Trump Trashes the U.S. as a ‘STUPID Country' of ‘SUCKERS' in Birthright Citizenship Rant
President Donald Trump ranted against the U.S. and its centuries-long tradition of birthright citizenship, saying the U.S. is a 'STUPID Country' of 'SUCKERS,' as the Supreme Court prepared to take up the issue Thursday.
In January, Trump signed an executive order declaring that children of immigrants are not entitled to U.S. citizenship despite the 14th Amendment to the Constitution's guarantee that 'all persons born' in the U.S. are citizens.
Three federal judges had stopped the order from taking effect, and on Thursday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case.
'Birthright Citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent Citizens of the United States of America, and bringing their families with them, all the time laughing at the 'SUCKERS' that we are!' Trump wrote that morning in a Truth Social post.
'The drug cartels love it! We are, for the sake of being politically correct, a STUPID Country,' he added.
The issue hasn't got anything to do with political correctness, though, and everything to do with the Constitution. The 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause states: 'All persons born… in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.'
Adopted in July 1868, the amendment overturned the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, the Supreme Court's 1857 ruling that held that even free African Americans were not U.S. citizens.
Thirty years later, in 1898, the court held in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark that children of immigrants were entitled to citizenship based on the 14th Amendment even if their parents didn't qualify.
Nevertheless, Trump offered what he called 'conclusive proof' that 'Birthright Citizenship is about the babies of slaves.'
'The Civil War ended in 1865, the Bill went to Congress less than a year later, in 1866, and was passed shortly after that,' he wrote. 'It had nothing to do with Illegal Immigration for people wanting to SCAM our Country, from all parts of the World, which they have done for many years.'
'It had to do with Civil War results, and the babies of slaves who our politicians felt, correctly, needed protection,' he continued. 'Please explain this to the Supreme Court of the United States.'
But according to Boston College professor and historian Heather Cox Richardson, while the 14th Amendment did in fact overturn the Dred Scott decision, it wasn't intended to grant citizenship only to Black Americans.
In the 1860s, the U.S. was also home to tens of thousands of American Indians, Chinese immigrants and people of other races.
The civil rights bill that Congress originally passed in 1866 said, 'all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians, not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens of every race and color… shall have the same right[s] in every State and Territory in the United States,' Cox Richardson wrote on her Substack Letters from an American in late April.
President Andrew Johnson vetoed the bill, saying that if the Constitution already made all 'native-born' people citizens, Congress didn't need to pass a bill saying so. And if they weren't already citizens under the Constitution, Congress shouldn't make them citizens, Johnson argued.
According to Cox Richardson, Congress took those words to heart when drafting the 14th Amendment. Instead of conferring citizens on specific groups, it explicitly acknowledged that the Constitution had already established citizenship for 'all people' born in the U.S. and under its jurisdiction (which at the time excluded Indigenous Americans).
Just a few decades later, the Supreme Court had to decide whether the 14th Amendment also applied to children of immigrants.
In 1882, the U.S. passed the Chinese Exclusion Act declaring that Chinese immigrants could not become citizens. But Wong Kim Ark, a cook who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents, sued to have his citizenship recognized.
The court's majority found that under the English common law system—which the U.S. system is based on—children born to alien parents were natural-born subjects 'within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign.' The only exceptions were diplomats serving foreign states and members of invading armies.
The same rule was in force in the English colonies prior to the Declaration of Independence and 'continued to prevail under the Constitution,' the court wrote.
The Chinese Exclusion Act therefore did not apply to Wong Kim Ark, the court decided in 1898—at a time that few people would describe as 'politically correct.'
Trump, however, seems to suggest the U.S. at the time was literally Black and white.
'Again, remember, the Civil War ended in 1865, and the Bill goes to Congress in 1866—We didn't have people pouring into our Country from all over South America, and the rest of the World,' he wrote on Truth Social. 'It wasn't even a subject. What we had were the BABIES OF SLAVES.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

USA Today
25 minutes ago
- USA Today
Will Trump invoke the Insurrection Act? 'We'll see,' he says
Will Trump invoke the Insurrection Act? 'We'll see,' he says Show Caption Hide Caption Anti-ICE raid demonstrators protest into fourth night Anti-immigration raid protests are continuing into the fourth night as the Pentagon deployed active-duty U.S. Marines. President Donald Trump mulled invoking the Insurrection Act, which would give him more leeway to use the military for domestic purposes, as he deploys troops to Los Angeles in response to protests prompted by ICE raids in the region. "If there's an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it,' Trump said June 10 during an event in the White House. 'We'll see. But I can tell you, last night was terrible. The night before that was terrible." Trump deployed the California National Guard to Los Angeles over the objection of Gov. Gavin Newsom, sparking a lawsuit from the state. Marines were also sent to help the guard after protests erupted over his immigration enforcement efforts. The troops are limited to protecting federal property and law enforcement officers. The Insurrection Act would give Trump authority to use them more broadly. More: 'High-stakes game': Trump-Newsom clash pits two political heavyweights Trump said there were parts of Los Angeles on June 9 where "you could have called it an insurrection. It was terrible." Newsom described Trump's actions as "the acts of a dictator" and accused the president of 'inciting and provoking violence,' 'creating mass chaos,' and 'militarizing cities.' Legal experts say invoking the Insurrection Act is an extreme step. It has been done 30 times in U.S. history. "The invocation of it would be viewed as a pretty dramatic act," said Duke Law Professor H. Jefferson Powell. Powell said the law is "dangerously broad." The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was in May 1992, by President George H.W. Bush at the request of California's governor, to quell rioting in Los Angeles after four White police officers were acquitted for beating Black motorist Rodney King.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What the 'Big, Beautiful' tax bill means for municipal bonds
JPMorgan raised its forecast for municipal bond sales in 2025 to $560 billion as US lawmakers deliberate over President Trump's "big, beautiful" tax and spending bill in the Senate. Goldman Sachs Asset Management co-head of municipal fixed income Sylvia Yeh weighs in on what policy changes to the US tax code could mean for municipal bond investors, as well as valuation catalysts in comparison to Treasury yields (^TYX, ^TNX, ^FVX). Goldman Sachs manages several municipal bond ETFs (GMUB, GCAL, GMNY, GUMI). To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Catalysts here. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
LA protests far different from '92 Rodney King riots
The images of cars set ablaze, protesters tossing rocks at police and officers firing nonlethal rounds and tear gas at protesters hearkens back to the last time a president sent the National Guard to respond to violence on Los Angeles streets. But the unrest during several days of protests over immigration enforcement is far different in scale from the 1992 riots that followed the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. President George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to call in the National Guard after requests from Mayor Tom Bradley and Gov. Pete Wilson. After the current protests began Friday over Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids, President Donald Trump ordered the deployment of 4,100 National Guard troops and 700 Marines despite strident opposition from Mayor Karen Bass and Gov. Gavin Newsom. Trump cited a legal provision to mobilize federal service members when there is 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit Monday saying Trump had overstepped his authority. Outrage over the verdicts on April 29, 1992 led to nearly a week of widespread violence that was one of the deadliest riots in American history. Hundreds of businesses were looted. Entire blocks of homes and stores were torched. More than 60 people died in shootings and other violence, mostly in South Los Angeles, an area with a heavily Black population at the time. Unlike the 1992 riots, protests have mainly been peaceful and been confined to a roughly five-block stretch of downtown LA, a tiny patch in the sprawling city of nearly 4 million people. No one has died. There's been vandalism and some cars set on fire but no homes or buildings have burned. At least 50 people have been arrested for everything from failing to follow orders to leave to looting, assault on a police officer and attempted murder for tossing a Molotov cocktail. Several officers have had minor injuries and protesters and some journalists have been struck by some of the more than 600 rubber bullets and other 'less-lethal' munitions fired by police. The 1992 uprising took many by surprise, including the Los Angeles Police Department, but the King verdict was a catalyst for racial tensions that had been building in the city for years. In addition to frustration with their treatment by police, some directed their anger at Korean merchants who owned many of the local stores. Black residents felt the owners treated them more like shoplifters than shoppers. As looting and fires spread toward Koreatown, some merchants protected their stores with shotguns and rifles.