'A bombshell': White House drops stunning historic documentation supporting Trump birthright citizen

[Elderberry]

WND 1/22/2026

The White House has dropped a stunning document showing that historically, the experts over the years never have considered those born of foreign parents in the United States to be U.S. citizens.

It's the exact position President Donald Trump took when he issued an executive order months ago stating that children of illegal aliens are not, in fact, U.S. citizens.

He was sued immediately over that statement.

His perspective, if affirmed by the courts, would decimate the birth tourism industry, where foreigners break into the United States and have children, who then are considered citizens and anchors for their foreigner parents.

In fact, the Constitution calls people U.S. citizens if they are born in the United States "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

The current argument is over just exactly what constitutes being subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

A report at Revolver.news quotes from a filing from the White House in support of Trump's order.

    The government's birthright brief has been filed. The most impressive part, which I hadn't fully appreciated since my focus has been the common law, is the sheer number of commentators who presumed for decades that temporary visitors didn't qualify for birthright citizenship: pic.twitter.com/AtjsRrr4MJ

    — Ilan Wurman (@ilan_wurman) January 21, 2026

More: https://www.wnd.com/2026/01/bombshell-white-house-drops-stunning-historic-documentation-supporting/

[Bigun]

This has been explained a dozen times here over the years.

[libertybele]

This has been explained a dozen times here over the years.

Yes indeed it has.

[Kamaji]

So I guess that means we’ve been unconstitutionally arresting, convicting, and jailing tourists for DUI for decades now.

[Bigun]

[Kamaji]

We shall see what the Supreme Court has to say. 

Personally, I’ve got a betting pool going on what sorts of outlandish claims will be made that the Justices have been compromised when they fail to replace the clear language of the Constitution and the Congressional reports on the language with some bastardized version of Vattel.

The whinging and gnashing of teeth will be both amusing, expected, and disappointing.

[Luis Gonzalez]

We shall see what the Supreme Court has to say. 

Personally, I’ve got a betting pool going on what sorts of outlandish claims will be made that the Justices have been compromised when they fail to replace the clear language of the Constitution and the Congressional reports on the language with some bastardized version of Vattel.

The whinging and gnashing of teeth will be both amusing, expected, and disappointing.

The case before the Court is more nuanced than I thought.

[Kamaji]

The case before the Court is more nuanced than I thought.

We shall see.

[Bigun]

The case before the Court is more nuanced than I thought.

 

[Fishrrman]

Bigun wrote:
"This has been explained a dozen times here over the years."

It could have been explained 1,253,320 times and it would make no difference.
Because the left isn't going to accept or be subdued by those old writings.

It's going to require a clearly-written and irrefutable decision by the CURRENT Supreme Court to decide this one way or the other.

Even then, if the Court says "no" to birthright citizenship, it's going to require violence -- yes, I said VIOLENCE -- to impose this on the leftists.

If the High Court decides that the existing language and previous decisions SUPPORT the concept of birthright citizenship, then you all know what needs to be done. Just try and GET it done.

[Kamaji]

Bigun wrote:
"This has been explained a dozen times here over the years."

It could have been explained 1,253,320 times and it would make no difference.
Because the left isn't going to accept or be subdued by those old writings.

It's going to require a clearly-written and irrefutable decision by the CURRENT Supreme Court to decide this one way or the other.

Even then, if the Court says "no" to birthright citizenship, it's going to require violence -- yes, I said VIOLENCE -- to impose this on the leftists.

If the High Court decides that the existing language and previous decisions SUPPORT the concept of birthright citizenship, then you all know what needs to be done. Just try and GET it done.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The Court is deciding whether the Executive can enforce deportation with no consideration given to the issue of illegal aliens born while… well, while they are here illegally.

I think I understood the case to be about “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, which has always been thought to mean that aliens born of illegal aliens residing or even being here, fall under that description.

That argument is cemented by the SCOTUS decision in Wong Kim Ark vs. The United States.

HOWEVER.

Wong Kim Ark was the child of legal residents. If the Court makes a ruling based on that difference, then the definition of Natural-born Citizen may also clear itself up.

Keep your fingers crossed.

[Luis Gonzalez]

BTW.

Without advocating violence here, they seem to be willing to go to that level to get what they want.

If we are unwilling to entertain the same option, why not just lower the flag and break our swords now?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Hey @Bigun, here are a couple of blasts from my blog’s past.

Birth of a Notion

Birth of a Notion, Part 2. Barack Obama and the XIV Amendment

[Bigun]

Hey @Bigun, here are a couple of blasts from my blog’s past.

Birth of a Notion

Birth of a Notion, Part 2. Barack Obama and the XIV Amendment

I've read them before @Luis Gonzalez and find nothing to disagree with in either.

Remember this?

SCOTUS has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens,

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

(A)ll children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

[Cyber Liberty]

We shall see what the Supreme Court has to say. 

Personally, I’ve got a betting pool going on what sorts of outlandish claims will be made that the Justices have been compromised when they fail to replace the clear language of the Constitution and the Congressional reports on the language with some bastardized version of Vattel.

The whinging and gnashing of teeth will be both amusing, expected, and disappointing.

I don't think this is the slam dunk you think it is.

[Kamaji]

I don't think this is the slam dunk you think it is.

We shall see, shant we.

[Cyber Liberty]

We shall see, shant we.

Yup!

ETA:  My personal bet...Amy and John are going to side with the Leftists and find against Trump 5-4.

[Kamaji]

Yup!

ETA:  My personal bet...Amy and John are going to side with the Leftists and find against Trump 5-4.

Consider:

Jackson - 100% we know how she will go

Kagan and Sotomayor - 90% we know how they will vote

Roberts - 80% we know how he will vote

Barrett - 75% to 80% we know how she will vote

Kavanaugh - 75% we know how he will vote

By my count, that's 6 to 3, at a minimum.

To me, the only real questions are (1) how will Gorsuch vote - I consider him a toss-up, and (2) will Thomas and Alito beclown themselves or not.

EDIT:  It's not a question of Barrett and Roberts "siding" with the liberals - it's a matter of looking at their past holdings and voting patterns to see how they're likely to vote in this instance.

[Cyber Liberty]

I think those are reasonable guesses. As you say, we'll see.  I think Barrett and Roberts will vote as you say...they do tend to go with what's "popular."

[Bigun]

Yup!

ETA:  My personal bet...Amy and John are going to side with the Leftists and find against Trump 5-4.

I pray you are wrong @Cyber Liberty because that would be the final nail in the coffin of this republic.

[libertybele]

I don't think this is the slam dunk you think it is.

Agreed, Roberts will more than likely vote against Trump.  Guarantee it.  Perhaps even Kavanaugh and Barrett will also vote against Trump.

I hope I am wrong because that would be an absolute disaster for our country.

[Kamaji]

Agreed, Roberts will more than likely vote against Trump.  Guarantee it.  Perhaps even Kavanaugh and Barrett will also vote against Trump.

I hope I am wrong because that would be an absolute disaster for our country.

Why?  It would simply ratify what has been the state of affairs for more than 100 years.

[DCPatriot]

Why?  It would simply ratify what has been the state of affairs for more than 100 years.

Recall an interview with Roberts BEFORE he was confirmed where he said outright that societal "norms' weigh heavy on ruling to overturn multi decades' old decisions.

It was why I wasn't surprised by his claiming the ACA premium was a "TAX"

Now we know how far he is willing to go.

[libertybele]

Why?  It would simply ratify what has been the state of affairs for more than 100 years.

...and .... it's been a major headache and the downfall of our country.  It has allowed people like Omar .... to be seated in Congress.

No worries. There is no way that Roberts is going to rule in favor of Trump on this issue.

[libertybele]

Recall an interview with Roberts BEFORE he was confirmed where he said outright that societal "norms' weigh heavy on ruling to overturn multi decades' old decisions.

It was why I wasn't surprised by his claiming the ACA premium was a "TAX"

Now we know how far he is willing to go.

He is a Bush appointee....any questions?

[DCPatriot]

He is a Bush appointee....any questions?

 

[Kamaji]

So, what's the kompromat this time around?

[DCPatriot]

So, what's the kompromat this time around?

LOL!  One of the earlier ones involved his adopted daughters being mentioned...their schools/schedules.

But I think it's morphed into Epstein's Island video now in Hillary Clinton's hands.   

[Kamaji]

LOL!  One of the earlier ones involved his adopted daughters being mentioned...their schools/schedules.

But I think it's morphed into Epstein's Island video now in Hillary Clinton's hands.   

Now do Barrett and Kavanaugh!

[DCPatriot]

Regarding Kavanaugh or Barrett...honestly cannot imagine either of them having a past that could embarrass them.