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 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.

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.

Tourists who commit crimes or simply overstay a visa (a civil infraction) and criminal illegal aliens do face penalties in the US.... Fines, imprisonment, removal, bans from returning, etc That due process is the extent of what they're entitled to. They are not lawfully domiciled in the US (as Wong Kim Arks parents were)

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…

INSANITY: The suspects connected to an attempt to plant an explosive device at MacDill Air Force Base are the children of ILLEGAL ALIENS. @ICEgov apprehended the suspects’ parents, Qiu Qin Zhou and Jia Zhang Zheng, illegal aliens from China. This attempted attack illustrates why the improper recognition of “birthright citizenship” for the children of illegal aliens is not only inconsistent with the Constitution, but endangers all Americans. dailywire.com/news/exclusive…

HUGE: The Chinese-Americans accused of attempting to explode an IED at MacDill Air Force Base Visitor’s center in Tampa were anchor babies for illegal parents, colleague @MaryMargOlohan reports. DHS nabbed the duo’s parents, Qiu Qin Zou and Jia Zhang Zheng, on March 18 for illegal entry. The parents applied for asylum in 1993, but were denied by an immigration judge, who issued them a deportation order in 1998. The Board of Immigration Appeals repeatedly denied their attempts to have their case reopened. Despite the repeated denials for status, they remained in the US. dailywire.com/news/exclusive…

@BK4HOF Hey Ron, I follow you and I'm sure we agree on most political issues but I'm always curious why people have visceral hatred for Israel. I had a father-in-law who had hatred for Jews because he seemed to be blaming them for World War 2.

Israel is killing peace negotiators.

@TheChiefNerd @marklevinshow I wouldn't kick anyone out of the MAGA tent and would hope that the one-issue voters don't stay home in the mid terms or throw their vote away on 3rd Parties or todays extreme Democrat Party.

@marklevinshow Not kicking people out of the MAGA tent for disagreeing on one issue (the Iran war) would be a good start

The Democrats are telling us, repeatedly, that if they win the House, they will impeach the president and conduct a reign of terror against all who work for him, all who have worked for him, and do everything possible to cripple his presidency. Now, what are we going to do about that and how are we going to prepare to confront this?  I don't expect on-the-spot immediate answers, but I do not think we should roll over and play dead as they burn down the country either.

Yes. But I don't understand how we went from allowing birthright citizenship to a child of parents who WERE lawfully domiciled, to allowing illegally entering migrants and birth tourists to give birth and we bestow full US citizenship on the children when they aren't subject to US jurisdiction. There are 12 types of jurisdiction and illegals and tourists don't fit in all the categories, as citizens and those with lawful domiciles do.

@Informalib Yes, but the case was used as the bedrock precedent on birthright citizenship (jus soli) for over 125 years, though it has never been directly revisited by the Supreme Court on the exact modern immigration categories at issue in recent litigation.

@DanielBaldwin_1 @evilwoman1979 Tourists who commit crimes and illegal criminal immigrants do get arrested. They also get deported and sometimes banned from returning. That's the extent of "jurisdiction" for them. Unfortunately Democrat- run cities don't cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

@Informalib @evilwoman1979 🤣🤣🤣 that explains a lot

@DanielBaldwin_1 @evilwoman1979 No, because tourists aren't lawfully domiciled in the US.

@evilwoman1979 @JKash000 So tourists who commit crimes can’t get arrested? And how do we even deport anyone if we don’t have jurisdiction over them?

NYTimes report on Dark Money in politics: "In the 2024 election cycle, over 40 percent of the nearly $2 billion raised by the largest Democratic super PACs came from entities that did not disclose their donors, according to the Times analysis. That was twice the rate of the largest Republican super PACs that cycle."

As fun as it is to see ActBlue exposed, one must always ask the motives when legacy media seemingly puts crosshairs on its own. It’s long been a goal of the “democracy” camp to overturn Citizens United and ban PAC money. Here’s the catch: they want to replace it with union money and taxpayer-funded money schemes much like the NGO gaming of subsidized campaigns which allowed Mamdani to win in NYC. They more or less are moving towards a total monopoly on campaign funds for Democrats. Yes, let’s enjoy the collapse of ActBlue. But beware.

Been researching DC juries this morning. Did you know that DC has a specific school curriculum which is mandatory from 6th to 12th grade which trains them in civic participation including juries? Students are taught how to look past the actual crime and evaluate all charges through "root causes" and equity. There's no chance of a favorable conviction in DC.