Feed aggregator

Republican Sens. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Rand Paul of Kentucky are renewing their campaign to end birthright citizenship following the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision upholding the practice. Both lawmakers are now advocating for a constitutional amendment that would limit automatic citizenship for children born in the United States.

Amending the Constitution, however, presents a steep challenge. Such a proposal must secure the support of two-thirds of both the House and Senate before it can be sent to the states for ratification. That level of bipartisan backing is widely viewed as unlikely, given that most Democrats and a number of pro-business Republicans support broad immigration policies.

Cotton argued that the Constitution was never meant to grant citizenship to the children of those who entered the country illegally and urged lawmakers to approve his proposed Constitutional Citizenship Act.

“Birthright citizenship was never intended to benefit illegal immigrants,” Cotton said, calling on Congress to pass his “Constitutional Citizenship Act to ensure only the children of those here lawfully are granted citizenship.”

Under Cotton’s proposal, children born to illegal immigrants, terrorists, and foreign intelligence operatives would not qualify for automatic U.S. citizenship.

“There is no constitutional right for illegal aliens to cross the border to gain citizenship for their children. Granting birthright citizenship to illegal aliens has contributed to the highest levels of illegal immigration in history. Fixing this will help reduce the damage from Joe Biden’s catastrophic border crisis,” he added in his July 15 press release.

The legislation would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to specify that birthright citizenship does not apply to children whose parents are in the country unlawfully, are present as foreign diplomats, or are participating in hostile operations against the United States. The measure is co-sponsored by Republican Sens. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, and Bernie Moreno of Ohio.

Paul is pursuing a separate approach, introducing his own proposal to eliminate automatic birthright citizenship through a constitutional amendment.

The Kentucky senator has filed a Joint Resolution that would amend the Constitution to restrict U.S. citizenship and end the current interpretation of birthright citizenship.

“Under current interpretations of American law, anyone born on American soil automatically becomes a U.S. citizen, regardless of whether the parent was here legally or not,” Paul wrote on X. “This is wrong and not at all the intent of those who wrote the 14th Amendment.”

The debate centers on the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 following the Civil War. Originalist legal scholars generally contend that its citizenship clause was intended to guarantee citizenship to the children of formerly enslaved people, while others argue that the amendment extends that protection to everyone born on U.S. soil.

“We are a country filled with immigrants, and legal immigration is valuable and should be protected,” Paul continued. “But we are also a country whose borders have been too open and our generosity exploited too often. President Trump has moved to seal our border from illegal immigrants more than any other president.”

Paul said he believes citizenship should be reserved for the children of American citizens and legal residents, noting that he has advocated for such changes for years.

“I have supported protecting birthright citizenship from the beginning of my tenure in the Senate, when I cosponsored the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011, and now I am proposing an amendment to protect United States citizenship in case the Supreme Court fails to address this issue correctly,” he wrote.

{Matzav.com}

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of Daniel Grand, an Orthodox Jewish resident of University Heights, Ohio, who is challenging city officials after they ordered him to stop hosting tefillah gatherings in his home without first obtaining a permit. The case could have far-reaching consequences for home minyanim, home shiurim, and other private religious gatherings across the country.

“Every American has the right to host a prayer gathering in his home, and he certainly doesn’t need a city permit to do so,” Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel and Vice President of Appellate Advocacy John Bursch said in a news release. “When government officials forbid that, courts must hold those individuals accountable, immediately. The city’s actions underscore a troubling trend of weaponizing zoning laws against people of faith while allowing other gatherings of the same size, like book clubs or poker nights, to meet without issue. We’re pleased the Supreme Court will hear this case.”

The Supreme Court has not yet announced when it will hear oral arguments. The Court’s annual term begins on the first Monday in October and generally concludes in late June or early July.

Grand is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom together with the San Francisco law firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP. The legal team filed its petition urging the Supreme Court to take up the case on May 28.

A broad coalition of religious and legal organizations has also thrown its support behind Grand by filing amicus curiae briefs. Those organizations include the National Jewish Advocacy Center, the Manhattan Institute, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the General Council of the Assemblies of God, the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventists, the Orthodox Union, the National Council of Young Israel, and the American Center for Law and Justice.

Grand has repeatedly emphasized that the case extends well beyond the Orthodox Jewish community and could affect the religious freedoms of Americans of all faiths.

“This is not just a Jewish thing,” Grand previously told Cleveland Kesher. “Would it impact the Jewish people in a good way if we prevail in the Supreme Court? Yes. Would it impact the Christian prayer groups? Yes. Bible study? Yes. It’ll have a major impact for anyone who wants to do what they’re allowed to do by the Constitution, but really by their creator, which is talk to God. This is just about talking to God. We have to bring God back into the home. So, I simply want to have God in my home with a few of my friends. And I was stopped from doing that. That in itself is unconstitutional.”

Grand, who moved to University Heights in 2017, filed suit against the city and then-Mayor Michael Dylan Brennan on September 9, 2022, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The lawsuit names Brennan in both his official and personal capacities.

Also named as defendants are Luke McConville, who served as the city’s law director, and Paul Siemborski, a member of the University Heights Planning Commission, both in their individual capacities.

The dispute centers on the city’s zoning regulations. As an Orthodox Jew, Grand is obligated to daven three times each day with a minyan. Rather than walking to a shul for every tefillah, he sought to hold a minyan in his own home.

According to court filings, Grand emailed approximately a dozen neighbors on January 19, 2021, inviting them to join him for a minyan at his home on Miramar Boulevard and encouraging them to bring others if they wished. Grand’s complaint states that later that month, Brennan confronted him about the gatherings.

According to the lawsuit, Brennan telephoned Grand on January 21, 2021, and informed him that he could not hold religious gatherings in his home unless he first obtained a special-use permit under Chapter 1274 of the University Heights Zoning Code.

Although Grand initially applied for a special-use permit in 2021 to classify his home as “a place of religious assembly,” he later withdrew the application.

The federal district court ruled against Grand on September 30, 2024. That decision was later affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals on November 13, 2025, leaving the city’s restrictions in place.

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case now places the dispute before the nation’s highest court. Its eventual ruling could establish an important precedent not only for home minyanim, but also for home shiurim, tefillah gatherings, and private religious assemblies of many different faiths throughout the United States.

{Matzav.com}

Rav Moshe Maya, senior member of Shas’ Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah, on Tuesday sharply distanced himself from inflammatory remarks directed at IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir during Monday night’s protest rally in Bnei Brak, saying such language is inconsistent with the values of the Torah.

In a special public statement issued following the controversy, Rav Maya stressed that while the rally’s purpose—to protest the treatment of lomdei Torah and opposition to enforcement of the draft law—was important, the language used by one of the speakers was inappropriate.

Opening his letter with the words, “Deracheha darchei noam v’chol nesivoseha shalom,” Rav Maya wrote, “I was deeply pained to hear the remarks that were made against the chief of staff during last night’s important rally protesting the humiliation of lomdei Torah.”

His statement marked a clear rebuke of the comments, which sparked widespread political and public criticism.

Rav Maya went on to emphasize that such rhetoric has no place in authentic Torah conduct, writing unequivocally, “This is not the way of the Torah to speak in such a manner.”

He concluded his statement by expressing appreciation for Israel’s soldiers, writing, “We customarily pray at every hotzaas Sefer Torah, on Shabbos and weekdays alike, for the success of the soldiers who sacrifice themselves for the safety of Am Yisroel.”

Rav Maya signed the letter with the words, “Written and signed for the honor of the Torah and those who toil in it, and with great appreciation for the soldiers.”

{Matzav.com}

Vice President JD Vance outlined the Trump administration’s objectives in its negotiations with Iran while defending President Donald Trump’s strategy of combining diplomacy with the credible threat of military action during an interview on The Michael Knowles Show.

Vance said the administration’s central goal is to secure a comprehensive agreement that permanently eliminates Iran’s nuclear program through enforceable commitments and rigorous international oversight.

“There are a few things that we want,” the Vice President explained. “We want durable commitments that are verifiable and backed up by inspections that Iran will denuclearize their entire country.”

He also expressed frustration with what he described as Iran’s contradictory messaging regarding the negotiations. Although Iranian officials have publicly denied holding peace talks with the United States, technical discussions are nonetheless scheduled to take place in Qatar.

“One of the things I find just fascinating and frustrating about the Iranians is they’ll say, no, no, no, there aren’t peace talks ongoing, but there are technical talks between the United States and Iran about the peace deal,” said Vance.

“It’s like, okay. So it’s a Persian negotiating tactic and a Persian rhetorical device that I don’t understand, but that is the way that the Iranians have done this,” he added.

JD Vance on Iran:

One of the things I find just fascinating and frustrating about the Iranians is they'll say, "No, no, there aren't peace talks ongoing," but there are technical talks between the United States and Iran about the peace deal.

It's a Persian negotiating tactic… pic.twitter.com/eNd8t15TTl

— Clash Report (@clashreport) June 30, 2026

Addressing critics who favor an expanded military campaign against Iran, Vance argued that simply calling for additional airstrikes without a defined objective is not a sound strategy. He said Trump’s approach is to employ military force only when it advances a specific goal.

The Vice President also responded to critics who advocate for continued strikes on Iran, saying their “attitude is just drop bombs and drop bombs and drop bombs, and they can’t really articulate to what end.”

“What the President is saying, ‘I’m willing to drop bombs’, and he’s clearly shown that he’s willing to drop bombs, but only if it serves an objective,” explained Vance.

Iran insisted on Monday that its representatives would not be meeting with American officials in Qatar. Tehran maintained that while a delegation of technical experts would travel to Doha to discuss implementation of the memorandum of understanding with the United States, there would be no direct talks between the two sides.

Later that day, however, President Trump told reporters that the anticipated meetings with Iranian officials in Qatar would be “perhaps important, perhaps not”.

Subsequent reports indicated that U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff was traveling to Doha to participate in the discussions with Iranian representatives.

The diplomatic efforts follow heightened military tensions over the weekend, when U.S. forces launched two strikes against Iranian targets in the Strait of Hormuz after Iran allegedly violated the ceasefire.

On Saturday night, Trump warned that continued violations could trigger a much broader American military response.

“United States aircraft just struck Iranian missile and drone storage locations, and coastal radar sites, for violating the Cease Fire Agreement, AGAIN! It is very possible that they will never learn!” Trump wrote.

He added, “There may come a point when we are no longer able to be reasonable, and will be forced to militarily complete the job that we very successfully started. If that happens, the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist!”

{Matzav.com}