the White House Counsel’s office further revealed that while White House Counsel Cipollone was originally committed to carrying out President Trump’s intention to repeal birthright citizenship, he now thinks such a move would be too risky. Even AG Barr, who is generally quite good on many things, has expressed squeamishness regarding following through on the President’s Birthright Citizenship policy.

Finally, our sources have revealed that Judge Ho, together with outside operatives from the “neoconservative” think tank First Liberty, have been aggressively promoting opposition research on rival Supreme Court contenders. Their efforts have resulted in keeping alternatives such as Judge Andy Oldham, whose view aligns more closely with the President’s on birthright citizenship, off of the Supreme Court short list. Their reasoning was that Andy Oldham was somehow a “closeted racist.”

Revolver will continue to “monitor the situation,” as it were, and bring you any relevant updates to this important matter.

By way of conclusion, we should note that there is simply no reason to be squeamish when it comes to advancing the President’s preferred policy of ending birthright citizenship. While the Hispanic population is crucial to winning in 2020, there is no need to pander to this constituency. Too often, simple-minded GOP operatives believe that the way to reach out to minority constituencies is to accommodate them by suspending law and order in their favor. The truth is that the Hispanic patriots who support Trump, just like all Trump supporters, support him because of the fact that he represents law, order, and authority. This is true when it comes to ending the deadly Covid lockdowns, ending the violent Antifa BLM riots, and it is true when it comes to restoring order to our immigration policy. The answer, from a constitutional and ethical point of view, is to end birthright citizenship, and to support Supreme Court nominees who stand with the President and with the American people on this important issue.

Revolver News is dedicated to news aggregation and analysis. While we greatly respect and admire Matt Drudge, the Drudge Report no longer has its finger on the pulse of America. We aim to fill that void, and much more. We are dedicated to providing Americans of all backgrounds and political persuasions with timely, common-sense, accurate and compelling information. Be sure to check out our news feed.

Please be aware that although we do not like to censor comments, we reserve the right to remove any that are uncivil, vulgar, or completely off-topic.