Trump’s ‘hellhole’ mention for India, China as he targets birthright citizenship

The letter centres on the ongoing debate around birthright citizenship, a key issue that has resurfaced in political and legal discussions in the US. The letter claims that the policy enables immigrants to gain citizenship for their children and subsequently bring extended family members into the country.

“A baby here becomes an instant citizen, and then they bring in their entire family from China, or India or some other hellhole on the planet,” the letter states, using language that has drawn attention for its reference to multiple countries, including India.

The author of the letter argues that the issue of birthright citizenship should not be decided by courts or lawyers but instead be put to a national vote. It cites a social media poll and claims that a majority would support restricting the policy, while also expressing distrust in legal institutions handling the matter.

The text also criticises the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), accusing it of backing policies that allegedly benefit illegal immigrants over US citizens. It calls the organisation a “criminal” entity and even suggests that it should be targeted under RICO statutes, a serious legal provision typically used against organised crime.

The letter further expands its criticism to broader systems, alleging that immigrants exploit public services such as healthcare. It references emergency room visits and claims that taxpayers bear the cost of treatment for undocumented individuals. It also raises concerns about alleged welfare fraud in states like California and claims that immigration is impacting cultural and linguistic identity.

In addition, the text makes claims about hiring practices in California’s tech sector, alleging that jobs are dominated by individuals from India and China. It asserts that opportunities for others are limited, though it provides no evidence to support the claim.

The letter also references US Supreme Court proceedings on birthright citizenship, expressing dissatisfaction with legal arguments presented in court. It argues that constitutional interpretation has become disconnected from current realities, particularly in the context of modern travel and immigration patterns.

– Ends

Tune In