Who’s An American Citizen? & The View – Top 3 Takeaways – April 1st, 2026
Takeaway #1: Who’s an American citizen?
The year was... President Andrew Johnson was impeached – a first in presidential history. Florida held a constitutional convention in Tallahassee and was readmitted to the United States. Cuba revolted from the Spanish government, the world’s first traffic lights were installed in London, Ulysses S. Grant was elected president and it’s possible that Joe Biden began his first term in congress. Yes, the year was 1868 – and something else highly consequential occurred that year. On July 9th, of 1868 the 14th Amendment to the United States was ratified. And the Amendment reads like this: 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. 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 protection of the laws. Since the onset of the 14th amendment the interpretation of that language has resulted in anyone who’s been born within the United States becoming a citizen of the United States...with notable exceptions...more on that dynamic in a moment. Today is a historic day as the fundamental interpretation of who is entitled to American citizenship at birth will be defined based upon what the Supreme Court decides following today’s hearing on President Trump’s executive order challenging birthright citizenship. It was in that Day 1 order that the president said this... It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth. The administration was sued over this, an injunction against this taking effect kicked in and that’s brought us to where we are today when the Supreme Court will hear arguments as to whether children born to illegal aliens should automatically be granted citizenship. As was noted in the order... The Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. And that is correct... As I’ve covered previously...
Takeaway #2 There are four existing exceptions to birthright citizenship
that have been recognized by the United States Supreme Court: Children born to foreign diplomats; Children born in outlying possessions such as American Samoa and Swains Island; Children born to enemy invaders; Children born to tribal families that owe direct allegiance to their tribe. Therefore, I’d argue, and the Trump team going forward should if they hope to win on this issue, that with four existing exceptions – all of which have to do with a parent’s foreign status or heritage/allegiance - it’s completely consistent to say that if neither a father or mother retains legal status in this country – their primary allegiance is to the country in which they are citizens. It’s not a complicated point to establish. The way to legally fight precedent, or the status quo, is with other established superseding precedent(s). It’s clearly displayed in the case of birthright citizenship – which is likely why the Supreme Court decided to take up the case in the first place. If it was inherently a slam dunk, it would have been far easier to allow the lower court rulings blocking the president’s challenge to stand without hearing about the case. Of course, a complicating factor in this case, if the Supreme Court were to rule in favor of the president’s directive, is what would you do with those already deemed to be citizens who were born to illegal immigrants? And that number isn’t a small number. Due to Biden’s open border, and the proliferation of illegal immigration, a Center for Immigration Studies review of US births found that approximately 7% of all births in the US in recent years, or approximately 250,000 per year, have been born to illegal immigrants. How big could the population of impacted people be? A Migration Policy Institute Study found that as of 2023...5.3 million children born in the United States were living with illegal guardians. And after another two plus years – we’re talking about a number that’s likely around six million – or in other words...about the size of the population of Wisconsin or Colorado. In many ways this illustrates the extent of the abuse of the existing interpretation of birthright citizenship that has incentivized illegal immigration. It’s widely believed that overturning birthright citizenship as it’s been allowed to persist is an uphill battle, but it shouldn’t be a legally insurmountable one. Speaking of children...
Takeaway #3 There’s the view
On Wednesday lots of attention was paid to the absurd views of the nasty women of The View... Specially when they teed off on Daily Wire host Isabel Brown for her comments at CPAC that... If you're not encouraging your children to grow up and have the courage to get married and have kids, more kids than they can afford before they think they're ready, it is high time to start. It is these choices, like deleting our dating apps and quitting birth control pills and saying ‘I do’ at the altar, that ultimately trickle down into the political policies that we will see save our country. Naturally the View’s nasty women talked about ovaries and related things. But rather than being outraged on the right... It might be best if they simply had it their way with their audience. We’re all God’s children, but if everything’s part of a plan – this philosophy might be part of it. What are the odds that children born into the home of a View watching family will grow up to be a well-adjusted contributing citizens. It’s the Left’s position that not having children is the compassionate thing for the children who aren’t born into a climate crisis, affordability crisis, yada – yada. I’m inclined to agree...that maybe it is best for nasty women to not have children. If that becomes predominantly a conservative type of thing...that might, as Isabel said, be the key long-term to saving the country.