ILLEGAL ALIENS AND NATURALIZED CITIZENS WHO HATE AMERICA UNDERMINE THE ARMED CITIZENRY AND INVITE TYRANNY

‍In his Ammoland article, posted on March 10, 2026, David Codrea convincingly argues that the danger of unchecked immigration has an equally dangerous reciprocal effect on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

‍He correctly asserts, in principal part, “. . . gun owners who say they’re for legal immigration, just not the illegal kind, are both kidding themselves and enabling a pathway to citizenship for Democrats and cheap labor Republicans to swindle them out of their rights.”

Codrea cites to a commentator, Mark W. Smith, who says the kinds of people coming into the Country do not hail from a culture like ours that cherishes the right of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

‍The point is that these naturalized citizens, hailing from countries that have no commonality with Western Culture and American values, pose as great or greater a problem for us than do the millions of illegal aliens, along with their offspring born on our soil.

‍All are unassimilable and they all threaten our fundamental rights and liberties, especially our natural law right to armed self-defense.

‍Codrea adds that naturalized citizens create the more immediate problem, for, as supermajorities in the Electorate, they tend to be Anti-Second Amendment-oriented, voting for candidates who, once in office, “will then be able to pass all kinds of anti-gun edicts.” Id.

Codrea’s remark alludes to the 1962 film, “The Manchurian Candidate.”

‍But the reality is worse than the film suggests because the threat posed to the Nation with a “Manchurian Candidate” in the Oval Office—which we had for four years with the dementia-riddled Biden puppet posing and posturing as the Country’s decision-maker—is of an order of magnitude greater than an imitation President.

‍The slow but inexorable whittling away of our Nation’s most important right (and power), without which a Free Republic cannot exist, is due to the existence of a citizenry composed of millions of “Manchurian Candidates” born on our soil.

‍Many Americans are blind to this threat as well as that of improperly vetted naturalized citizens.

‍See the Daily Mail article, published on January 17, 2026.

‍In the quiet suburbs of California, a chilling new front in 'civilizational warfare' is being fought—not with bullets, but with birth certificates.

A new investigation has uncovered a sophisticated, state-sanctioned plot by Beijing to infiltrate the United States by creating what experts call a 'Manchurian Generation' of American citizens loyal to the Chinese Communist Party.

In an exclusive selection from his book, The Invisible Coup, four-time New York Times bestselling author Peter Schweizer reveals that China is not simply competing with America economically—it is weaponizing US citizenship laws to plant a demographic 'time bomb' inside the country.

The scale of the operation is massive.

‍Schweizer reveals that a massive birth-tourism industry has flourished over the last fifteen years, with about 750,000 to 1.5 million Chinese nationals already holding US citizenship because they were born on American soil.

The author reveals through his investigations that they come here by and large, get their birth certificates and then go back to China to be raised as 'Chinese Nationals.' 

When they turn 18-years-old, and are able to vote and receive adult rights, they can then come back to the United States and cast their ballots. 

These 'Americans' have never lived in the US and are being raised in China under the strict indoctrination of Chinese Communist Party-controlled schools.” 

‍See also related articles in New York Post and news.meaww.com.

‍What makes this problem so horrible is that the U.S. Supreme Court has made the situation possible and untenable for the continued well-being of and survival of our Nation as a Free Republic.

It is the result of a wrong (and wrongheaded) immigration case decision in 1898.

‍The impact of that decision was not, apparently, felt (or imagined) by the majority of the Court responsible for making it because the situation 128 years ago was much different than that of today.

An incessant, massive flood of illegal alien migration into our Country in the Twenty-first Century, desired and enabled by substantial Socialist/Progressive interests on the Left and Libertarian influences on the Right, coupled with intentional misuse of our Nation’s naturalization and immigration laws, have severely wounded the Security of a Free State.

‍A Progressive Federal Appellate and District Court Judiciary, engineered by Congress and an insular and heedless oblivious Supreme Court, compounds the problem.

‍The Supreme Court has, through two centuries, largely failed the American people on two broad fronts—weakening the vital right of the people to keep and bear arms (apart from the three landmark Supreme Court decisions of the Twenty-first Century) and creating ambiguity in the notion of what it means to be an ‘American’ and diluting the import of the phrase, ‘citizen of the United States.’

‍The two critically important National concerns—the tripartite Immigration/Naturalization/Citizenship issue and the Second Amendment/Bill of Rights issue—go hand-in-hand and are inextricably bound.

‍The sanctity of our Nation’s History, Christian Heritage, National Ethos, and a Moral System grounded on Deontological Ethics (where one’s actions are inherently either “good” or “evil” irrespective of consequences) rests in the balance.

‍What will the High Court do?

‍Roberts, who reluctantly voted with the majority in the three major Second Amendment cases—District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008), McDonald vs. City of Chicago (2010) and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association vs. Bruen (2022)—has done nothing since to strengthen those case rulings.

‍In fact, Roberts’ failure to strengthen those rulings, in the face of lower federal district court and appellate circuit court defiance, serves only to erode those cases, severely harming the sanctity of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

‍This, we conclude, is by design, manifested in the Chief Justice’s actions. He will not countenance review of significant Second Amendment issues.  

‍Two major Second Amendment cases that came to the Court’s attention in 2025 and which the Court summarily rejected review of—Antonyuk vs. James (involving New York’s brazen and obstreperous defiance of the Court’s Bruen rulings) and Snope vs. Brown (involving Maryland’s outright ban on civilian possession of all semiautomatic weapons in common use, in clear defiance of the High Court’s decision in Heller)—emphatically support the conclusion that Roberts was always troubled by the three prior foundational cases, and has self-course-corrected, effectively quarantining them.

“The proof is in the pudding,” as the old adage says.

‍John Roberts has done nothing to suggest he will encourage the Court to take up any Second Amendment issue that expands upon and clarifies the key holdings and reasoning of Heller, McDonald, and Bruen. It is wishful thinking to believe otherwise.

‍The only cases the Court has taken up for review since Bruen in 2022 are those incidental to the rulings and reasoning of its foundational Second Amendment cases.

‍Moreover, the recent cases the Court has ruled on—most noticeably, United States vs. Rahimi—did more to obfuscate the new standard of review, “text, history and tradition,” and less to clarify the issue.

‍Most of the case is just confusing dicta, with the ruling plainly an afterthought, ordained before the fact.

‍The “Birthright Citizenship” case, Trump vs. Barbara, however, is foundational.  

‍The Court must deal with the salient issue head-on: Are those offspring of illegal aliens who are born on our soil, citizens of the United States?

‍The remarkable thing here is that Roberts had consented to allow review of the case. Maybe he had no choice. Perhaps all eight Associate Justices insisted on taking the case up. It will be a blockbuster decision, for good or ill, affecting the existence of the Republic.

‍A wrong decision means that people with limited understanding of or respect for our Constitution and rights will have an outsize impact not only on the Country's future direction but whether the Country will continue to be recognizable as a Free Republic at all.

Such people are unassimilable. They are easily influenced and manipulated by unscrupulous politicians and benighted cultists, motivated by a strong desire to dissolve the U.S. Constitution, dismantle our Free Republic, and eliminate exercise of our fundamental natural law rights and liberties (of which the right to armed self-defense is first on the list for erasure).

Those who seek to destroy our Nation abhor and fear the Nation’s armed citizenry.

They have at the ready millions of willing supplicants who will vote as urged to do. A wrongly decided “Birthright Citizenship” case will give the destroyers of our Nation tens of millions more.‍

The Press has done little to explain Trump vs. Barbara or the 1898 United States vs. Kim Wong Ark case. We will fix that. ‍

The Roberts Court is faced here with a crucial binary choice: Either uphold or overturn a Nineteenth Century decision.

We will dig into both the Trump vs. Barbara case and the 1898 Kim Wong Ark case, providing our analysis shortly.

‍Oral Argument is scheduled for April 1, with a decision expected early summer.

‍________________________________________________