2,387 videos 1,376,944,188 views US Joined Aug 30, 2018
Charlie Kirk is the Founder and President of Turning Point USA, the largest and fastest growing conservative youth activist organization in the country with over 250,000 student members, over 150 full-time staff, and a presence on over 2,000 high school and college campuses nationwide. Charlie is also the Chairman of Students for Trump, which aims to activate one million new college voters on campuses in battleground states in the lead up to the 2020 presidential election. His social media reaches over 100 million people per month and according to Axios, he is one of the "top 10 most engaged" Twitter handles in the world. He is also the host of “The Charlie Kirk Show,” which regularly ranks among the top news shows on Apple podcast charts.
Andrew Kolvet on Supreme Court's Birthright Citizenship Ruling: A Constitutional Travesty That Devalues American Citizenship
Andrew Kolvet and Blake Neff break down the Supreme Court's devastating 6-3 ruling on birthright citizenship in Trump v. Barbara, joined by former DOJ Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle. The decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Amy Coney Barrett and the three liberal justices, declares that children of illegal immigrants, tourists, and foreign nationals born on U.S. soil automatically become citizens. Kolvet argues this bastardizes the intent of the 14th Amendment's authors and transforms American citizenship from a covenant of allegiance into a feudal system where mere presence on U.S. soil grants lifelong citizenship, potentially even allowing a child born to Chinese tourists in Guam to one day become president.
The Supreme Court's Devastating Birthright Citizenship Decision
In what Andrew Kolvet describes as "an absolute travesty," the Supreme Court delivered its final ruling of the term in Trump v. Barbara, the birthright citizenship case. The 6-3 decision, with Chief Justice John Roberts joined by the three liberal justices and Amy Coney Barrett, struck down President Trump's executive order attempting to limit birthright citizenship to children of lawful permanent residents and U.S. citizens.
Blake Neff, speaking from the studios in Phoenix, Arizona, notes that while many court watchers predicted this outcome based on oral arguments and prediction markets, the blow still stings. The ruling declares that every child born on U.S. soil—whether to Chinese tourists in Saipan, illegal immigrants crossing the border, or guest workers—automatically becomes a U.S. citizen for life under the 14th Amendment.
The most troubling aspect, Kolvet emphasizes, is that the Court interpreted this as a constitutional matter rather than statutory. This means the only ways to overturn the decision would be through a constitutional amendment or a future Supreme Court case that reverses this precedent, similar to how Roe v. Wade was eventually overturned.
The Founders' Intent vs. The Court's Interpretation
Kolvet presents compelling historical evidence that contradicts the Court's interpretation. An official transcript from May 30, 1866, shows Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the 14th Amendment, explicitly stating: "This of course will not include persons born in the United States who are foreigners or aliens."
Former DOJ Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle joins the discussion to unpack the ruling's implications. He points out that the fundamental question at stake is: "What is American citizenship? What does it actually mean?" But Mizelle identifies an even deeper issue that Justice Clarence Thomas flags in his dissent—the question of what type of government America has.
"The opinion endorsed by Amy Coney Barrett, John Roberts, and the three liberals is a feudal system of government where we are subjects and not citizens," Mizelle explains. He argues that Roberts is drawing from the British tradition where being born on the king's land meant belonging to the king—the exact form of government America rebelled against.
A Feudal System Disguised as Constitutional Law
Justice Thomas's dissent emphasizes that America operates on a system of lineage and domicile, not mere physical presence. Mizelle elaborates: "It's not enough to just be passing through the United States to have given birth here and now all of a sudden you are a subject of a king. Rather, if you are domiciled here, if you are saying to the United States, I'm going to give you allegiance and in return I want your protection, then the United States has struck a deal with you."
Mizelle sees the ultimate irony in the left's celebration of this ruling: "While they're out marching around the country yelling about no kings, they have adopted a fundamental system of citizenship that essentially incorporates kingship into United States government."
The Emotional Rather Than Legal Nature of Roberts' Opinion
Blake Neff observes that Justice Roberts' decision contains numerous citations to Dred Scott v. Sanford, the infamous pre-Civil War case. He suggests Roberts seems "held hostage by sappy stories he heard growing up," resulting in what feels like "a very emotional decision as opposed to a purely legal one."
Mizelle agrees there's an emotional quality to the majority opinion, even in "some of the attacks and things that they waged against Justice Thomas and his dissent." He references Plato's concept of philosopher kings who remain "off the grid" and focused solely on interpreting law without political interference—something Roberts has repeatedly failed to do.
The Shocking Implications: Chinese Birth Tourism and Presidential Eligibility
Kolvet raises a disturbing question: Does this ruling mean a child born to Chinese tourists in Guam could someday become president? Mizelle confirms this is exactly what the ruling enables.
"It's even worse than that," Mizelle adds, "because if you actually look at how easy it is for a Chinese national to go to Guam, to go to Northern Mariana Islands, they don't even need a visa. They can just apply online." A pregnant Chinese woman can travel there for 14-15 days, give birth, and return home with a U.S. citizen child.
This raises the fundamental question of allegiance. "To whom do you owe an allegiance?" Mizelle asks. "Does that US citizen get to be used by the CCP? Absolutely. Do they get to be used by the PRC against the interest of the United States? Absolutely."
The 14th Amendment's True Purpose
Mizelle explains that the 14th Amendment was designed to correct the injustice of Dred Scott by granting citizenship to formerly enslaved Black Americans. "These are individuals who had no other homeland. They owed allegiance to no other country. Some of these individuals fought in battles on behalf of the United States."
The contrast couldn't be starker. The 14th Amendment rewarded people with undivided allegiance to America with "the greatest thing that we could give them as a nation, citizenship." Now, according to the Supreme Court, people with allegiance to China, El Salvador, Honduras, or any other country automatically receive this precious gift simply by being born on U.S. soil.
As Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent, the ruling "devalues all of our citizenship."
Creating a Two-Tier Citizenship System
Blake Neff identifies a disturbing irony: the 14th Amendment was meant to prevent a caste system and hierarchy of citizens, yet this ruling creates exactly that. "It feels like America is headed towards the point where we're going to have a hierarchy of people who are merely only citizens of the United States and then people who have their backup, their fallback, their alternative citizenship because they're actually Chinese."
Neff emphasizes his own position: "I'm ride or die for America and nothing else." But birth tourists and their children have options—they can benefit from U.S. citizenship while maintaining primary allegiance elsewhere.
What Can Be Done?
Since the Supreme Court ruled this is constitutional rather than statutory, Congress cannot simply pass a law to fix it. However, Mizelle suggests several actions the Trump administration and Congress can take:
Impose stricter visa laws preventing heavily pregnant women from entering the United States
Eliminate dual citizenship to reinforce that Americans can only have allegiance to a single country
Make this issue a litmus test for future Supreme Court nominees
Work toward either a constitutional amendment or a future case that overturns this precedent
Kolvet notes that Senator Eric Schmitt has already posted about making opposition to this ruling a litmus test for judicial nominees. Future justices must answer definitively: "What constitutes a citizen? What is birthright? What does the 14th amendment actually mean?"
The Problem We've Known About for Years
The show plays a clip from CBS in 2013 featuring a Chinese family who traveled to Los Angeles specifically so their daughter could be born in America and claim U.S. citizenship. The father explains, "I want her to live a happy life." The family returned to China with their American citizen child.
The CBS report documented thousands of Chinese families becoming "birth tourists," staying in maternity hotels near Los Angeles—often single-family homes in quiet neighborhoods. Kolvet expresses frustration that this has been a known problem for over a decade, yet the Supreme Court has now enshrined it as constitutional law. These children can now potentially become president of the United States.
The Historical Precedent of the Indian Citizenship Act
Chad Mizelle points out another troubling aspect of the ruling: it contradicts how America historically understood the 14th Amendment. Native Americans born within U.S. jurisdiction were not automatically considered citizens under the 14th Amendment because they were deemed to have allegiance to tribal nations.
Congress had to pass the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924, signed by Calvin Coolidge, to clarify their citizenship status. This historical fact proves that physical birth on U.S. soil was never considered sufficient for citizenship—allegiance mattered.
Mizelle also notes that this ruling affects international relations: "If I'm France, if I'm another European country, for example, I'm also pissed off about today's ruling because that means a French national who happens to give birth in the United States, now you, the United States, are claiming that child is your citizen as opposed to a French citizen."
What Makes Someone an American?
Kolvet shares a powerful clip of himself defining American citizenship: "We have reduced Americanism down to well, have you filled out your paperwork? The best way I can answer it, it is someone that has demonstrated through objective measurements and markers that this is home. That you have more than respect or reverence. That you're willing to die. That you are all-in. That this is a place that you're willing to bleed for and sacrifice for."
He continues: "This is not a dumping ground for the third world. This is not a social experiment. You had a tear in your eye on July 4th. That you worship God, not Allah. That you have a sense of weight and responsibility that you care about your fellow neighbor. An American is more than just someone that has a US passport."
Kolvet notes this was recorded just weeks before he lost someone important to him, making the words particularly poignant.
The Final Tally and Looking Forward
The ruling was 6-3, with Chief Justice Roberts joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and Barrett in the majority. Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas dissented. Justice Kavanaugh sided with the majority in striking down the executive order but offered somewhat better reasoning, earning him a "C" in Kolvet's assessment.
Kolvet is unequivocal in his conclusion: "This is a terrible ruling. There's no way around it. And this went as bad as it could have gone."
The decision represents a fundamental transformation in how American citizenship is understood—from a covenant of mutual allegiance between citizen and country to a feudal system where mere presence on U.S. soil grants lifelong citizenship. As Justice Thomas argued, this devalues the citizenship of every American and opens the door to unprecedented foreign influence over American politics and society.
The fight now moves to confirming Supreme Court justices who understand the original intent of the 14th Amendment, potential legislative restrictions on birth tourism, elimination of dual citizenship, and the long-term project of either amending the Constitution or building toward a future case that can overturn this precedent.
