I don’t know what the mechanism of expulsion would be. But members should not be allowed to use the stationary of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party to issue pronouncements obviously contrary to the purposes of the Committee. If there have not been enough infractions yet to quite justify showing Congressman Kanna the door, well, he’s only one or two away. Get the process started.
The Committee has a longer, lumbering name that refers to strategic competition between the U.S. and the Chinese Communist Party. (Some persons in and out of the Committee have also tried to foist the barbarous “China Select Committee,” which, let it be known through the land, was not made in China.) Whatever the exact name, the Committee’s proper agenda has something to do with countering the CCP’s agenda. If you’re a member, let alone a ranking member, making an effort to recognize what the CCP is up to is part of the job.
What the Party is up to includes exploitation of American society and institutions, including the current protocols of birthright citizenship. Some people seem to believe that if the CCP parachutes a heavily pregnant Chinese national onto U.S. soil, and she gives birth on U.S. soil, and mother and baby are reeled into a transport plane ten minutes later and flown now to the People’s Republic of China—this baby has become a constitutionally mandated citizen of the United States who may return to the U.S. and ease back into U.S. society at any time, e.g., after having been indoctrinated by the Chinese Communist Party and trained by the People’s Liberation Army.
Birth of a notion
Maybe Khanna’s press release was an April Fool’s joke? But there’s usually a tell. “Ranking Member Khanna Responds to Trump’s Attacks on Birthright Citizenship” (April 1, 2026):
“In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the case of a child born in the United States to Chinese immigrant parents, the Supreme Court made crystal clear the Fourteenth Amendment ‘affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory.’ The Court’s opinion came amid racist, anti-Chinese attacks that grew in the 19th century. Now, pro-Trump lawyers are resurrecting that hate to try to restrict every person’s right to birthright citizenship. [Emphasis added to stress what an ass this guy is.]
“For centuries, Chinese Americans have helped build this country. From workers on the transcontinental railroad to particle physicist Chien-Shiung Wu, to architect I.M. Pei, thousands of Chinese Americans have contributed immeasurably to our nation’s innovation, culture, and success. Continuing to attract immigrant contributions is paramount to American exceptionalism.
“Way back in 1869, Frederick Douglass argued passionately for Chinese immigration and for a diverse, ‘composite’ American nationality. After being enslaved for nearly twenty years, he spoke in support of a multiracial democracy including Chinese immigrants, saying ‘the fact that the Chinese and other nations desire to come and do come is a proof of their capacity for improvement and of their fitness to come.’
“I am proud to work alongside groups like Stop AAPI Hate, the Asian American Scholar Forum, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, and OCA National to protect birthright citizenship, uphold American diversity, and rebuke any and all anti-immigrant hate.”
Just so we can be completely clear on Khanna’s enlistment of authorities here, maybe he can explain what were the views of the 1898 Supreme Court and the 1869 Frederick Douglass on the Chinese Communist Party’s hostile activities against the United States in 2026.
Can Khanna (shown above) have failed to absorb the lessons of the James Roth column for StoptheCCP.org entitled “That’ll be 200 surrogate babies, please,” which is required reading for all Committee members?
In 2014, Amy Kaplan directed an outfit called West Coast Surrogacy. “She says Chinese surrogacy took off in recent years through word of mouth. Her agency saw its first Chinese client in 2009. Now [in 2014], an estimated 47 percent of clients waiting for a surrogate are from mainland China.”
Things have gotten a lot crazier since 2014. No wonder. This business “allows foreign nationals to have children through American surrogate mothers and return home with a baby and U.S. citizenship in hand. Once the child turns twenty-one, the entire family can apply for citizenship through a green card application—a method, one surrogacy agency notes, that is a ‘cheaper alternative to the American EB-5 visa.’ ”…
Nathan Zhang is CEO of the surrogacy service IVF USA. He says that although earlier clients were motivated by a desire evade China’s one-child policy, “new wealthier parents now aim to commission dozens, or even hundreds, of US-born children with the goal of ‘forging an unstoppable family dynasty.’ ”…
Florida Senator Rick Scott introduced the SAFE KIDS Act in November [2025]. It was referred to the Judiciary Committee, where it currently reposes.
In a press release announcing the bill, Scott says he is concerned about three things: “adversaries” using surrogates to gain citizenship for their kids and themselves; trafficking of infants abroad; and “establishing accountability for third parties who facilitate commercial surrogacy.”
President Donald Trump’s January 20, 2025 executive order on birthright citizenship says:
Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.
And goes on to say that U.S. policy will recognize these distinctions.
Which seems to suggest that regardless of the final judicial fate of this executive order, we’re not all about to be kicked out of the country whether or not we possess a U.S. birth certificate. It’s clear that the president is not “resurrecting hate to try to restrict every person’s right to birthright citizenship.”
If Khanna had in a non-smearing fashion articulated disagreement with the Trump administration about the reasonable prerequisites of birthright citizenship while knowing and acknowledging how birth-enabled citizenship can be and has been prolifically abused, including by rich dads in the People’s Republic of China, his opposition would be easier to take. But nothing in his press release even approaches a concession clause relevant to Khanna’s putative mission as a member of the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. This mission is not to clear a path for the Chinese Communist Party.
Khanna could be worse. He could also be better. I seem to remember that his predecessor in the Committee, Raja Krishnamoorthi, also a Democrat, tended to be better.
