Informalib🔍

Medical errors are the 3rd leading cause of death, killing 250,000-440,000 Americans each year. -John's Hopkins medical researchers cnbc.com/2018/02/22/med…

@jwludwig @shellig @NotTheirScript Yet the Ark case was argued with that fact, was it not? They don't always remain after having a child.

@Informalib @shellig @NotTheirScript The word domicile nowhere appears in the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. Having a child in the US and remaining here is evidence they are domiciled in the US.

Birthright citizenship isn’t just an immigration debate. It’s a question about what citizenship actually means. And right now, the answer is drifting toward geography. If being born within certain coordinates is enough, citizenship stops being something you belong to and starts being something you can simply access. That has real consequences over time. You end up with American citizens who may grow up entirely outside the US, shaped by foreign systems and different loyalties, yet still holding full rights and protections. Most countries have drawn a harder line on that. The deeper problem isn’t any one country gaming the system, it’s that the system can be gamed at all. Anything that grants something this valuable automatically will eventually be stretched beyond its original intent. Once that happens, you’re not really having an immigration debate anymore. You’re having a much bigger one about what it means to belong to this country, and whether that still means something.

A six month CBS investigation found no evidence that California’s highest in the nation gas prices are the result of price gouging, as state politicians have repeatedly claimed. Instead, the investigation found those prices are largely the result of California’s own policies.

Two birthright citizens, born to illegal immigrant parents from China, tried to bomb an Air Force base on American soil. Whoever they were “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” it wasn’t the United States of America.

Peter Schweizer highlights a troubling arrangement: some Mexican legislators actually reside in the United States while serving in Mexico’s Congress, including the Senate and Chamber of Deputies. Their official role is to represent Mexican Americans living in the U.S. to the Mexican government—meaning they live in American states (like Arizona) but draft and vote on Mexican laws. Schweizer frames this as a major breach of U.S. sovereignty, since these politicians—working for a foreign nation—operate from within the U.S. while advancing Mexico’s national interests. Mexican officials have even described the Mexican diaspora in America as a “strategic resource” to be leveraged for Mexico’s benefit. In short: • Mexican senators and deputies live in the U.S. • They legislate for Mexico while focusing on Mexican Americans. • The Mexican government views its population in the U.S. as a political asset. • Critics see it as a foreign government footprint inside the United States.

CNN reported on how migrants living perfectly safe and comfortable lives in Mexico are waiting until there is a Democrat president to enter the U.S. The majority of migrants entering the U.S. through Mexico are fake asylum seekers instructed to claim persecution in Latin America. thepostmillennial.com/cnn-inadverten…

"Because I learned about civic engagement during high school, I know how to go about dismantling processes that are inconsistent with my beliefs on justice." And we wonder why DC juries won't convict Democrats? Foundation / taxpayer money → Mikva Challenge → mandatory DCPS curriculum → 7 years of "power analysis" and "privilege & oppression" (grades 6-12) → adult → DC juror Mikva launched in DC in 2015. The first full cohort is now 21 and entering the jury pool. Thread end.

@ChrisVanHollen He's had a deportation order since 2018. He's no "asylum" seeker.

🚨 Ever Alvarenga, an asylum seeker, was driving to work Thursday morning when he was rear-ended by an ICE vehicle. He is still in the hospital after suffering significant injuries to his head, chest, back, & hands.   After the accident, he was detained & ICE now refuses to allow his attorneys to meet with him privately, a clear denial of the due process rights afforded to all under our Constitution.   ICE tactics are endangering our communities & violating the Constitution.

BREAKING: DHS tells @FoxNews that this “asylum seeker” is actually a Honduran illegal alien who has had a final deportation order since 2018, & when ICE targeted him in Baltimore, he fled in his vehicle at high speeds, slammed on his brakes and caused a multi car pileup, then he bailed out and ran away on foot before being chased down and arrested. DHS says two ICE agents were hospitalized as a result of the crash, and they are accusing Sen. Van Hollen (D-MD) of misrepresenting what happened here.

BREAKING: DHS confirms to @FoxNews that deceased Iranian general Soleimani’s niece first entered the U.S. in 2015 on a tourist visa, was granted asylum in 2019, then got her green card in 2021. She applied for U.S. citizenship last July, but disclosed she had traveled to Iran at least four times since getting her green card, which DHS says proves her asylum claim was fraudulent. She was arrested by ICE Los Angeles yesterday. DHS statement to FOX: “On April 3, 2026, ICE officers in Los Angeles arrested Hamideh Soleimani Afshar and Sarinasadat Hosseiny, the niece and grandniece of Qasem Soleimani, the late head of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps who was killed by a drone strike ordered by President Trump in 2020.    “Soleimani Afshar entered the United States in June 2015 on a tourist visa. In 2019, a judge granted her asylum. In 2021, she became a green card holder under the Biden Administration. In July 2025, she filed a naturalization application where she disclosed, she traveled to Iran at least four times since being issued a green card. Her trips to Iran illustrate her asylum claims were fraudulent.   “Her daughter, Sarinasadat Hosseiny, entered the United States in July 2015 on a student visa. In 2019, a judge granted her asylum. In 2023, she became a green card holder under the Biden administration. "It is a privilege to be granted green card to live in the United States of America. If we have reason to believe a green card holder poses a threat to the U.S., the green card will be revoked.”

@jwludwig And you're positive they can't use "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" for persons who are unlawfully in the US? They get due process and are sent to their home countries.

@Informalib @shellig @NotTheirScript This is a policy argument and not a legal argument. Courts have to apply the law as written.

The correct policy from the start should've been allowing birthright citizenship only if at least one parent was lawfully domiciled, just as they allowed in the Wong Kim Ark case. Did they even have such a thing as undomiciled illegal aliens birthing US citizens? Or foreigners coming in just to give birth? No? So lawfully domiciled (as in the Ark case) should be the prerequisite for birthright citizenship.

@jwludwig @shellig @NotTheirScript x.com/i/status/20400…

@shellig @NotTheirScript This is entirely consistent with the 14th Amendment. Illegal aliens are not subject to a foreign power when they are in the US. In the US they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US while foreign diplomats are not.

Exactly. Tourists who commit crimes, and illegal immigrants who commit crimes, do get arrested and processed. They also get deported and sometimes banned from returning. Even a civil infraction such as a visa overstay can get a non-citizen banned for 5-10 years. That's the due process for those non-citizens before they get sent back to their home countries.

Perhaps the problem is that "jurisdiction" is confusing when it really should NOT be. A non‑citizen remains subject to certain legal demands of their country of citizenship that cannot be imposed on citizens of another country, even while abroad and non‑resident.

@JonathanTurley We couldn't even get past the 2/3 of Congress necessary to propose an amendment. Our Legislative branch is completely non-functioning and useless.

The Hill just posted my column on the possible need for a 28th amendment on citizenship after the Supreme Court rules in Trump v. Barbara. The combination of open borders and open-ended citizenship is an existential threat to this Republic...thehill.com/opinion/immigr…

@NicoleC26578385 @JKash000 Also, "Supplemental Jurisdiction: The right of a federal court to hear an additional state law claim that is related to a case already under its federal jurisdiction".  - Legal Information Institute

"Jurisdiction refers to a court's legal authority to hear a case and make binding decisions. It is divided into types based on subject matter, geography, the parties involved, and the level of review, including Personal, Subject-Matter, Original, Appellate, Exclusive, Concurrent, Territorial, Federal Question, Diversity, In Rem, Quasi In Rem". Study.com

It’s amazing to me that for 128 years no President issued an EO challenging the Wong Kim Arc ruling. This is the first time any President has created the procedural setup to force SCOTUS to revisit the issue head-on. Trump created a live controversy by issuing an executive order on January 20, 2025, which gave the government a concrete legal dispute to defend in court—and ultimately appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. Here's how it worked step by step: 1. The Executive Order (EO 14160) changed policy and created immediate harm: Titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” it directed federal agencies (State Department, DHS, etc.) not to recognize U.S. citizenship at birth for children born in the U.S. after February 20, 2025, if their parents were either (a) unlawfully present or (b) lawfully present only temporarily, unless the father was a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. This directly contradicted the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment and the 1898 *United States v. Wong Kim Ark* precedent. 2. This created standing for challengers to sue: Affected families, expecting mothers, states, and groups like the ACLU immediately filed lawsuits (including the nationwide class action Barbara v. Trump). They had concrete injuries—denial of citizenship documents, passports, benefits, etc.—so they had standing to challenge the EO as unconstitutional. Lower courts (in multiple districts) quickly issued preliminary injunctions blocking the order, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.” 3. The Trump administration then had standing to defend and appeal: Once the EO was enjoined, the government became the defendant with a clear stake—its executive action was being blocked. It appealed the injunctions. After the Supreme Court’s earlier 2025 ruling limiting “nationwide injunctions” in a related birthright case, the litigation continued in narrower form, and the Court granted certiorari in Trump v. Barbara or similar consolidated cases. Oral arguments were held on April 1, 2026—Trump even attended in person, a historic first. Before this EO, there was no government action denying citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil under the Wong Kim Ark rule. Without a real-world policy change causing harm, courts had no “case or controversy” to decide—purely hypothetical challenges don’t get standing. The EO turned the abstract debate into an actual enforceable policy dispute, creating the vehicle for the administration to get the issue before the Supreme Court.

ActBlue Meltdown: Resignations, Legal Warnings, and a Perfect Storm for Democrats floppingaces.net/most-wanted/ac…

The biggest question isn’t what ActBlue did. It’s this: Why the hell did the New York Times just drop this deeply sourced nuke on their own golden goose RIGHT NOW? This wasn’t some rushed, half-assed hack job. It’s a cold-blooded, document-heavy slaughter packed with: Legal memos screaming “criminal” Internal Slack messages Resignation letters Direct interviews with insiders. No wiggle room. No denials. No escape hatch. The same media machine that’s spent years running cover for Democrats just torched their most vital financial engine... right before the midterms. Exactly when their money is already bleeding out. And perfectly synced as Trump’s DOJ wrecking crew steps into power. Democrats aren’t “confident.” They’re staring straight into a triple-threat apocalypse: funding collapse, criminal exposure, and a ticking clock all smashing them at once. (article below)

Junjie Zhang, also known as Jeff Zhang, 57, of Tulsa, Oklahoma, pleaded guilty to one count of making a false statement after lying to U.S. customs officials while attempting to board a flight to the People’s Republic of China with proprietary information belonging to his employer. Zhang, a naturalized United States citizen originally from China, worked for an aviation company in Wichita. His position as a senior material and process engineer provided him access to confidential data and proprietary information. In 2018, Zhang’s employer reported him to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) after an incident during a work trip to China where he displayed suspicious behavior. In September 2019, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) stopped Zhang at an airport in Dallas, Texas, as he was attempting to board a flight to China. During an interview, agents asked if he had any work-related information on his electronic devices to which he responded, “no”. Zhang told the agents the thumb drive and laptop he carried only contained personal information. However, when CBP agents examined the devices, they discovered documents belonging to Zhang’s employer marked “Proprietary” and “Confidential” along with graphs and blueprints associated with the aviation company’s work. Zhang then changed his story to say that his employer had given him permission to have the documents. CBP alerted the FBI who contacted Zhang’s employer. The company informed the FBI that Zhang was not authorized to have confidential documents on his personal devices or to leave the country with that information. justice.gov/usao-ks/pr/avi…