Supreme Court Rules on Birthright Citizenship

About 11 years after the landmark Supreme Court case, Obergefell, Daniel Horowitz expressed concerns over the potential redefinition of citizenship in his book Stolen Sovereignty. He described this as the “ultimate question” of civilization.

Today, his fears have come to fruition. In a decisive 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed that all children born in the United States are automatically granted citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, no matter their parents’ immigration status.

With the court’s decision now official, Horowitz remarks that the priority is not merely “analysis” but rather, shifting focus towards “intention.” He emphasizes the need to look ahead at the implications of this ruling.

On the latest episode of “Conservative Review,” he elaborates on why he believes this ruling represents a farcical overreach we can choose to challenge. “Ultimately,” he argues, “it isn’t what the court decides that matters but how Trump and the Republicans in Congress react to it.”

Horowitz described the outcome as a “Waterloo moment of judicial supremacy,” insisting that both the executive and legislative branches must act together. He suggests they recognize this decision and respond by limiting funding for citizenship-related processes.

“From this point, the path is clear,” he stated. “Congress must, through its budget reconciliation or appropriations bill, prohibit funds for issuing passports and birth certificates to those whose parents are not legal permanent residents.”

Turning to the executive branch, he remarked bluntly, “We should just say no.” He believes that it should be a primary focus for President Trump: “All the political resources should be directed toward cutting off funds for citizenship documentation and tourist visas for illegal aliens.”

Horowitz cautions against treating Supreme Court decisions as absolute law enforced by lifelong appointees. He warns, “Accepting these rulings as unchangeable is akin to allowing a tyranny worse than King George to govern our nation.”

He points out the irony that this ruling emerges during a significant week—the 250th anniversary of the Fourth of July—highlighting how unelected officials can instigate social changes without public consent or representation. He laments how this could lead to the dilution of civil rights and influence over governance.

“This concept of birthright citizenship was never ratified by us, and it shouldn’t be allowed to take root,” he asserts. For more in-depth discussion, viewers can check out the episode linked above.