#22 Birthright Citizenship: Where It Came From and What the Court Just Did
In 1895, a young cook stepped off a steamship in San Francisco, the city he was born in, and his own government told him he could not come home.
The fight that man started ran all the way to the Supreme Court, and the rule he won a hundred and twenty-eight years ago is the exact rule that just beat Donald Trump this summer.
Because on June 30, the Supreme Court struck down Trump's order to end birthright citizenship, six to three, and two of the justices who killed it were his own side. They welded the door shut behind them. And in the same week, the same Court handed Trump a bigger win than the one it took away, and almost nobody told you about it.
Tonight you are getting the whole history, front to back. Where this rule came from, what the Court just did to Trump, what his own side is now trying to do about it, why the rest of the world already walked away from it, and the piece the headlines buried. Start to finish. Stay with me.
***
To understand what happened this summer, you have to go back, way back, because none of this started in 2026. It started with a slave case, a constitutional amendment, and a Chinese cook. Follow the thread in order and the whole thing makes sense.
Start in 1857, with the ugliest decision the Supreme Court ever handed down. Dred Scott versus Sandford. An enslaved man sued for his freedom, and the Court, led by Chief Justice Roger Taney, ruled that Black people, free or enslaved, were not citizens and never could be. Taney wrote that they had, his words, no rights which the white man was bound to respect. That decision helped light the fuse on the Civil War.
Then the war ended, slavery was abolished, and Congress set out to bury Dred Scott so deep it could never crawl back out. They did it with the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868. The very first sentence, the Citizenship Clause, was written to make it permanent. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. They wrote it to guarantee that the children of freed slaves were Americans, and no politician could ever take it back. And when Senator Jacob Howard introduced that language in 1866, he explained on the Senate floor that it covered every person born within the country and subject to its laws. Congress knew what it was writing.
***
The Cook Who Made the Rule
Now bring in the cook. His name was Wong Kim Ark. He was born in San Francisco in 1873, in Chinatown, to Chinese parents who had lived and worked in the city for years but who, under the law of that time, could never themselves become American citizens. Because in 1882, Congress had passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, one of the most openly racist laws in American history, banning Chinese laborers from immigrating and barring the Chinese already here from ever naturalizing.
Wong Kim Ark was a cook. In 1894 he took a trip to China to visit his parents, who had moved back. And when he sailed home to San Francisco in 1895, the city of his birth, the Collector of Customs refused to let him off the boat. They said that because his parents were Chinese subjects, he was a Chinese subject too, not an American. Exclusion Act, stay out. They held him for five months, confined on steamships anchored off the California coast, before he was finally let out on bail.
He sued the United States government. And on March 28, 1898, the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, six to two. Justice Horace Gray wrote it. The Court said the 14th Amendment meant exactly what it said. A child born on American soil is an American citizen, even if his parents are not, even if his parents are barred from citizenship themselves. The only exceptions, the Court said, were the children of foreign diplomats, the children of enemy soldiers in a hostile occupation, and the children of certain tribes. Tiny, ancient exceptions and nothing more. The government tried to use the Chinese Exclusion Act to strip his citizenship, and the Court said no, a law passed in 1882 cannot rewrite an amendment ratified in 1868. Congress does not get to legislate its way around the Constitution. That was the ball game in 1898, and it is still the ball game now.
That is the case. That is where universal birthright citizenship in America got locked in. Not some abstract theory, a real man, a cook, denied re-entry to his own country, who fought for three years and won the rule that has held for a hundred and twenty-eight years. And here is a piece of that history almost nobody learns. The 14th Amendment did not even cover everyone at first. Native Americans born on tribal land were held to be outside its reach for decades and did not become full citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924, fifty-six years after the amendment was ratified. The very rule we are fighting over today was still being sorted out well into the twentieth century. And when Donald Trump signed his executive order in 2025, the case he needed to overturn was Wong Kim Ark. A Chinese cook the government tried to keep out in 1895 is the man standing between Trump and the end of birthright citizenship in 2026. History has a sense of humor, and it is a dark one.
***
Now bring it to this summer, because that hundred-and-twenty-eight-year-old rule just collided with Donald Trump, and the collision tells you everything about this Court. On June 30, 2026, in Trump v. Barbara, the Supreme Court struck down the president's executive order ending birthright citizenship. Six to three. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion himself, and it ran a hundred and ninety-four pages.
Remember what that order was. Trump signed it on his first full day back in office, January 20, 2025. It was the centerpiece of his entire immigration pitch. It would have denied automatic citizenship to babies born on American soil if their parents were here illegally, or here only on a temporary visa. It was, by the government's own numbers, aimed at roughly a quarter million babies a year. District court after district court blocked it. And this summer the highest court in the land killed it for good, leaning directly on Wong Kim Ark. Roberts wrote that the argument Trump and the dissenters were making had already lost, back in 1898, and that neither time nor circumstance had changed the fact that it is not the law.
The base was counting on five Republican-appointed justices. Two of them walked across the aisle and joined the three liberals. John Roberts, the chief. And Amy Coney Barrett, Trump's own pick, confirmed in 2020 in a fight that tore the country in half. You did not get beaten by the other team here. You got beaten by your own.
***
Roberts, Again
John Roberts crossing over on a big one is not a surprise. It is a pattern you can set your watch on. Go back to 2012 and Obamacare. The individual mandate looked dead, and Roberts had the votes to kill it. Instead, he wrote an opinion calling the penalty a tax, a reading no other justice adopted to get there, and he saved the law, the signature achievement of a Democratic president that conservatives had spent two years trying to gut. Reporting from inside the Court said he switched his vote late. Now, fourteen years later, Trump's signature immigration order dies on Roberts' pen. And in oral argument back in April, he tipped his whole hand. When the government raised birth tourism and modern mass migration, Roberts shot back, quote, it's a new world, it's the same Constitution.
Here is my read, and I am telling you straight this part is my opinion, mine, the guy whose name is on this. I think John Roberts is a closet liberal, or he is a coward who folds under pressure, and on the big ones it does not much matter which, because the vote comes out the same every time. He cares more about how the Court looks than how the country fares. He did not want the Roberts Court remembered as the Court that ended birthright citizenship, so he wrote the safe opinion the law schools will pat him on the head for, and he let the damage land on conservatives. Obamacare in 2012, birthright citizenship in 2026, the two biggest chances he had to side with the right on a case the whole country was watching, and both times he walked. He told us who he was fourteen years ago. He just said it again, louder.
***
The Fresh Betrayal
Barrett is the one that has the base genuinely furious, and the anger is not random. When Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed in 2020, she was sold to conservatives as the real thing. An originalist. A textualist. A Scalia disciple who would read the document as written and never bend it to the politics of the moment. That was the whole pitch. That is why the right went to war to seat her and the left went to war to stop her. Both sides believed they were getting a rock-solid conservative vote for a generation.
On the biggest immigration case of the decade, she voted with the three liberals. And her own people are not staying quiet. The College Republicans at Notre Dame, her own alma mater, the law school where she taught for years, put out a statement calling her an absolute disgrace to the Notre Dame name, and apologized on her behalf to the country. On Benny Johnson's show, the conservative lawyer Mike Davis tore into her on air, called her a junior varsity justice who thinks she is the smartest person in the room and is not. Johnson himself called her a fresh betrayal, the kind he thought conservatives were finally smart enough never to make again. The Heritage Foundation's president called the ruling a tremendous betrayal of the public. Megyn Kelly has called her a turncoat. This is not one crank on the internet. This is a chorus.
Now I am going to be careful here, because I am a commentator and I will tell you exactly where my information comes from. I am not standing here claiming, as a fact I can prove, that Amy Coney Barrett lied to the Senate committee that confirmed her. I do not know that. What I know is that people who were in that room, people who watched it, people who understand constitutional law, are saying out loud that she sold herself as one kind of justice and has governed as another. I heard it said plainly on the Benny Johnson show. I have heard it from others who know this stuff better than I do. And I will tell you straight up, I believe them. When the sales pitch was rock-solid originalist and the product on the bench keeps siding with the left on the cases that count, you do not need a law degree to feel like you were sold something that was not in the box. That is my honest read, and I am telling you it is a read, not a court finding.
***
The Three Who Held, and the Fight Over History
The three reliable conservatives, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch, all voted to uphold Trump's order, exactly like they were sent there to do. They got it right, and they got outvoted by their own side. But their dissents are worth hearing, because they went back to the same history I just walked you through and read it differently.
Thomas wrote the main dissent, joined by Gorsuch, and it ran ninety-one pages, more than three times the length of Roberts' majority opinion. His argument: the 14th Amendment was written after the Civil War to guarantee citizenship to freed slaves and to people actually rooted here, people who had no other homeland and owed allegiance to no other country. His words. Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power, and were subject to no other authority. The same, he said, could not be said for the children of foreign temporary visitors. Alito went at the consequences, calling the majority a serious mistake that, his words, preserves a powerful incentive to enter or remain in this country illegally. He said the amendment was never meant to hand citizenship to the child of a birth tourist.
The whole fight, in both 1898 and 2026, comes down to six words in that amendment. Subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The majority reads it broadly, born here, under our laws, citizens. The dissenters read it narrowly, owing your allegiance here, not somewhere else. Two honest readings of six words a tired Congress wrote in 1868, and a hundred and fifty-eight years of Americans left to fight over the gap between them. Hold onto those six words, because when we get to what Trump's side is doing about this right now, those exact six words are the whole battlefield.
***
Now step back and look at the rest of the planet, because here is the part that should embarrass anyone who thinks unrestricted birthright citizenship is some universal human right. It is not. It is mostly an American-hemisphere thing, and the developed world has spent the last forty years walking away from it, one country at a time, for exactly the reasons Trump was pointing at.
***
One Country at a Time
Start with Britain, the mother country of the common law our whole birthright idea comes from. The United Kingdom ended unconditional birthright citizenship with the British Nationality Act, effective January 1, 1983. Before that, born on British soil meant British. After that, a child born in the UK is a citizen only if at least one parent is British or legally settled there. The nation that invented the rule looked at the modern world and shut the automatic door.
Then Ireland, the last country in Europe to hold the line, and even Ireland let go. In 2004, by referendum, seventy-nine percent of Irish voters approved a constitutional amendment ending automatic birthright citizenship. Seventy-nine percent. That is not close, that is a landslide. And it was triggered by one specific case, a Chinese woman who traveled to Belfast to give birth so the baby would get automatic citizenship and then used that child's status to secure her own right to stay. The Irish saw the exact loophole Alito warned about in his dissent, and they closed it at the ballot box.
India ended it in stages, first in 1987, then tightened it again in 2004, largely in response to waves of illegal immigration from Bangladesh. Same pressure, same fix. Australia restricted it in 1986. New Zealand in 2006. The Dominican Republic rewrote its constitution in 2010. Run the list and a pattern jumps out. Out of nearly two hundred countries on Earth, only about thirty still grant unconditional birthright citizenship, and almost every single one of them is in the Americas. Britain, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, the serious nations of Europe and Asia, run on what is called jus sanguinis, right of blood. Citizenship passes from parent to child, not from the patch of dirt you were born on.
And here is the irony that should make you laugh and wince at the same time. Britain ended birthright citizenship in 1983 precisely to control who became British. Then in 2026, that same Britain has thrown its borders wide open and is drowning in illegal arrivals it can barely count. Now picture the shape they would be in if they had kept automatic birthright citizenship on top of that open border. Every illegal crossing followed by a baby that instantly locks in a citizen and an anchor for the whole family. They saw that math coming forty years ago and killed it. We just had our chance to kill it, and our own Court said no. When nearly every serious country on the planet has decided this is a liability in the modern world, the question writes itself. What exactly is wrong with ours?
***
The Door They Welded Shut
Now here is the mechanics of what the Court actually did, because this is what turns a loss into a long war. There were two ways to rule against Trump. The soft way and the heavy way. The soft way was Brett Kavanaugh's. He agreed the order was illegal, but he rested it on a federal statute, not on the Constitution. And what Congress writes, Congress can rewrite. If the order only broke a statute, Congress could pass a new law carving out exceptions to birthright citizenship, sixty votes in the Senate and a signature, done.
The heavy way is what Roberts and the majority chose. They rested it on the Constitution itself. And you cannot fix a constitutional ruling with an ordinary law. They did not just slam the door, they poured concrete in the frame. Trump waved it off on Truth Social, saying no amendment is necessary, that Congress can handle it with ordinary legislation. His exact words: the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship, which is too bad for our country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through legislation. No long and unwieldy constitutional amendment is necessary. Congress should start today. With respect to the president, the legal reality cuts hard against him there, because the majority went constitutional. Which means the cleanest, surest fix left is a constitutional amendment, and that is a cliff. Two-thirds of the House. Two-thirds of the Senate. Then three-quarters of the states, thirty-eight of the fifty, must ratify. In two hundred and thirty-seven years, with thousands of amendments introduced, exactly twenty-seven have ever made it all the way through, and ten of those were the original Bill of Rights in one shot.
***
What Trump's Side Is Doing Right Now
And this is where the story has moved since the gavel came down, because his own side did not just sit there and take it. Within hours of the ruling, the Republican bench split into two camps on how to fight back, and the split is worth understanding, because it tells you how hard this actually is.
Camp one says amend the Constitution, the heavy fix, the only thing that truly undoes a constitutional ruling. Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri came out swinging, calling the decision, his words, wrong and disastrous for our sovereignty and the future of our republic. He said ordinary legislation cannot repair the damage, and he announced a constitutional amendment to, quote, restore the sacred bond between American citizens and their government. Senator Mike Lee of Utah backed the amendment route. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson said he was very disappointed in the ruling, said birthright citizenship has been, his word, abused, and said the conclusion he draws is that you have to amend the Constitution to fix it. So the leadership of the party is on record: the front door is welded, and the amendment is the honest answer.
But camp two, and this is the interesting part, is looking hard at that window Kavanaugh cracked. Because Kavanaugh wrote something specific in his opinion. He wrote that Congress could, consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment, enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country, but that Congress has not yet done so. Read that again. A sitting justice, in the ruling itself, laid out a path. And Schmitt said out loud he is going to try to walk through it. He is filing legislation on top of the amendment push, a bill that would go straight at those six words we kept coming back to, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and add a clarifying phrase, not subject to a foreign power. His theory is that if Congress formally clarifies what that clause was always supposed to mean, it hands the Court a reason to revisit the whole thing, because now Congress has spoken. Restore the original meaning by statute, then dare the Court to look at it again.
And here is a piece of history that cuts right through the partisan noise, and I am putting it in on purpose, because it is true and it is inconvenient for the people who want you to believe this is some far-right fever dream. Schmitt points back to a bill from 1993, the Immigration Stabilization Act. Its sponsor was Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, who went on to become the Democratic leader of the United States Senate. That bill, among other things, sought to tweak birthright citizenship so that the children of illegal immigrants born here would not automatically become citizens. Harry Reid. A Democrat. The same fix conservatives are now branded as extremists for wanting, a Democratic Senate leader put his name on it thirty-three years ago. Reid later disowned it and called it a mistake, and I will give you that honestly, that is part of the record too. But the point stands. This was not always a left-right cage match. There was a time, not that long ago, when limiting birthright citizenship was an idea a Democrat could sponsor without being run out of town. That tells you how far the ground has shifted, and it tells you the position is not the fringe thing it gets painted as.
Now here is the honest catch on both camps, because I am not going to sell you a fairy tale where this is easy. The amendment needs two-thirds of both chambers and thirty-eight states. That is not happening in this Congress, with Democrats united against it. Not close. And Schmitt's clever statute route, the walk-through-the-window play, runs straight into the sixty-vote filibuster in the Senate. Which means even the clever fix needs Democratic votes to pass, and Schmitt knows it, he has said so himself. So both roads, the heavy one and the clever one, dead-end at the same wall: you cannot do either without peeling off Democrats who have zero interest in helping. That is the real math. The effort is serious, the men behind it are serious, and the odds right now are still long. I will not pretend otherwise just because it is my side making the push.
***
The China Loophole They Are Warning About
There is one more argument coming out of the pro-restriction camp that is worth putting in front of you, because it reframes the whole thing as a national-security question, not just an immigration one. Schmitt has started warning that the ruling, left standing, hands America's adversaries a quiet backdoor. His concern, and he names China specifically, is that under unlimited birthright citizenship, a foreign power can send people here, temporarily, legally or not, have children born on American soil, and those children are instant American citizens, with American passports, American access, American standing, loyal to a government that is not ours. He calls it insane that the highest court in the land would read the Constitution to allow a hostile state to score citizenship for the next generation that easily.
Now I will be straight with you, the way I always am. That is an argument, not a proven plot. Schmitt is describing a vulnerability, a thing the rule makes possible, not a documented operation with names and case files. So I am not going to stand here and tell you China is running baby factories in San Diego, because I cannot prove that and I will not say what I cannot prove. But the vulnerability he is pointing at is real on its face. If citizenship attaches to anyone born on the soil, no questions asked about loyalty or intent, then yes, that door is open to everyone, including the people who mean us harm. You do not have to invent a conspiracy to see the hole. The hole is just there. Whether it is being exploited at scale is a separate question nobody has answered with hard numbers, and I will tell you the day someone does.
***
What This Actually Does Going Forward
And now the part almost nobody thinks through, the fallout, because ending birthright citizenship would not just hit immigrants. It would hit you. Right now, in this country, there is no national registry of who is a citizen. There never has been. A birth certificate issued by your state or county is proof. That is the whole system. You were born here, here is the paper, you are an American, end of story. Take away universal birthright citizenship and that birth certificate stops being proof of anything by itself, because now the question becomes, well, what was your parents' status when you were born? Suddenly every American, not just the children of immigrants, has a harder time proving they are a citizen. The clean, simple system we have all relied on our entire lives quietly breaks for everybody.
Then there is the stateless-child problem, and this one is real. Some countries, places like Nepal, Bhutan, Afghanistan, do not automatically grant their citizenship to a baby born abroad. A child born here to parents from one of those countries, denied American citizenship, could end up belonging to no country at all. Stateless. No passport, no papers, no nation on Earth obligated to claim them, and a newborn potentially eligible for deportation to a place they have never been. Even the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops flagged that as a moral disaster in the making.
Here is the twist that should make the restrictionist crowd think twice, because I will give you the honest math. The Population Research Institute at Penn State ran the numbers and found that ending birthright citizenship would actually grow the illegal population, not shrink it. Their projection: 2.7 million more people living here illegally by 2045, people who under the current rule would have been citizens, but who now have no status to inherit and no status to pass to their own kids. You do not solve an illegal-immigration problem by manufacturing millions of new stateless people with no country and no papers. You just make a permanent underclass. That is the honest read, and it cuts against the easy answer. While I am at it, one more honest number. The birth-tourism problem is real, but it is smaller than the outrage suggests. Even the think tanks that want immigration cut estimate only twenty to twenty-six thousand birth-tourism babies a year, out of roughly three-point-six million births. It is a real abuse worth stopping. It is not the flood some make it out to be. I will always give you the real number, even when it is inconvenient for my own side.
What is actually left, now that the front door is welded shut? You work the edges. Stop issuing visas to applicants plainly here to give birth. Go after the operators who sell birth tourism as a package. And here is one of my own, and I will own it as mine. Require any woman entering on a visa to state on the form whether she is pregnant, and if she lies, says no, and then delivers here, treat it as the fraud it is, and the child born off that lie does not get automatic citizenship. You do not attack the rule. You attack the lie that exploits it. There is one thin crack of light, and it is Kavanaugh. He refused to join the constitutional reasoning, and he signaled Congress might still legislate exceptions someday. It is not a promise, and it is not five votes. But on a day the door got welded shut, one justice left a window cracked, and in a long fight, a cracked window is a place to push. Schmitt is already pushing on it. Whether the frame holds when he does, we are about to find out.
***
That is the loss, the whole history of it, from a cook stranded on a ship in 1895 to a bolted door in 2026, and the fight his own side is now waging to pry it back open. Now I want to show you the thing the cable-news scoreboard buried underneath it. Because Trump lost the case everyone is talking about, and won a case that may matter more in the long run, in the very same week, and he told you so himself.
***
The Bigger Win Nobody Told You About
The same term, the same Court handed down a decision in a case called Slaughter. And Slaughter overturned a 1935 precedent known as Humphrey's Executor. For ninety years that old ruling protected the heads of the independent agencies, bodies like the Federal Trade Commission, from being fired by the president at will. He could not just remove them because he wanted to. They were walled off, running on autopilot, outside any president's reach. Slaughter knocked that wall down. Now the president can fire the heads of those agencies the same way he fires anyone else who works for the executive branch.
Trump called it the biggest and most consequential decision of the term, by far. His words, not mine. He said we also had the birthright citizenship loss, which we will work to correct in Congress, but the big one was Slaughter. He understands the trade better than the headlines do. Birthright is a real loss, on an issue he cares about deeply. But control of the so-called independent agencies, the alphabet soup that has run outside any president's reach for ninety years, that is structural. That reshapes how much of the federal government actually answers to the man the people elected. He has argued for that power his entire political life, and on June 30 he finally got it. On the same day Roberts and Barrett broke conservative hearts on citizenship, the Court handed the presidency a generational expansion of its own power. Read the whole scoreboard, not just the top line.
***
Stop Pretending This Court Has No Side
And this whole term proves one more thing worth saying. The next time somebody tells you the Supreme Court is a neutral body of legal monks who just call balls and strikes, point them at the box score. Birthright citizenship, the three liberal justices voted to strike Trump's order, exactly as predicted. Trans athletes in women's sports, the same three voted the same way and lost. The Slaughter power case, the same three voted against handing that authority back to the president. On every heavy, headline case, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson voted the same direction, the predictable direction, the one nobody in America had to guess at.
And to be fair, because I will always tell you both halves, the other side sees the mirror image and they are not wrong to. On the day of the ruling, Democrats celebrated. Congressman Wesley Bell of Missouri called it a win for immigrant communities and for people chasing the American Dream. Other Democrats said the 14th Amendment settled this long ago and the Court just did its job protecting the Constitution. That is their honest read, and they are entitled to it, and on the plain text of a hundred-and-twenty-eight years of precedent, they have a case. I disagree with where they land, but I am not going to pretend they are arguing in bad faith when the last century of law is sitting on their side of the table. That is exactly why this fight is so hard, and why it comes down to those six words.
Somebody will tell you the liberal justices break ranks once in a while, and that is true, on the small stuff nobody is watching. But on the big ones, the ones that move the country, there is no suspense. You can write down how those three will vote before the lawyers even stand up. That is not an insult, it is just the reality of a Court that has a side, two sides really, and a couple of justices in the middle, Roberts and sometimes Barrett or Kavanaugh, who decide which way the heavy ones tip. The conservatives who got betrayed this week should at least take the lesson. The people you can count on, you can count on. The people in the middle, you cannot. Plan accordingly.
Put the whole history together, front to back. A Chinese cook won the rule in 1898, built on an amendment written in 1868 to bury a slave ruling from 1857. That rule held for a hundred and twenty-eight years, and this summer it beat a sitting president, with two of his own justices supplying the votes. They welded it to the Constitution, so no ordinary law can undo it, only an amendment that has succeeded just twenty-seven times in the nation's history. His own side is fighting back on two fronts now, a long-shot amendment and a clever statute aimed at those same six words, and both roads run into the same wall of Democratic votes they do not have. The rest of the developed world walked away from this decades ago and is watching us cling to it. Ending it would break the way every American proves citizenship and could leave newborns stateless. And underneath all of it, on the very same day, Trump quietly pocketed the power over the federal agencies he has wanted his whole career. The founders could not have seen 2026 coming, fair enough, but they could have written those six words clean, and they did not, and a hundred and fifty-eight years later we are still paying for the gap. The door is welded shut. The window is cracked. Somebody is already pushing on it. And the work now is long, and it is the only work there is.
***
AND, THATS IT.
***
That's Everyone knows. The hard truth, the stuff nobody else will say, and the thing that keeps you going.
I'm Brian Bullock of Starborne Studios. Find me on X at Everyoneknows1. If this hits you, share it with someone who needs to hear it. Subscribe. Leave a review. Come find us at brianbullockwriter.com.
***
Because Everyone knows. Your Silence, is your Consent.