A Stolen Birthright for Ethnic Americans

The Great American Displacement rolls on without pause. Wave after wave of mass migration is deliberately erasing the birthright of Ethnic Americans—the direct descendants of the European men and women who turned a wilderness into the greatest nation on earth.

The single most lethal weapon in this war is the 14th Amendment.

It suffers from two fatal, co-equal defects.

First: it was never legitimately ratified. Forced on a conquered South at bayonet point, certified by fraud, and rammed through in open defiance of Article V, it is void ab initio—legally null from the very beginning. Black’s Law Dictionary is blunt: “null; ineffectual; having no legal force or binding effect… from the beginning.” A constitutional amendment extracted under military duress has exactly the same standing as a treaty signed with a pistol to the signer’s head: none.

Second: even if it had been properly ratified, its Citizenship Clause was never intended to grant automatic citizenship to the children of foreigners. The men who wrote it said so in plain English. It explicitly excluded aliens, diplomats, and anyone not fully “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Turning that clause into “birthright citizenship” for illegal aliens and birth tourists is not honest interpretation. It is deliberate, treasonous perversion.

I hammer the birthright-citizenship abomination today because it is the bleeding front line. President Trump’s Executive Order 14160—signed January 20, 2025—has finally put it in the crosshairs. Ending the anchor-baby pipeline is the fastest, most immediate way to slow our dispossession.

But make no mistake: the ultimate remedy is identical either way. Declare the entire 14th Amendment void for fraud, or enforce the Citizenship Clause exactly as written. Either path slams the door forever.

Both truths stand equal. We will wield both. The only question is how much of our stolen birthright we seize back today—and how much we finish reclaiming tomorrow.

This betrayal runs deeper than a misread clause. It is a 157-year-old fraud, shielded by cowardly courts and a parasitic elite, used to barter away the ethnic and cultural core of the nation our ancestors built with their blood. Trump’s Executive Order 14160 is the first real counterstroke. Ethnic Americans will settle for nothing less than the total restoration of our forebears’ intent: a sovereign republic crafted for us, governed by us, and preserved eternally by us.

To see exactly how deep the knife was driven, we must return to the poisoned crucible of Reconstruction itself.

Come. Let us tear the mask off together.

—James Sewell

The Original Intent: A Shield for Freed Slaves, Not a Welcome Mat for the World

Let us begin by excavating the original intent behind the Citizenship Clause, as articulated in the heated debates of 1866. Forged in the Senate chambers amid Reconstruction’s fervor, this provision was crystal clear in its objective: to enshrine citizenship rights for the children of former Black slaves, guaranteeing that Dred Scott—where the Supreme Court had denied citizenship to those of African descent—could never recur. Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, a key architect of the amendment, minced no words during the floor discussions, as recorded in the Congressional Globe (39th Congress, 1st Session, page 2890):

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will NOT, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

Howard’s declaration was not idle oratory; it encapsulated a deliberate framework to exclude those whose primary loyalties resided elsewhere. Complementing this, Senator Edward Cowan of Pennsylvania, another influential voice, drew a sharp line between legal protections and true citizenship:

"A foreigner in the United States has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word."

The pivotal phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was no incidental flourish—it served as a meticulously crafted barrier. Historical scholarship underscores that it aimed to deny automatic citizenship to offspring of foreign diplomats, occupying forces, or transient aliens whose fealty remained anchored to foreign powers. In the context of today’s illegal immigrants, who flout U.S. sovereignty merely by their presence, their native homelands maintain an indelible claim on any child’s allegiance. Consequently, the requisite “completeness” of devotion to America is inherently compromised from the moment of birth, barring any presumptive citizenship grant. This exclusion was not a nebulous ambiguity but a fortified bulwark against demographic infiltration, and therefore, the danger of future internal subversion, of our beloved Republic.

Predictably, advocates of open borders retort by brandishing the 14th Amendment as an all-encompassing edict, insisting it confers citizenship upon anyone born on American soil without qualification. This is sheer sophistry. Such an interpretation conveniently overlooks the jurisdiction clause, which the framers tethered explicitly to undivided, absolute allegiance and assimilation—a criterion patently unfulfilled by fleeting visitors or brazen lawbreakers. If the clause were truly universal, why insert this restrictive language at all? It would render the phrasing superfluous, a cardinal sin in constitutional drafting. Moreover, the amendment’s origins in the emancipation era dismantle the globalist fantasy: it remedied the plight of one specific oppressed population, not a perpetual open-door policy for the planet’s dispossessed. For over a century, it lay dormant for non-slave descendants; its expansion to encompass the world is a surprisingly contemporary distortion, The United Nations Secretariat’s Population Division’s Great Replacement Agenda was written to erode the Ethnic American core that built this nation.

To further illustrate, consider the broader legislative context. The Civil Rights Act of 1866, a precursor to the 14th Amendment, similarly limited citizenship to those “not subject to any foreign power,” explicitly excluding Indians and foreigners. That is why American Indians—still treated as subject to foreign (tribal) powers—remain outside the clause to this day. The amendment constitutionalized this principle, ensuring it could not be overturned by future legislatures. Yet, modern interpreters have inverted this, turning a shield for the vulnerable into a sword against the founders’ heirs. Ethnic Americans, whose European lineages trace back to the Mayflower and Jamestown, recognize this perversion for what it is: a calculated assault on our demographic primacy, disguised as humanitarianism.

The Sham Ratification: Coercion, Fraud, and a Stolen Constitution

Even granting the text’s purported benevolence—which it lacks—the 14th Amendment’s foundational validity disintegrates upon examining its ratification ordeal. Article V of the Constitution mandates approval by three-fourths of the states, equating to 28 out of 37 in 1868. What unfolded, however, was a travesty of military authoritarianism and partisan manipulation, far removed from the voluntary consensus envisioned by the founders.

Following the Confederacy’s surrender at Appomattox in 1865, the South was plunged into chaos under Radical Republican Reconstruction policies. Ten former Confederate states were systematically barred from congressional representation when the amendment was proposed in June 1866, allowing only a truncated assembly of 27 states to deliberate. Of these, a mere 21 initially endorsed it—a paltry figure woefully insufficient without the coerced inclusion of the South. Detractors argue that these “rebel” states forfeited their rights through secession, but this is victors’ historiography at its most brazen. Article V unequivocally requires ratification by “the several States,” encompassing all entities in the Union, not a selective cadre of compliant Northern regimes. This exclusion alone invalidated the process, depriving Ethnic Americans—many of whom hailed from Southern stock—of a genuine constitutional dialogue rooted in mutual agreement rather than imposed domination.

The record of outright rejections paints an even starker picture of resistance. As evidenced in historical compilations, states across the board rebuffed the amendment en masse:

• Texas rejected it on October 27, 1866.
• Georgia on November 9, 1866.
• Florida on December 6, 1866.
• Alabama on December 7, 1866.
• North Carolina on December 14, 1866.
• Arkansas on December 17, 1866.
• South Carolina on December 20, 1866.
• Kentucky on January 8, 1867.
• Virginia on January 9, 1867.
• Louisiana on February 6, 1867.
• Delaware on February 7, 1867.
• Maryland on March 23, 1867.
• Mississippi on January 31, 1867.
• Ohio on January 15, 1868 (though initially approving, later rescinded).
• New Jersey on March 24, 1868 (also rescinded).

That’s thirteen states—a formidable bloc—formally denouncing the proposal between 1866 and 1868. These were not perfunctory dismissals; they reflected deep-seated convictions that the amendment overreached federal authority and trampled state sovereignty.

Faced with this wall of opposition, Congress resorted to brute force via the Reconstruction Acts of 1867. These draconian measures dissolved existing Southern governments, imposed military districts overseen by Union generals, and mandated ratification as the prerequisite for readmission to the Union and the cessation of martial law. In Alabama and South Carolina, federal troops literally loomed over legislative sessions, ensuring “compliance” from assemblies riddled with Northern carpetbaggers and local collaborators. Georgia’s legislature, having unanimously rejected the amendment in November 1866 by a vote of 146-0 in the House and 38-0 in the Senate, was summarily disbanded and “reorganized” under General George Meade’s command, only to be coerced into reversal. Rebuttals from apologists claim these provisional bodies were “legitimate” representations, but President Andrew Johnson, in his veto messages, lambasted them as “absolute despotism,” arguing they subverted the republican form of government guaranteed by Article IV. History corroborates Johnson’s stance: these were not free deliberations but orchestrated submissions under duress, nullifying any pretense of Article V consent.

The chicanery escalated with the handling of rescissions. At least eight states, including Ohio (January 15, 1868), New Jersey (March 24, 1868), and Oregon, formally withdrew their prior approvals before the final tally. These actions should have reduced the valid ratifications below the requisite 28, yet Congress blithely disregarded them, treating rescissions as irreversible once cast—a doctrine unsupported by constitutional text or precedent. Secretary of State William Seward, charged with certifying the process, issued a tentative proclamation on July 20, 1868, acknowledging the irregularities and noting that the count hovered precariously, dependent on dubious Southern votes. Merely eight days later, Congress overrode this caution with a joint resolution on July 28, proclaiming ratification complete. This was not procedural housekeeping; it was a legislative coup, circumventing the Constitution’s safeguards.

President Johnson, in his message accompanying Seward’s proclamation, eviscerated the entire affair: “The amendment… is inoperative and void because it was adopted by fraud and force.” Contemporary legal minds, including those in congressional debates, echoed this, contending that the process flouted Article V’s insistence on voluntary state action. Southern legislatures, operating as mere puppets under military oversight, could hardly qualify as the “legislatures of the several States” demanded by the Constitution.

For Ethnic Americans, this sham ratification represents the primal wound in our displacement narrative. It was a partisan machination to perpetuate Republican hegemony and exact retribution on the South, inadvertently—or perhaps deliberately—paving the way for the immigrant influxes that now threaten our cultural and genetic continuity. If defenders cling to the mantra of “settled law,” we counter: law settled on fraudulent foundations is no law at all, and its persistence is a daily affront to our people’s endurance.

Just a few years later, in 1878, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously confirmed a principle that should have terrified the Reconstruction-era federal government.

In United States v. Throckmorton (1878), the Court reaffirmed the ancient maxim “Fraus omnia vitiat” — “Fraud vitiates everything.” The Court ruled that any contract—or any agreement between parties—obtained through fraud, including fraud under military coercion, is void from the beginning (ab initio). Such an agreement has no legal force, cannot be enforced, and is treated in law as though it never existed.

The case involved land titles in California that had been secured through perjured testimony and forged documents, but the principle the Court laid down is universal and remains binding precedent today:

“If a document is procured by fraud … or if one party is induced to enter into a contract by the fraud of the other … the instrument or contract is void, not merely voidable, and may be disregarded in any court whenever it is brought forward to support a right.”

Applied to the post–Civil War context, this decision should have served as a blazing red warning to Washington: any “agreements” forced upon the defeated Southern states at bayonet-point (the so-called Reconstruction Acts and the readmission “contracts”) were textbook examples of fraud and military duress — and therefore legally null and void from the moment they were signed.

Yet the warning was ignored, the precedent buried, and the fraudulent arrangement allowed to stand.

Evading Justice: Courtroom Dodges and the Political Question Sham

The judiciary, ostensibly the guardian of constitutional integrity, has instead become the chief enabler of this fraud through a pattern of evasion and deference that borders on complicity. Challenges to the 14th’s ratification have been routinely deflected under the “political question” doctrine, a convenient shield allowing courts to avoid unraveling the postwar order while Ethnic Americans suffer the consequences of diluted sovereignty and accelerating demographic eclipse.

Consider Coleman v. Miller (307 U.S. 433, 1939), where the Supreme Court ruled that issues of ratification validity—including coercion and proper counting—are “political questions” for Congress to resolve, not the judiciary. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes’ opinion effectively abdicated oversight, stating that such matters fall outside judicial purview to maintain separation of powers. But this is a hollow rationale: Congress was the perpetrator of the fraud, the Radical faction that engineered the bayonet ratifications. Entrusting Congress with adjudication is akin to letting criminals judge their own trials. Rebuttals invoke preservation of institutional balance, but Article V’s explicit requirements demand judicial enforcement against federal excesses, not passive acquiescence to historical injustices. Coleman’s evasion perpetuated the 14th’s sham status, screaming of systemic fear: genuine scrutiny would expose the rot at the core.

Building on this, Baker v. Carr (369 U.S. 186, 1962) entrenched the doctrine, framing it as essential to separation of powers and listing criteria like the absence of judicially manageable standards. Justice William Brennan’s opinion sidestepped Reconstruction coercions, yet overlooked Article V’s blatant breach: amendments require uncoerced state assent, not armed compulsion. In Georgia, for instance, the 1866 rejection was overturned under military fiat—hardly the act of sovereign entities. Baker’s justiciability barrier safeguards this aberration, but originalists decry it as judicial timidity; the founders intended courts to check such overreaches, not cower behind procedural veils.

Earlier, Leser v. Garnett (258 U.S. 130, 1922) dismissed analogous challenges to the 19th Amendment by deeming long-accepted ratifications immune after decades, smugly referencing the 14th’s “rejection for over half a century.” Stare decisis (“to stand by things already decided” in Latin) was wielded as a fortress, but it falters against fraud: a tainted foundation invalidates the structure. Leser evaded deep inquiry into coercion, prioritizing stability over truth—a luxury Ethnic Americans can ill afford as anchor babies flood our communities.

Lower courts amplify this suppression. In United States v. Studley (783 F.2d 934, 9th Cir. 1986), a claim nullifying the 14th for illegitimate ratification was branded “patently frivolous,” with sanctions threatened. No substantive review occurred, just derision—because acknowledging duress could dismantle vast swaths of modern law. Railers dismiss this as “fringe,” yet even establishment historians concede the coercion, as in analyses of Georgia’s “plain coercion.” Studley’s dismissal is not exoneration but censorship, mirroring Reconstruction’s muzzling of Southern voices.

These rulings do not validate the 14th; they condemn it. By deeming ratification “political,” courts have sanctioned Article V’s gutting, converting consensual change into conqueror’s fiat. Nullification is not chaos—it’s restoration of governed consent. Ethnic Americans, victims of this judicial betrayal, call for revival: unearth the fraud, invalidate the amendment, and reclaim our birthright.

Judicial Sleight of Hand: From Wong Kim Ark to Brennan’s Footnote Folly

Beyond ratification woes, courts have actively warped the Citizenship Clause. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (169 U.S. 649, 1898), the Court granted citizenship to a child of legal Chinese immigrants with established domicile—permanent residency intent. Illegals and visa transients? Untouched, as their status bars true domicile. Activists misrepresent this as universal endorsement, but Wong bolstered exclusions for partial jurisdiction, aligning with framers’ alien barriers. Rebuttals of “broad birthright” fail; the ruling narrowed, not expanded, scope.

The true outrage hit in Plyler v. Doe (457 U.S. 202, 1982), where Justice Brennan’s footnote 10 casually extended birthright to undocumented offspring—a baseless assertion sans argumentation. This birthed the anchor baby crisis, unchallenged then but explosive now. Defenders cite binding precedent, but stare decisis (“to stand by things already decided” in Latin) cedes to egregious error; granting invaders’ children citizenship is absurdity incarnate, judicial overreach serving displacement agendas.

The Lie Exposed in Real Time

As I write this (December 2025), the fight over Trump’s Executive Order 14160 is white-hot. A sitting congressman just tweeted that the Constitution has “plainly” guaranteed birthright citizenship to everyone born on our soil for 150 years, and that ending it would “strike at the promise of America.”

That is the same lie we’ve been fed for decades, and Ethnic Americans are done swallowing it.

Here’s the truth the open-borders crowd hopes you never learn:

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 — the direct blueprint for the 14th Amendment — granted citizenship only to those “not subject to any foreign power.” Illegal aliens are citizens of Mexico, Honduras, China, wherever they came from. Their children inherit that foreign allegiance. They are not fully “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and they never were meant to be.

That single sentence from 1866 destroys every sob-story argument they throw at us today.

The replies pouring in from regular Americans — truckers, dads, business owners, people who actually love this country — say it better than any think-piece ever could:

• “It was never meant for Chinese birth tourists buying extra passports.”
• “Who is this congressman representing? Certainly not us.”
• “After the Court fixes this, make it retroactive — every anchor baby chain has to go.”
• “No amnesty. No quarter. They all go back.”
• “This is the hill. America survives or falls on this one decision.”

That’s not rage. That’s clarity.

That’s the voice of a people who refuse to watch their grandchildren grow up as strangers in the land their great-grandfathers built.

The congressman is terrified because he knows the original intent was crystal clear: the 14th was written for the freed slaves, not for the world’s welfare shoppers. Trump’s EO is forcing the Supreme Court to finally read the words the framers actually wrote.

When that happens, the anchor-baby pipeline shuts off forever. And when that pipeline shuts off, the Great Replacement dies with it.

Our posterity — not theirs — was the promise of the 14th Amendment. It’s time we took it back.

The Anchor Baby Avalanche: Numbers Don’t Lie

This judicial malfeasance yields catastrophic fruit: 222,000–255,000 annual births to illegals, per Pew and CIS estimates—exceeding pre-1965 total immigration. Peak figures top 300,000, anchoring families to benefits, skewing elections Democratic, and hastening Ethnic American minority status by 2040. Rebuttals call numbers “inflated”; data from reputable sources confirms the tidal wave, with 14 million unauthorized in 2023 fueling relentless growth that hollows our heritage.

Global Awakening: Even Our European Kin Have Slammed the Door

Contrast America’s folly with global wisdom. Forty countries that once practiced unrestricted jus soli (birthright citizenship) have ended it since 1980: Ireland (2004), New Zealand (2006), Australia (1986), France (1993), India (1987), United Kingdom (1983), Portugal (1981), and dozens more. The United States and Canada are now the only major developed nations still handing out citizenship to anyone who can get across the border before the water breaks. These nations, stewards of European legacy, saw birthright as an invasion magnet, fraying national fabric. Canada teeters on reform. We linger as dupes, because elites dread Ethnic American uprising. Rebuttals tout “diversity’s boon”; kin countries thrive post-restriction, proving homogeneity safeguards prosperity. I, James Sewell call absolute bullshit on the lie that ‘diversity is our strength.’

Trump’s Reckoning: Executive Order 14160 – The First Shot in Reclamation

President Trump, our hopeful defender, countered with Executive Order 14160 on January 20, 2025, barring birthright for undocumented or temporary visa children. Rooted in original jurisdiction exclusions, it mobilizes agencies against the loophole, inviting Supreme Court clarity amid ACLU lawsuits. Hurdles abound, but it exposes the rot. Rebuttals decry “unconstitutionality”; it resurrects buried text, a bulwark against tyranny.

Conclusion: Traitors vs. Patriots – Choose Your Side, Ethnic American

Dante froze traitors in the lowest circle of Hell. Ulysses S. Grant divided men into patriots and profiteers. George Washington damned those who would sell their country for silver. The 14th Amendment’s fraud—forged in coercion, twisted by courts, weaponized for displacement—is the greatest treason ever committed against Ethnic Americans.

It fragments our unity, adulterates our lineage, condemns our ethos to oblivion. Yet we endure as the resilient force. Annihilate this imposture. Seize back our domain. For posterity and progenitors—arise, lest we fade into obscurity in an alien realm.

Grievances of Ethnic Americans

• Congressional Exclusion of Southern States: Southern states under military rule were excluded, yielding only 21 approvals from 37—deficient 3/4, a sham stripping Ethnic American consent, not mere “rebel sanction” as spun.
• Coercion of Southern Ratifications: Post-rejections by Texas, Georgia, et al., Acts forced compliance for readmission, troops enforcing it in Alabama, South Carolina; duress voids Article V, Johnson’s “despotism” label unrefuted by any other body.
• Rescission by States Ignored: Ohio, New Jersey rescinded pre-proclamation; Congress dismissed, undercounting validly—fraud self-validates nothing against our sovereignty.
• Premature and Fraudulent Proclamation: Seward conceded flaws on July 20; Congress overrode it on July 28, sidestepping the Constitution—Johnson’s fraud indictment and scholars’ rebukes endure until today.
• Violation of Article V Fundamentals: Puppet legislatures under bayonets weren’t “several States”; mandate perverts founders’ voluntary ethos—courts’ dodge shields traitors, denies us justice.
• Recognize United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61 (1878) and reject fraud: The United States government must reject fraudulent legislation going forward, and reject previous fraudulent or improperly ratified legislation. To not do so, is to perpetuate operations under fraud, and therefore continue to be complicit in the fraud.
  • The Supreme Court unanimously held that “fraud vitiates everything” it touches. Any instrument, contract, or governmental act procured by fraud is void ab initio — that is, void from the beginning (Latin: ab initio = “from the inception”), as if it never legally existed. Therefore, the United States government is duty-bound to cease enforcing, and to formally repudiate, any legislation, amendment, or act of Congress obtained through fraud or military coercion.
  • To continue enforcing such measures is to knowingly perpetuate a fraud upon the States and the people, rendering the government itself complicit in the original fraud.

Demands for Restoration

• Patriot’s Reckoning: Indict displacement facilitators as traitors; codify Ethnic American primacy in blood-soil covenant, unshackled from the 14th.
• Immediate Nullification: Congress declare 14th void ab initio for fraud; nationwide enforcement of Trump’s EO, quashing all obstructions.
• End Birthright Citizenship Now: Confine citizenship to citizen/legal resident offspring—with retroactive anchor reviews, shattering this “universal” fiction.
• Ethnic American Priorities: Total Immigration Moratorium until demographic rebound; preferences for European descendants countering replacement.
• Judicial Purge: Overturn Plyler, Wong distortions; SCOTUS uphold original exclusions, ditching stare decisis pretexts.

A HUGE Thank you to Overwatch for his contribution to this article and profundity of his pointing out United States v. Throckmorton and the idea that fraud vitiates everything. It ties everything together with an iron bow. I’d also like to thank him for all his contributions to the Ethnic American movement as well as all the others whose constant ideas, ideals, grit, and voice make all of this possible..

I love you all—my brothers and sisters of the old and new stock. We are the heirs of giants, and giants do not go quietly into the night. This is our country. This is our time. Let’s take it back together. — James Sewell