2nd bite at the apple? Congressman’s plan would push Supremes to reconsider birthright citizenship ruling * WorldNetDaily * by Bob Unruh 63%

By Bob Unruh0%

7/10/2026, 10:38:17 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Authority, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 33.5% saturation with 267 hits. Analysis detected 1,466 faulty-reasoning hits from 798 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 58.2% and a BS Rank of 63% (8,088 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 63.00% of the article peer group.

2nd bite at the apple? 
Congressman’s plan would push Supremes to reconsider birthright citizenship ruling 
President Donald Trump already has called on the Supreme Court to correct its “miscarriage of justice” that it delivered to the American people with its recent birthright citizenship ruling. 
That decision said, in layman’s terms, that anyone in the world has a right to claim U.S. citizenship for their newborns if those infants are born in the United States, even if the parents are illegal aliens, fleeing criminals, birth tourists, or something else. 
Now a report at Just the News confirms that a member of Congress is working to push the court in Trump’s direction. 
Get the hottest, most important news stories on the Internet  delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as they break! 
Take just 30 seconds and sign up for WND's Email News Alerts! 
It is legislation that would restrict birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants. 
Rep. 
Glenn Grothman says justices’ recent birthright citizenship ruling “the worst Supreme Court decision as far as impact on our country in my lifetime.” https://t.co/ZVQs9b4jTK 
 John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) July 10, 2026 
Rep. 
Glenn Grothman, R-Wis., a House subcommittee chairman long influential on immigration issues, told the Just the News’ “No Noise” TV show Thursday that he was co-sponsoring congressional bills aimed at clarifying the scope of birthright citizenship, ensuring that it only applied to children of citizens, permanent residents, or military members, the publication reported. 
“Hopefully, by limiting that, we’ll give it another shot at the Supreme Court,” he confirmed. 
The Birthright Citizenship Act would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to limit birthright citizenship to children born to parents who are “(1) a U.S. citizen or national, (2) a lawful permanent resident residing in the United States, or (3) a non-U.S. national (alien under federal law) with a lawful immigration status who is performing active service in the Armed Forces.” 
The law, which was based on the 14th Amendment, could be perceived as being in conflict with the 14th Amendment, and those are the types of situations that are likely to trigger a high court review. 
The court’s ruling in Trump v. 
Barbara struck down the president’s executive order terminating 
birthright citizenship for children of temporary visa holders or illegal immigrants. 
Grothman said, “I should say this is the worst Supreme Court decision as far as impact on our country in my lifetime.” 
The Pew Research Center estimates that 320,000 babies were born to mothers in 2023 who were unauthorized immigrants or held temporary legal status in the U.S., representing about 9% of total U.S. births. 
WorldNetDaily reported on Trump’s comments: 
Trump said, “Signs and Billboards are being put up all over our Southern Border, and Mexico, advertising BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, with ‘Deliveries starting at $4000.’ 
Likewise, similar signs going up all over our Country. 
Billions of Dollars will be illegally made by this SCAM, with Citizenship going to anyone willing to pay. 
It will be, by far, the number one way of becoming a citizen, and then the entire family will be allowed to follow. 
Not sustainable. 
NOBODY SAW THIS COMING!!! 
AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP IS NOT FOR SALE! 
In fact, that is a crime, and therefore, the Supreme Court’s ruling is wrong. 
I will be asking for a Rehearing by the United States Supreme Court, IMMEDIATELY. 
This miscarriage of justice will destroy America if they don’t change their absolutely insane decision.” 
The Supreme Court rarely rehears cases, although it has happened on occasion in the past. 
In the current court catastrophe, the justices ruled 5-4 that “children of ‘parents unlawfully or temporarily present’ in the U.S. automatically become citizens in keeping with the 14th Amendment.” 
🚨 BREAKING: President Trump announces he is filing for a RE-HEARING with the US Supreme Court on birthright citizenship after an ANCHOR BABY HOSPITAL was discovered in Texas 
“Signs and Billboards are being put up all over our Southern Border, and Mexico, advertising BIRTHRIGHT… pic.twitter.com/LM0zAnnAc8 
 Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) July 8, 2026 
Trump is demanding the Supreme Court rehear the birthright citizenship case after billboards advertising birthing centers in the USA were spotted in Mexico 
END BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP 
These people are laughing in our faces pic.twitter.com/wWe0HM613G 
 Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) July 8, 2026 
Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. 
He is currently a news editor for the WND News Center, and also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially. 
Read more of Bob Unruh's articles here. 
Birthright citizenship , Congress , Supreme Court 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.1%Bob Unruh: 2.9%WorldNetDaily: 2.9%Confirmation Bias7.1%This article: 0.0%Bob Unruh: 0.0%WorldNetDaily: 0.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Bob Unruh: 6.7%WorldNetDaily: 6.7%Availability Heuristic3.8%This article: 8.6%Bob Unruh: 2.2%WorldNetDaily: 2.2%Representativeness Heuristic8.6%This article: 0.0%Bob Unruh: 0.1%WorldNetDaily: 0.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Unruh: 4.8%WorldNetDaily: 4.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Bob Unruh: 9.7%WorldNetDaily: 9.7%Framing Effect4.3%This article: 0.8%Bob Unruh: 0.2%WorldNetDaily: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.8%This article: 0.0%Bob Unruh: 0.0%WorldNetDaily: 0.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Unruh: 0.0%WorldNetDaily: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.9%Bob Unruh: 0.9%WorldNetDaily: 0.9%Optimism Bias1.9%This article: 4.8%Bob Unruh: 3.0%WorldNetDaily: 3.0%Pessimism Bias4.8%This article: 33.5%Bob Unruh: 17.0%WorldNetDaily: 17.0%Negativity Bias33.5%This article: 0.0%Bob Unruh: 0.0%WorldNetDaily: 0.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Unruh: 0.0%WorldNetDaily: 0.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Unruh: 0.0%WorldNetDaily: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Bob Unruh: 1.1%WorldNetDaily: 1.1%In-Group Bias2.9%This article: 5.5%Bob Unruh: 3.0%WorldNetDaily: 3.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias5.5%This article: 7.1%Bob Unruh: 1.8%WorldNetDaily: 1.8%Halo Effect7.1%This article: 0.0%Bob Unruh: 0.0%WorldNetDaily: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Unruh: 0.0%WorldNetDaily: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.3%Bob Unruh: 1.6%WorldNetDaily: 1.6%Recency Bias6.3%This article: 0.5%Bob Unruh: 0.1%WorldNetDaily: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.5%This article: 0.0%Bob Unruh: 0.0%WorldNetDaily: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Unruh: 0.5%WorldNetDaily: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Unruh: 4.1%WorldNetDaily: 4.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 16.5%Bob Unruh: 5.2%WorldNetDaily: 5.2%Appeal to Authority16.5%This article: 0.8%Bob Unruh: 0.2%WorldNetDaily: 0.2%False Dilemma0.8%This article: 4.8%Bob Unruh: 5.4%WorldNetDaily: 5.4%Slippery Slope4.8%This article: 1.8%Bob Unruh: 2.4%WorldNetDaily: 2.4%Circular Reasoning1.8%This article: 6.6%Bob Unruh: 6.4%WorldNetDaily: 6.4%Hasty Generalization6.6%This article: 0.0%Bob Unruh: 0.0%WorldNetDaily: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.4%Bob Unruh: 0.1%WorldNetDaily: 0.1%Bandwagon0.4%This article: 23.3%Bob Unruh: 9.9%WorldNetDaily: 9.9%Appeal to Emotion23.3%This article: 2.0%Bob Unruh: 0.9%WorldNetDaily: 0.9%Begging the Question2.0%This article: 5.1%Bob Unruh: 1.3%WorldNetDaily: 1.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.1%This article: 0.0%Bob Unruh: 0.0%WorldNetDaily: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Unruh: 0.0%WorldNetDaily: 0.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Unruh: 0.0%WorldNetDaily: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Unruh: 0.0%WorldNetDaily: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.9%Bob Unruh: 6.0%WorldNetDaily: 6.0%Anecdotal5.9%This article: 0.0%Bob Unruh: 0.0%WorldNetDaily: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.0%Bob Unruh: 3.6%WorldNetDaily: 3.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Unruh: 0.0%WorldNetDaily: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Unruh: 0.0%WorldNetDaily: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Unruh: 0.0%WorldNetDaily: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Unruh: 0.0%WorldNetDaily: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Unruh: 0.0%WorldNetDaily: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.0%Bob Unruh: 0.3%WorldNetDaily: 0.3%Unattributed Quote1.0%This article: 3.6%Bob Unruh: 2.5%WorldNetDaily: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection3.6%This article: 7.3%Bob Unruh: 7.3%WorldNetDaily: 7.3%Biased Writer Voice7.3%This article: 2.6%Bob Unruh: 2.3%WorldNetDaily: 2.3%Indoctrination2.6%This article: 0.0%Bob Unruh: 0.0%WorldNetDaily: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Unruh: 6.2%WorldNetDaily: 6.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Bob Unruh: 4.6%WorldNetDaily: 4.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.0%

798 words analyzed.

Speakers

7speakers34%attributed speech528writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageGlenn Grothman • 24 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Solomon • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageJust the News • 53 words • 0.0% coverageGlenn Grothman • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 61 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageGlenn Grothman • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWorldNetDaily • 5 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 24 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 9 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 18 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 23 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 2 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 4 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 6 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 14 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 14 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageNick Sortor • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageLibs of TikTok • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Donald Trump

89%flagged-word coverage
129 attributed words48% of attributed speech75% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-11.0 ptsWriter: 11.0%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -7.6 ptsWriter: 7.6%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-5.5 ptsWriter: 5.5%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-4.0 ptsWriter: 4.0%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-1.5 ptsWriter: 1.5%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.