Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

Nothing like being rewarded for a job well done. Or, in Justin Trudeau's case, bringing an entire country to the brink of losing the respect of the entire world.

Maybe that's why Trudeau is reportedly getting not one but two pensions, and a $104,000 severance, totaling more than $8 million,  according to the Toronto Sun.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) released a chart Wednesday estimating pension and severance payouts for departing MPs.

“Pensions for former MPs depend on length of service and the rules at the time,” said CTF National Director Franco Terrazzano. “When Canadians see some of these numbers, the clear takeaway is that these political pensions are costing taxpayers too much money.”

The Sun writes that Former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is eligible for two pensions: one for nearly 17 years as an MP and another for his 10 years as PM. Together, they’re valued at about $8.4 million. Starting at age 55, he’ll receive $141,000 annually from his MP pension, and another $73,000 a year from his PM pension when he turns 67.

“Trudeau is also going to be getting a severance just shy of $105,000,” Terrazzano added. “When we speak of leadership at the top, the first place for politicians to reign in the perks is to end the second pension for future prime ministers.”

A total of 110 former MPs qualify for either a pension, severance, or both. Those who served fewer than six years are eligible for severance worth half their salary—$104,900.

Notable names entitled to both pension and severance include Niki Ashton, Rachel Blaney, Jagmeet Singh, Seamus O’Regan, and others.

Despite being eligible, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has said he will refuse his severance.

“There are 13 former MPs who will get an annual starting pension of more than $100,000, while the vast majority of private sector workers don’t even get a workplace pension,” said Terrazzano. “There definitely needs to be a culture change in Ottawa, and that has to start with our elected representatives.”

A recent study by Ladah Injury & Car Accident Lawyers, a Las Vegas-based personal injury firm, sheds light on which U.S. states have the highest rates of fatal crashes on interstates and freeways. Drawing on crash statistics from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s CDAN portal, the study reviewed data from 2019 to 2023 and ranked states based on the number of fatal freeway crashes per 100,000 residents.

Wyoming emerged as the state with the highest rate. With 5.4 fatal freeway crashes per 100,000 people, the state’s rate is nearly three times the national average of 1.9. Between 2019 and 2023, Wyoming averaged 31.6 fatal incidents annually. The worst year was 2023, which saw 42 fatalities, while the lowest number was 21 in 2021.

Coming in second was New Mexico, which recorded 4.3 fatal crashes per 100,000 residents—more than double the national average. The state averaged 91 fatal freeway crashes each year over the five-year period, peaking at 103 in 2023.

Missouri ranked third with a rate of 3.2 fatal crashes per 100,000 people. The state saw nearly 199 such incidents annually during the study period, with the highest number recorded in 2022 at 227 and the lowest in 2023 with 187.

Arkansas followed in fourth place, reporting 3.1 fatal freeway crashes per 100,000 people. It averaged just over 95 deadly incidents each year. The highest total came in 2023 with 107 crashes, and the lowest was in 2019 with 69.

Montana rounded out the top five. The state saw 2.92 fatal crashes per 100,000 residents, well above the national average. Over five years, Montana averaged 32 fatal incidents annually, with 2021 marking its highest year at 47 crashes.

Other states in the top ten included Mississippi, Alaska, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Texas—all with crash rates significantly above the national norm. Mississippi, for example, logged 2.89 fatal crashes per 100,000 people, while Texas, despite its much larger population, still had a high rate at 2.6.

A spokesperson for Ladah Law Firm pointed to several likely causes behind the high fatality rates: long stretches of rural highway, higher speed limits, and reduced visibility in remote areas.

“States like Wyoming, New Mexico, and Missouri consistently see alarmingly high rates of interstate freeway crashes,” the spokesperson said. “Factors such as long rural stretches, high-speed travel, and limited visibility often create dangerous driving conditions that put lives at risk every day.”

They also emphasized the human cost behind the numbers.

“Behind each of these incidents is a family changed forever — victims facing life-altering injuries or grieving unimaginable loss.”

The law firm called on policymakers to take concrete steps, recommending a stronger highway patrol presence, improved road lighting and signage, and the use of technology to monitor high-risk zones. Public education on speed control and defensive driving was also highlighted as a critical need.

“It’s time for decisive, proactive measures that prioritize lives over speed,” the spokesperson added.

Authored by Joseph C. Newtz via American Thinker,

America isn't a democracy but a constitutional republic designed to limit majority rule and protect individual rights. This distortion enables narratives that label dissent as dangerous, especially in portraying Trump as a "threat to democracy" -- a claim pushed by institutions caught spreading falsehoods about him. What appears as consensus is actually assigned opinion enforced by media and political power, as "conspiracy theories" used to silence dissent are proving to be true.

What follows is not just a list of lies -- it’s a pattern of systemic deception that reveals where the real threat lies.

The Concealment of President Biden’s Cognitive Decline: A Betrayal of Voters

For years, concerns about Joe Biden’s mental acuity were dismissed as partisan attacks or “conspiracy theories.” The White House physician declared him fit for office. Staffers claimed he “ran circles around them.” Meanwhile, public appearances were tightly controlled, questions were pre-approved, and scripted answers were passed off as spontaneous.

But in 2024, the dam broke. Biden’s debate performance made his decline undeniable. Millions had already cast primary ballots for a man clearly unfit to serve -- yet instead of outrage over the scale of the deception, voters watched passively as Kamala Harris stepped in as the de facto candidate.

It was an unconstitutional transfer of candidacy that the media refused to acknowledge. This wasn’t spin -- it was a deliberate, coordinated effort to deceive the American public about who was actually running the country.

All while, the same media complex screamed that Trump was the dictator.

If truth and transparency are foundational to democracy, then this widespread concealment -- and the resulting erosion of informed consent -- should outrage every American who values honest governance.

COVID-19: From "Conspiracy" to Consensus

When Trump suggested the virus originated in a lab, the idea was branded "xenophobic" and "debunked." Today, both the CIA and FBI assess a lab leak as probable. This pattern repeated across masks, school closures, natural immunity, and vaccine efficacy.

The CDC quietly redefined "vaccine" to accommodate products that didn't stop transmission, contradicting officials' earlier claims. Education leaders denied coordinating with teachers unions on prolonged school closures despite evidence proving otherwise, devastating children's mental health and education.

Throughout, Trump was vilified as "anti-science" for questioning narratives that later collapsed -- demonstrating how the "threat to democracy" label silences legitimate dissent.

Border Security: Denial Amid Crisis

While Trump was called xenophobic for demanding border security, his policies effectively curbed illegal crossings without new legislation. In contrast, Biden officials dismantled these effective policies while insisting only Congress could solve the problem.

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told Congress the administration had "operational control" of the border -- while record-breaking illegal entries, overwhelmed facilities, and surging cartel activity told a very different story.

They claimed to be addressing the “root causes” of migration, yet crossings exploded to historic levels. They blamed Trump’s policies as inhumane while ignoring the actual consequences of their own: trafficking increased, fentanyl poured into American communities, and untold lives were lost in the chaos.

Common sense was discarded. Hatred for Trump outweighed concern for national security and human suffering. While illegal immigrants were given free housing, food, and healthcare, American veterans went neglected, seniors faced rising medical costs, and cities buckled under homelessness and resource strain.

These are not partisan talking points -- they are 90/10 issues that should unify Americans regardless of party. But the public was instead gaslit into believing that caring about your own country’s sovereignty is xenophobic or cruel.

The Russia Investigation and Intelligence Abuses

The Trump-Russia narrative -- foundation for claims that Trump threatened democracy -- collapsed when Mueller found no evidence of conspiracy. Later revelations proved more damning: FBI lawyer Clinesmith falsified evidence for a FISA warrant; the Steele dossier contained deliberately false information paid for by Trump's opponents; exculpatory evidence in the Michael Flynn case was concealed.

The great irony here is staggering: while Trump was accused of being a threat to democratic institutions, those very institutions were being weaponized against him in unprecedented ways. The real undermining of democratic norms came not from Trump, but from those who claimed to be defending democracy against him.

Media Collusion and Information Control

Today's media no longer informs -- it enforces. The New York Post was banned for reporting verified facts about Hunter Biden. Trump's "very fine people" comment was maliciously edited to hide his explicit condemnation of neo-Nazis. His reference to a new technique for sterilizing blood was twisted into a narrative that he told people to "inject bleach."

These aren't mistakes but engineered falsehoods meant to dehumanize political opponents. In a genuine democracy, media checks power; instead, American media has become a propaganda arm defending institutional power while demonizing challengers.

Government Institutions as Political Weapons

Government institutions have been weaponized for political ends while accusing Trump of authoritarianism. Under Obama, the IRS targeted conservative groups. The DoJ labeled concerned parents at school board meetings as potential terrorists. Security clearances and FISA warrants were politically manipulated.

Classified document cases reveal a two-tiered justice system: aggressive prosecution for Trump versus leniency for Biden and Clinton. January 6th defendants faced harsh treatment compared to 2020 rioters who caused far more destruction.

Federal agencies have colluded with social media to suppress dissent -- raising serious First Amendment concerns. The January 6th Committee's selective editing of evidence and exclusion of exculpatory information about Trump exemplifies how "defending democracy" shields undemocratic behavior.

The Inversion of Reality: Who Truly Threatens Democracy?

Logic dictates a simple conclusion: if nearly every major anti-Trump narrative -- from Russian collusion to COVID origins to Biden’s cognitive health -- has collapsed under scrutiny, what basis remains for believing Trump threatens democracy?

The aftermath is equally clear: if the institutions aligned against him -- intelligence agencies, media conglomerates, and political operatives -- have repeatedly misled the public, their credibility to define “danger” is null. The louder they sound the alarm, the more they reveal about themselves: suppressing information, weaponizing government agencies, manipulating elections, and discarding due process when politically convenient.

And yet, instead of acknowledging the obvious, many Americans now defend manufactured narratives that make intelligent people sound irrational. Reasonable citizens abandon common sense -- not because the facts changed, but because the media relentlessly promulgates assigned opinions that demand emotional loyalty over objective thought. Issues that should unite 90% of the public -- like stopping child trafficking, securing borders, or caring for veterans -- become polarizing, not on principle, but because they’re associated with the “wrong” political figure.

Restoring Sanity, Reclaiming Sovereignty

Democracy cannot function without informed citizens. And citizens cannot be informed when they are being systematically lied to -- by government agencies, media platforms, and political leaders who view the truth as a threat to power.

The real crisis in America isn’t Donald Trump. It’s the normalization of institutional lying, the abandonment of due process, and the transformation of journalism into narrative enforcement.

Until we reject assigned opinions and return to objective truth and transparency, we will remain ruled not by reason, but by illusion. Meanwhile, those who shout loudest about “threats to democracy” conceal their actions in shadows -- while figures like Trump operate in full view. If this inversion continues, “government by the people” will be reduced to a hollow phrase -- masking a system of manipulation, not representation.

The time has come for Americans across the political spectrum to acknowledge the pattern of deception and demand better. Our constitutional republic depends on it.

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Supreme Court on May 20 reinstated a Maine state lawmaker’s speaking and voting privileges that had been suspended over her criticism of males participating in girls’ high school sports.

Maine State Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn), speaks with a colleague at the State House in Augusta on Feb. 14, 2023. Robert F. Bukaty/AP File

In March, the speaker of the Maine House of Representatives barred Maine Rep. Laurel Libby, a Republican, from speaking or voting on the House floor until she recanted her views on Maine’s policy allowing transgender participation in school sports, according to the lawmaker’s application filed with the court.

On May 20, the Supreme Court granted Libby’s request for an injunction blocking the House policy as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit considers the case. The unsigned order did not provide reasons for the decision.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor indicated she would deny the application. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a dissent from the granting of the application.

A federal district court previously denied Libby’s application for a preliminary injunction, finding legislative immunity prevented the court from acting because the speaker’s “sanction” was a “legislative act” and the disenfranchisement of the voters in Libby’s legislative district was not so “extraordinary” as to override immunity.

Libby appealed to the First Circuit, which also declined to block the House policy.

In her April 28 application to the Supreme Court, Libby challenged the speaker’s decision to suspend her privileges as a lawmaker.

“The verbal censure (unwise as it may be) is not what Applicants challenge here. It’s what happened next.

“The Speaker declared Libby was barred from speaking or voting until she recants her view. This means her thousands of constituents in Maine House District 90 are now without a voice or vote for every bill coming to the House floor for the rest of her elected term, which runs through 2026.

“The ongoing and indefinite denial of Libby’s voting rights is unprecedented,” the application said, adding that the U.S. House of Representatives found long ago that the Constitution forbids that chamber from preventing one of its members from voting.

“The member’s vote is not her own; it belongs to her district. And depriving an entire district of representation is no more constitutional than excluding that district from a redistricting plan in the first place. … The same rules apply in Maine.”

On May 8, Maine’s House Speaker Ryan Fecteau, a Democrat, filed a brief urging the Supreme Court not to take up the case.

The brief said that on Feb. 17, Libby “targeted” a high school student who had competed in an event “because that student is transgender,” and identified that student by name. The post, written on her official Facebook account, “quickly went viral,” according to the brief.

Fecteau said he saw the post and “was immediately concerned about the student’s safety and welfare” and sent a letter to Libby, urging her to delete the post. Libby declined.

The Maine House passed a resolution with a vote of 75 to 70, requiring Libby to “accept full responsibility for the incident and publicly apologize to the House and to the people and the State of Maine,” the brief said.

“Like other censures of Maine House members, the censure resolution required Rep. Libby to apologize for her conduct—not recant her views.”

Libby declined to apologize, the brief noted. Fecteau determined that Libby had violated House rules and ruled she could not participate in floor debates and floor votes until she apologized.

The speaker said that Libby “retains all other legislative privileges and continues to enjoy considerable means to advance and oppose legislation and otherwise represent her constituents,” despite those restrictions.

In her dissent, Justice Jackson wrote that Libby’s application isn’t an emergency and fails to meet the “high bar” imposed by the federal All Writs Act, which gives the Supreme Court authority to issue injunctions. She said that the First Circuit is “moving quickly to evaluate the legal issues this case presents,” and oral argument is scheduled for the coming weeks.

Libby has failed to show that her right to the relief she requested is “indisputably clear,” Jackson wrote, citing a legal precedent.

This leaves “many difficult questions,” such as whether there are limits to state legislatures’ power to bind lawmakers to ethics rules, and whether federal courts may determine if those rules are improper, Jackson wrote.

For example, “Does it violate a representative’s First Amendment rights to be subject to sanction under such rules, and does it make a difference what the sanction is?”

“This Court has neither addressed nor answered most of these questions,” Jackson wrote.

Authored by Allan Stein via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

CHIMNEY ROCK, N.C.—North Carolina officials estimate that it will take many years, many hands, and up to $60 billion to recover from the widespread devastation caused by Hurricane Helene in late September 2024.

Allan Stein/The Epoch Times

In the historic village of Chimney Rock, located in the western part of the state, a dedicated army of volunteers has been providing much-needed assistance to the recovery effort at no cost.

“It hasn’t required much funding,” Shane Zoccole, founder and director of the South Carolina-based disaster relief nonprofit Spokes of Hope, said.

Zoccole told The Epoch Times that the recovery effort in Chimney Rock is primarily driven by volunteers.

“Chimney Rock is essential to the valley—it’s the commerce of this area,“ he said. ”We felt led to help the businesses, to help the people here, and to get this town to stay on the map instead of going off the map.”

Since October 2024, Zoccole has led more than 2,000 volunteers from various nonprofits willing to help without compensation.

Among the volunteers are hundreds of Amish and Mennonite people from Ohio and Pennsylvania who are ready to go the distance, he said.

“We eat breakfast by 8 a.m., work orders go out, we’re working by 8:30, and then we work until just about 6 p.m., when dinner is served,” Zoccole said.

“It’s been all the moving parts connecting with local business owners and volunteers across the nation.”

He said it has been a collaborative effort since the hurricane made a lasting impact on the landscape eight months ago.

Zoccole founded Spokes of Hope in 2018 after Hurricane Florence caused nine deaths and resulted in $2 billion in damages across South Carolina.

However, that was dwarfed by the destruction caused by Hurricane Helene, he said.

Much of Chimney Rock, a village in western North Carolina’s Hickory Nut Gorge on the eastern slopes of the Blue Ridge Mountains, was either damaged, destroyed, or buried under several feet of mud.

The bridge over the Rocky Broad River, leading to the state park near the village, collapsed in the rising floodwaters, which reached a height of 20 feet.

The ferocious wind, powerful currents, and heavy rain swept away several businesses along the river. All that remained were the concrete foundations.

Near the Bat Cave residential area, a ticket booth remained on its side, while the stately homes further upriver lay in ruins or exhibited heavy damage. Many homes that survived the torrent were no longer safe for habitation.

“Still here, still standing,” read a sign on a house that remained livable.

(Top) A ticket booth lies on its side near the center of Chimney Rock Village, N.C., on May 6, 2025. Hurricane Helene struck the southeastern United States in late September 2024, bringing catastrophic flooding to western North Carolina, East Tennessee, and southwestern Virginia. (Bottom) A house that withstood Hurricane Helene displays a sign of hope in Chimney Rock Village, N.C., on May 6, 2025. Allan Stein/The Epoch Times

Confronted with such devastation, Zoccole’s initial reaction was that using a bulldozer to clear the wreckage would be a more effective solution than implementing a reconstruction plan for the village.

Nonetheless, Zoccole and his relief volunteers refused to give up on the community.

“We have to go to the finish,” he said.

“If we don’t finish something that we’ve started, then we’ve [basically] told these people we’re only here part-time for you. We’re only here to help you a little bit.”

Members of the U.S. Army’s 101st Airborne Division arrived in early October 2024, armed with buckets and shovels to clear the knee-deep mud and allow other volunteers to begin repairs.

By early May, volunteers had removed tons of silt and debris from the water-damaged shops. They rebuilt several of them to code using donated and repurposed materials and equipment.

Although many shops remain closed for repairs, Chimney Rock Village no longer bears the worst scars from the hurricane.

Zoccole noted that considerable work remains, as the village business center plans to reopen this summer, possibly in June.

“Our success is in our unity. We’ve been able to pull together ahead of schedule,” he said.

A Storm Like No Other

Chimney Rock Village, located in Rutherford County, has a rural population of about 140 residents. It is one of the 39 counties in North Carolina designated as a critical disaster area following Hurricane Helene.

The hurricane struck Florida with winds of 140 mph on Sept. 26, 2024, before moving into North Carolina the next morning and causing severe rain, flooding, and deadly landslides across much of the western third of the state.

A welcome sign greets visitors to Chimney Rock Village, N.C., on May 6, 2025. The small Rutherford County town, home to about 140 residents, is one of 39 North Carolina counties designated a critical disaster area after Hurricane Helene. Allan Stein/The Epoch Times

In certain regions, rainfall accumulation reached as much as 30 inches. The storm caused damage to, or destroyed, more than 73,000 homes, roads, and bridges across 6,900 sites, including the heavily trafficked Interstate 40.

The storm claimed more than 100 lives across the state and directly caused 176 deaths across the southeastern region, with seven residents still unaccounted for in North Carolina, according to federal government data.

One resident of Chimney Rock Village lost her life during the storm, which was deemed the worst since Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

According to a revised North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management assessment, the estimated multi-year recovery costs are nearly $60 billion.

The report estimates the storm’s total economic impact at more than $16 billion, which includes $3 billion in direct damages to businesses, and more than $12 billion in lost revenue, excluding wages and income.

Then-North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper requested $3.9 billion from the General Assembly to support struggling communities. Of this total, $1.2 billion has already been allocated, with an additional $225 million set aside in reserve.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has designated $850 million for this initiative, which includes the deployment of 8,500 personnel for emergency response.

‘Nothing but Mud’

Erica Stafford, 40, is the head chef and kitchen manager at Lured Market and Grill near Lake Lure and Chimney Rock.

She said she has witnessed powerful storms and the death and economic havoc they leave behind, but Helene seemed to be far worse.

“Nobody expected it to be what it was,” Stafford said. “Even living here, I thought, ‘Well, there’ll be some flooding. We’re going to have a tree down. We’re going to be out of power.’ Nobody expected the amount of damage done.

“It was such a mess. I got down here, and it was nothing but mud.”

Read the rest here...

Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

An Arizona grand jury has indicted 22 individuals and entities linked to a massive Medicaid fraud scheme involving sober living homes.

The Arizona and American flags blow in the wind in Terra Vista, Ariz., on March 5, 2025. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

The charges include money laundering, theft, conspiracy, fraudulent schemes, patient referral fraud, and forgery, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes announced Tuesday.

These indictments are part of an ongoing investigation into a $2.7 billion fraud that exploited Arizona’s health care system, particularly targeting Native Americans seeking treatment for drug and alcohol addiction.

According to the charge document, the 20 individuals indicted are associated with a church and a mental health organization called Happy House Behavioral Health. Prosecutors allege that Happy House was paid over $60 million for services that were either never rendered or only partially completed. Some of the billing, they say, was for clients who were deceased or incarcerated.

Prosecutors also allege that sober living facilities referred clients to Happy House, which in turn received funds from the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS), the state’s Medicaid agency. Happy House then allegedly paid the referring sober homes for those client placements, an arrangement at the center of the fraudulent scheme charges.

Among the money laundering charges is a $5 million payment that Happy House allegedly made in July 2023 to Hope of Life International Church, which later transferred $2 million to an entity in Rwanda.

Lawyers representing Happy House and Hope of Life International Church could not be immediately reached for comments.

More than 100 individuals and multiple companies have so far been charged in cases cases tied to Arizona’s sweeping crackdown on Medicaid fraud and unlicensed sober living homes, many of which specifically targeted members of Native American tribes.

Starting around 2019, scammers lured individuals into fraudulent treatment programs by promising food, shelter, and addiction recovery services. Instead, they were placed in sober living homes where operators often allowed or even encouraged continued drug and alcohol use, according to state officials. Victims were often cut off from family contact, and in some cases held against their will, the charges allege.

“Isolated by these organizations, people had to escape out of windows and jump over fences in the middle of the night just to access a phone to reach the outside world,” said Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs in 2023, during the announcement of a crackdown that suspended payments to 102 providers.

Meanwhile, the scammers overbilled the American Indian Health Program, a Medicaid plan for tribal members, for services that were never provided. AHCCCS said between 2019 and 2022, outpatient behavioral health claims surged from $53 million to $668 million.

In response to what Hobbs described as a humanitarian crisis, the state launched a $6 million grant in November 2024 to support tribal communities harmed by the scam.

In April, Hobbs signed a law tightening oversight of sober living homes. Under the new law, the Arizona Department of Health Services will establish standards for facilities to ensure a drug- and alcohol-free environment and promote recovery. The department will also have authority to suspend or revoke licenses, or fine violators up to $1,000 for each day a violation remains unaddressed.

At a minimum, the law requires the department to conduct annual inspections, track complaints, and report to lawmakers how many led to investigations or enforcement actions.

Authored by Gabriel Canaan via American Thinker,

On the very day Donald Trump became president again, he signed an executive order prospectively eliminating birthright citizenship for children born to aliens unlawfully present in the United States.

Immediately, lawsuits were filed in a half-dozen jurisdictions across the country challenging this order.

The groups bringing these suits claim the order disrupts long-standing legal norms governing citizenship. Yet, in fact, Trump’s contention — that birthright citizenship is not possessed by children of illegal aliens under the “correct interpretation of the law” — is exactly right.

Birthright citizenship is conventionally understood to apply to any child born in the United States, regardless of the immigration status of that child’s parents. This view is based on the common law principle of jus soli (“right of soil”), which is said to be incorporated in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This understanding of the Citizenship Clause, however, despite its prevalence in academia and political commentary, is based on a mistaken and incomplete reading of controlling Supreme Court precedent.

In fact, birthright citizenship, as provided for in the Citizenship Clause, as that clause has been authoritatively construed by the Supreme Court, is possessed only by children born in the United States to at least one parent who is lawfully residing in the United States.

Ratified in the aftermath of the Civil War with the aim of remedying the injustices of the Dred Scott decision, the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to “all persons born ... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This latter phrase has been wrongly equated with “subject to the laws thereof,” and thus to entail that all persons born in the United States are U.S. citizens, with only a few narrow exceptions, such as children born to diplomats.

Yet the Supreme Court has construed the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” more narrowly, most notably in seminal cases that have been taught — well or ill — in law schools ever since.

In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, decided when American Indians were increasingly integrating into mainstream American society, presented the constitutional issue of whether Indians who had been born within the allegiance of a tribe were “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth, and thus born American citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court ruled that they were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, on the ground that “jurisdiction” in the Citizenship Clause meant complete jurisdiction, which implied “direct and immediate allegiance” to the United States. The parents of children born in the allegiance of a tribe had only indirect and intermediate allegiance to the United States, through their tribe. (Today, by a subsequent act of Congress, Indians born on reservations are U.S. citizens at birth.)

Twelve years later, in Wong Kim Ark v. United States, the citizenship status of an American-born man of Chinese descent was the issue.

Wong Kim Ark had been born in San Francisco to Chinese nationals, and had been denied entry to the United States after returning from a visit to China as an adult. At the time, Chinese nationals were precluded by treaty from naturalizing as U.S. citizens. Nevertheless, after recounting the history of the common-law jus soli doctrine, and its influence on our Constitution, the Court held that, because the petitioner had been born to parents lawfully residing in the United States, he had been born within the “allegiance and protection” of the United States, and therefore at birth was “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. He was thus born a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment.

That the petitioner’s parents had resided here with the permission of the United States was central to the Court’s holding. Chinese nationals who remain “subjects of the Emperor of China…are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here,” the decision reads, “and are ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the same sense as all other aliens [lawfully] residing in the United States” (emphasis added). The Court explained that to “reside,” in this usage, means to live in a place with the intent to remain there, but not necessarily indefinitely. It is a broader category than “domiciled,” and could apply to long-term visa holders, as well as to lawful permanent residents.

The Court’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment thus limits its application to children of aliens residing in the country with permission. This requirement implies that children born to foreign nationals living in the country without permission are not subject to its jurisdiction, and that mere tourists, since they are only visiting and do not reside here, also are not so subject. This crucial qualification of common law birthright citizenship by the requirements of both residence and permission therefore excludes from citizenship at birth children both of tourists and of those residing in this country without permission — that is, illegal aliens.

To disregard these requirements would involve interpreting the Court to mean that illegal aliens are within the “allegiance and protection” of the United States.

But the Court specifically stated otherwise, holding that Chinese nationals who were not permitted to reside in the United States were not within its allegiance and protection. The Court could hardly have held otherwise. The phrase “allegiance and protection” describes the reciprocal obligations of citizens and the state that are foundational to a nation. Since illegal aliens are at all times subject to apprehension and deportation, they can hardly be regarded as within the “protection” of the United States.

In further evidence that Wong Kim Ark held that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States for citizenship purposes, the Court cited to its own earlier ruling in another immigration case, from 1893, Fong Yue Ting v. United States. There, the Court addressed the legal status of non-resident or unlawfully-present aliens: while they are subject to our laws, they remain outside the government’s “complete jurisdiction.” Had the Court held in Wong Kim Ark that all children born in the United States and subject to its laws — such as illegal aliens—were citizens, it would have run afoul of the combined holdings of Elk — that jurisdiction for citizenship purposes means complete jurisdiction — and of Fong Yue Ting — that illegal aliens and non-resident aliens are outside the complete jurisdiction of the United States. The residence and permission requirements of Wong Kim Ark are therefore necessary to harmonize that case with those prior cases.

Wong Kim Ark’s inclusion of residence and permission requirements marks the Court’s departure from the English common law understanding of birthright citizenship in favor of one more compatible with American constitutional principles.

Indeed, leading constitutional scholars at the time noted that the American approach required residence while the British did not.

The doctrine of jus soli as articulated by common law scholars such as Coke and Blackstone is a product of feudalism: a subject owes a duty of perpetual loyalty to the Crown under the protection of which he is born.

In stark contrast, the American Revolution severed the colonies’ duty to the king in favor of a compact operating by consent of the governed rather than by perpetual, unchosen duty. The purpose of the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment was not to reinstate the common law version of birthright citizenship; rather, it was to extend the principles of the Declaration of Independence to freed slaves and to nonwhite immigrants such as Chinese-Americans.

As it is currently applied, birthright citizenship not only returns us to a feudal past, but also undermines the ability of the people of the United States to set forth standards by which children born to foreign nationals may become citizens. It incentivizes “birth tourism” and mass illegal immigration, both of which treat the United States as a provider of material benefits rather than a political community towards which one owes allegiance and duties. Unlike illegal aliens and temporary guests, lawful permanent residents are incentivized to invest in their political community, and to adopt the customs and civic responsibilities of that community. Their children’s subsequent inheritance of those responsibilities further facilitates assimilation and social cohesion.

The rule of Wong Kim Ark v. United States reflects the compact approach to self-government inherent in the founding principles of this country while serving the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment. Applying the rule as it was intended to be understood would remedy the above-mentioned policy deficiencies of an over-expansive view of birthright citizenship without the need to amend the Constitution, and efficiently resolve the flurry of lawsuits against President Trump’s executive order.

Gabriel Canaan is an attorney at the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) in Washington, DC.  A native of Southern California, he is a graduate of William & Mary Law School, and, prior to joining IRLI, served as a law clerk on the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs.

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Supreme Court on May 22 voted 4–4 to reject authorization for the nation’s first publicly funded religious charter school.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on May 19, 2025. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself and did not participate in the case known as Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond. The respondent is Gentner Drummond, Oklahoma’s attorney general.

The Supreme Court’s unsigned opinion consists of one sentence: “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.” No reasons for the ruling were provided.

As the vote resulted in a tie, under court rules, the lower court ruling being appealed is affirmed.

On June 25, 2024, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled against the school, ordering the school board to cancel the contract and finding that the school was a governmental entity.

The court determined that, since the school was deemed a state actor, denying it charter status did not violate the free exercise clause.

The state court also found that the school’s contract with the school board violated the Oklahoma Constitution’s prohibition against “using public money for the benefit or support of any religious institution.”

This is a developing story and will be updated.