Tuesday, April 7, 2026

 
HomeOPINIONBirthright citizenship’s threat, NATO’s diminishing value to US and other commentary

Birthright citizenship’s threat, NATO’s diminishing value to US and other commentary

Legal Scholar: Birthright Citizenship’s Threat

“Nothing is certain” regarding Trump v. Barbara, the Supreme Court case about birthright citizenship, though there are “signals” the “conservative justices are unlikely to reject” the customary reading of the 14th Amendment, observes Jonathan Turley at The Hill. While “there are good-faith arguments against” finding a case for birthright citizenship in the Constitution, “the historical record is highly conflicted.” Descriptions of “rampant abuse” did not “seem to impress the conservative justices,” even as “millions game the birthright citizenship system.” The combination of “open borders and open-ended citizenship is an existential threat to this Republic,” but the “final word actually rests with the public”: Americans may have to “amend the Constitution to join most of the world in barring birthright citizenship.

Foreign desk: NATO’s Diminishing Value to US

“NATO is a problem,” argues Roger Kimball at American Greatness, and “has been a problem for some time.” The alliance “lost a large part of its raison d’être” after the Soviet Union’s collapse, and even in the ’80s critics claimed NATO “had lost its mandate.” But NATO’s “fate was sealed . . . when the US asked its European allies” for “a little consideration in its war with Iran” and was largely rebuffed when they denied overflight rights from “bases we pay for and that are there to help protect” those same nations. “An ‘ally’ is not only a country that depends on you. It is also a country you can depend on” — yet most “NATO countries are not allies in this reciprocal sense.”

Iran war: We’re at the ‘Critical Point’

“The next two weeks” mark “the critical point” in the Iran war, contends Mark Penn on X. The world had let Iran become “more dangerous” than anyone realized, having amassed “an astounding” 5,000 ballistic missiles, probably more than “the US or even Russia would have.” And the Iranians “are clearly retaining command and control leadership enough to keep firing.” Yet the US can “take out or take over their oil facilities, knock out their power and continue to dissemble their leadership.” The regime is “going to hold on,” and it’ll “take the next level of escalation” to beat it. But “US and Israeli resolve appears firm.” And the US military proved its competence with the rescue of the downed pilot. “The odds are with the US.”

Cali beat: Even Dogs Get To Vote

“Democrats in Sacramento have sought to ease voting requirements” to the point where “even pets have managed to cast ballots — or at least their owners have on their behalf,” quips The Wall Street Journal’s Allysia Finley. That’s because, in California, “ID isn’t required to register or vote,” nor are officials “required to verify that a voter is a citizen or even exists.” The “canine fraud was discovered only because the woman reported herself.” The state’s “loosey-goosey” rules “practically invite fraud, much like its generous welfare programs.” Yet Democrats and unions oppose a “ballot initiative that would require election officials to verify voters’ citizenship.” If Democrats “win complete control of Washington, they’ll try to impose California-style lax election rules nationwide with the goal of cementing their power.”

Conservative: Midterms Might Save Mullahs

Iran’s ayatollahs know “if they can survive this threat to their reign, they will probably never face another military challenge as severe,” notes National Review’s Jim Geraghty. The Iran war “is likely the apex of America’s willingness to use military power in the Middle East for the foreseeable future.” Yes, “the dire state of Iran’s postwar economy may well spur another popular uprising,” which could end the regime. But the midterm elections could tie Trump’s hands as Democrats are expected to win control of the House and possibly, the Senate, and aren’t likely to allow another attack. If the mullahs are not “driven from power,” Dems will say the war “was a waste of time, money, ordnance, U.S. servicemen’s lives.”

— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board



This story originally appeared on NYPost

RELATED ARTICLES

Most Popular

Recent Comments