What is proposed below is regulatory, lawful and entirely intended to create hardships and burdens. Thus, a new era in State Department visa requirements respond to newly established guidelines by the Supreme Court.
As a pragmatic and patriotic American I respectfully suggest and recommend the U.S. State Department immediately institute the “Roberts Requirement” following similar visa entry protocols previously used for COVID-19 tests prior to U.S. admittance.
The Roberts Requirement: Each female visa applicant must present a valid negative pregnancy test taken no longer than 10 days prior to travel to the United States.
The certified document, negative pregnancy test, together with all related visa approvals must be presented to Customs and Border Patrol at each port of entry. Failure disqualifies the traveler.
This is the same protocol as COVID-19, only using pregnancy status as the disqualifying health issue. It is a lawful regulation, born from a new standard established by the Supreme Court, that does not need congressional approval.
Don’t get stuck on details about why it will not work, it will.
Start thinking like a person who realizes the goal is to create severe antagonism through regulation. That antagonism can then be directed.
Aim isolation, ridicule and marginalization at those who created the problem. This can be done without visible vitriol.
The objective is not just making sure pregnant women do not get visas; that is one small element. The bigger objective is to make it extremely difficult to come to the USA and THEN pin that global compliance requirement on Chief Justice John Roberts, making him live every day with the consequences of his blinded American stupidity; facing him, belittling him, ridiculing him, sitting on the front pages of his peers and global friends.
Chief Justice John Roberts created this mess, now put it on his doorstep every day.
But people will lie – doesn’t matter.
But people will create fake documents – doesn’t matter.
But people will still overstay their visas – doesn’t matter.
You are putting the emphasis on the wrong aspect.
Make every overburdensome visa rule and travel permit regulation specifically attributable to John Roberts decision. Pre-screenings, pregnancy tests, supplemental bond requirements for 15-to 45-year-old females, shortened visa terms and much more.
No exclusions for diplomats, sports figures, foreign actors, employees, H1Bs, student entry or any other visa type – the works. Make the total visa entry system subject to a regulatory and compliance nightmare at a scale that is unheard of. That is the scale of the problem Roberts has created. Now blame John Roberts for it.
This ‘Roberts Requirement’ applies to all visa types.
The objective, and it can accompany many other requirements such as a “bond” attachment required for 15- to 45-year-old females to travel, is to create such an overwhelmingly restrictive visa process that it creates ridicule on the SCOTUS decision.
Make every regulation specifically cited to the Supreme Court decision and make it exceptionally burdensome.
Make SCOTUS own the outcome.
Canadians and Mexicans also need to comply. The same rules apply to every nation and no longer are visas determined by timeline, but by the number of extensions required or allowed within it.
Every visa has a maximum duration of 3 months, with various extensions possible.
A one-year visa becomes a three-month visa with 4 extensions allowed. At each extension the same origination requirements must be fulfilled.
A two-year USA visa, is now a U.S. visa with 7 extensions allowed, etc.
Student visas carry the same requirement for 3-month extensions.
Require a – refundable at exit – surety bond purchase valued at $500,000 for any non-tourist visa. [Later the bond issuer, sell those non-refunded bonds and release the bounty hunters.]
No visas are exempt from the entry requirements.
This is a new era with new rules that specifically come as an outcome of new judicial rulings. This is not a White House or State Department issue. This is an issue created by the Supreme Court that needs an immediate response.
Congress can fix it, but in the interim – maximum regulatory pressure is applied directly to the wound.
♦ Example of point and counterpoints.
POINT: Canada, Mexico, India or [XXX] will scream this is unfair given the nature of our collaborative visa designations.
Counterpoint: Yes, you are correct. That was then; this is now. The nature of our visa system has changed because SCOTUS has just codified new distinctions on citizenship that now become new visa factors. Your nation does not convey birthright citizenship, so I understand your inability to accept our new terms. Unfortunately, our nation now does convey birthright citizenship, and as a consequence changes are needed.
Don’t back down. Make SCOTUS own it.
Sure, there will be legal challenges, all the way up to the same SCOTUS, and what are they going to do?
Think about it!
Make everyone live by the new rules – that are created by those who didn’t think about the consequences.
I like the way you think: let the corruption in the system work for you
Atta boy Sundance! Turn the table on those Alinsky types. I was forced to retire on that Covid BS!
Yes, you and a lot more of us. Fauci, may you dwell in a place with unending torment and agony, you sick son-of-a-b!tch.
Paging Marco Rubio!!
Birth control shot with follow up boosters, after the negative pregnancy test. And titre levels.
Bless me Father for I have sinned….
Oh, and all y’all know who makes Depo-Provera?
Our good friends at Pfizer.
Without insurance or discount cards, the cost ranges from $128-$138.
Every three months.
I think I see a way out of this…
A deal big pharma cannot refuse…
I would add the Ketanji Brown Jackson Requirement:
Make men applying for a visa get pregnancy tests too. Men should pay the costs as well to make it non-discriminatory and more bulletproof in court.
Great idea! The Dems believe that men can get pregnant, so, trust the science, make men obtain pregnancy tests, too.
After all , KBJ can not define a woman, so all get tested…fair is fair….no?
SD is mad ,mad……
True that!
We absolutely cannot have discrimination based on sex/gender…that would be ‘sexual harassment’.
I think that too, is ‘illegal’…
Clog the court system.
I mentioned that myself only because democrats say men can have babies too. I like the name you give it.
Not just “men” and “women”, but all “genders” now known or identified at any point in the future, until the end of time.
Excellent!
A must ask question is to ask what is a man/woman!
Perfect.
That is also the Obamacare requirement. Obamacare mandates required pregnancy care coverage be included in all health insurance policies, including policies for men, for post-menopausal women, nuns, everyone. That and its other “must-cover” requirements helped skyrocket the costs for everybody.
My thoughts exactly! After all, they have been screaming at us for years that men can get pregnant. Let the games begin.
Fairness – yes!
LMAO!!!!
Applicants have to be retarded?
This requirement is beyond brilliant… well done!
Yes, and KBJ can’t define a woman anyway, so they all have to comply!
That would be a slippery slope we might not want.
I understand your frustration here but perhaps the 48 hour rule should apply.
Any one of us would have made the correct call regarding this scenario presented to the supreme court. Roberts or Barrett do not deserve a break on this. Time for them to feel the pain of their arrogance!
The responsibility must be on the person that wants to come here. Even during covid you had to get the shot and then produce the proof that you did. We did not give the shot here. We don’t want to be in the business of providing their healthcare. Just make them adhere to the rules. And the new rule is the Roberts Requirement.
No need. Every 3 months recertification & if pregnant the renewal is denied & they go straight into deportation proceedings.
But almost all churches will oppose it, applying whatever threats they can to their members.
All churches will oppose what?
They will oppose Sundance’s proposal.
So what.
Mine won’t.
Do it anyway. Let them howl.
I completely agree with you, R Iacoveo.
🎯
Bingo. Time for being nice is now over courtesy of our own SC.
Pretty sure Catholic doctrine says nothing about that.
Let them sue. As Sundance mentioned, it will then wind up on the SCOTUS doorstep anyway.
Let the “atheists” and “pagans”, and their theocracies complain … Perhaps it will finally cause all the “government lawyers” and Article. III. judges to define (for statute and case law): “religion” and “establishment of” without defining “government” as We the People are now subjected to.
Quite a stretch of the imagination to expect that “almost all” churches will oppose.
Besides, as Sundance would likely have pointed out had he included your concern in his article above, it “doesn’t matter”.
Churches should not threaten… but, of course they have been doing that since their beginning.
That’s the point. A lot of groups will oppose it. The reason to impose Roberts’ Rules is to create mass irritation.
This is honestly probably one of the best ways to make sure SCOTUS rerules quickly on this insanity.
I also think everyone should communicate their fury to the treasonous three: Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barret. Let them know, in no uncertain terms, that they have now made themselves the enemy of the American people. No threats, just facts. Let them think about that.
They do not care what any of us peons think. Neither do any of our so called “representatives”. We have been ignored and betrayed by them all for decades.
You are probably right, but I am going to do it anyway.
They will use your letter for the next firestarter in their $20,000,000 mansion’s fireplace during the next round of cocktail parties.
They are not subject to electoral pressures; they have their orders from their masters and are proceeding with those orders apace.
To say they are enemies of the people is an understatement – Roberts and Barrett are obviously compromised in some fashion – either that or they have been threatened with violent harm or exposure of some moral lapse. Kavanaugh is just simply a pussy – saw that during his hearing.
Democrats will now regret making pregnancy a “woman’s health issue” and not a normal biological function.
We have the right to rule on health issues. Butt not normal biological processes. You can come into this country with a full bladder, just not a filled uterus.
Don’t over look tranny men with uteri too.
The. State Department can be “Woke” and “politically correct” at the same time to avoid all those nasty liberal women from tearing their hair out.
Designation?
“Travellers With Uteruses”
(There ya go, Brown Jackson…happy?)
Betsy, I can just hear the gate attendants at the gate for Southwest Airlines,
“Southwest airlines is now preboarding patients, oops, passengers with a uterus…”
Win Win, Aggie 👍🏻
When I was a much younger person, I never heard the word “uttered”.
Haha…Wordman has some comopetition!
Perhaps “uddered” is more appropriate in this context…
Or, as mandated here in NY potential “gesticulating persons.” 😎
Excellent Betsy. Works using their own words and philosophies. Perfect.
She has no idea what this means.
Hear! Hear!
Desperate, existential times,such as Roberts has ordained, necessitate exactly this.
Bring it!!!
“Desperate, existential times”……was there a recent film about such things?
YES
From your keyboard to Trumps ear! We can only hope.
The X post went to @SecRubio & @RealDonaldTrump.
Something to be said for malicious compliance.
Reading about this now – thank you!
Exemption for women over 60, and M2F trannies. LOL
It’s all about perception… touché Sundance and brilliant
Outstanding Sundance! This is an excellent example of “throwing sand in the gears.”
It also brings to mind Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. It’s time for our side to use “their rules” against them.
God bless you Sundance!
Exactly my thought, Bruce. And it’s about time! I believe it is Alinsky Rule #4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules”. So totally apropos! 👍
When your enemy is destroying himself, do nothing to interfere.
Let’s take away the emotion. What does the law state? What is the actual legal status of a baby born in the United States? Under law they have to have some kind of legal status. That is globally accepted at law.
The answer is to change the law.
Who is going to do that? Congress?
“An existing amendment can be completely repealed or changed, but it requires passing a brand new amendment.”
FFS….go back to Bluesky.
Never been to Bluesky. Been a treeper since 2012.
You called it wrong PRH. I remember Legal Beagle from the Ron Paul days when I found the 🌴 🏠. LB used to post more frequently years ago.
Good luck either way that.
I think you would have a better chance at winning the powerball.
So you don’t agree with Newtons Third Law – For every Action there is an Equal and Opposite Reaction, in American politics?
The Roberts Court has just interpreted English Law definitions, not our American Revolution’s Founders’ definition of Birthright Citizenship, and Roberts, et al, got it totally wrong.
Sounds logical but who is going to do that? Not in our political climate. Would not happen.
1. Pregnancy test required at all ports of entry and airports; immediate expulsion if pregnant.
2. Immediate deportation for illegal aliens found to have become pregnant after entering the USA.
3. Immediate deportation for illegal aliens and all of their children, who have birthed a child in the USA.
to avoid bias,
some other proof ( valid dna test, or something ) could be required of traveling males ?
I do not know
Responsible (equally held accountable) mothers and fathers is a good thing.
(and the dna could included in a a i searchable data base )
imho
Love thy neighbors (in a helpful way)…
They can pee on the stick too, and pay for it. Equity, don’t you know.
Preg test on arrival, for each person regardless of how they may define themselves.
call it PEE and PAY
PEEPAL!
Worthy of competition with Wordman lol
I don’t see on what basis there could be a successful legal challenge to the Roberts Requirement as set forth above, at least at the appellate court level.
Don’t be too hard on Roberts. The 14th Amendment is a legislative act that should first be amended by a legislative act so that the courts aren’t left with cleaning up (a/k/a legislating from the bench) word salads. In this sense, consider the language of Gorsuch’s opinion today in the FDA case. Gorsuch doesn’t have a problem getting to the result whereby the president controls the bloated federal bureaucracy. But, Gorsuch then asks, how the hell did we get this bloated bureaucracy, and the answer of course is decades of feckless, lazy Congresses. Congress must get to work. It has the principal job of writing laws, intelligent laws, laws that address immigration in a common sense manner as well as a host of other issues instead of farming them out to three-letter bureaucracies. But, Congress is a ship of fools, and we keep sending the same turds back as our representatives year after year after year.
Of course there’s delicious irony in implementing the Roberts Requirement that will infuriate the left and their two-faced abortion devils.
“Don’t be too hard on Roberts”
Roberts deserves every ounce of scorn we can heap upon him. He is a corrupt Enemy of the Republic.
He is a corrupt Enemy of the Republic.
obumer care comes to mind…..
Roberts’ opinion went far beyond what he needed to overturn the Trump executive order, if that was what he was trying to do.
In just about every other SCOTUS case they rule in as narrow and pin-pointed a manner as possible. How often have we seen them punt from ruling at all and just send the matter back into lower courts for reconsideration? Or narrowly addressing only the barest minimum necessary to settle the immediate issue at hand? Roberts is famous for how spineless he can be in his rulings, making them wishy-washy to the extreme and leaving many side issues unresolved.
But in this case, Roberts wrote his majority opinion, his controlling opinion, extraordinarily bluntly. He came right out and specifically wrote that even if an illegal with no right to be in the USA is only in the US to give birth and then leaves, their newborn is a US citizen. That was way over the top. Roberts far expanded birthright citizenship into a fundamental constitutional right. He had no need to go that far. He went that far anyway.
But do “we” though, do we really “keep sending them back”?
Plus, how should CONgress be counted on to do anything rational, when all they can do is sink into their own emotions?
Change the visa requirements for the Northern Marianas. Obama waived visas for the Chinese to this US territory.
https://nypost.com/2026/03/19/us-news/us-territory-where-thousands-of-chinese-moms-give-birth-to-american-babies/
Change visa requirements for other countries with birth tourism, which Trump has already started:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/trump-admin-puts-alleged-birth-233547674.html
Review all Temporary Protected Status aliens here, and end TPS for more.
Start deportations for Haitians and Syrians after TPS ended.
Keep firing Obama/Biden immigration judges and appoint those who will apply the law strictly:
https://www.npr.org/2025/09/23/nx-s1-5550915/trump-immigration-judges
All of this can be done by executive order.
I’m surprised we didn’t already hear of this happening today, the administration seemed to anticipate this disastrous decision. Shouldn’t let a day go by!
Custom And Border Patrol also confiscated loaded turkey baster
If it is an executive order from a GOP president, wouldn’t it be immediately rescinded by the next Dem president?
Or am I misunderstanding?
You are not misunderstanding.
Natural Consequences
Make it hurt Drill Sergeant!
And for good measure, 8 USC 1182(f):
… suspending the entry of any class of aliens deemed “detrimental to the interests of the United States” for any period deemed necessary…
Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN) will introduce the Anchors Away Act, a bill that will BAN pregnant foreigners from entering the U.S. to prevent them from exploiting birthright citizenship and securing automatic American citizenship for their children.
“We are literally going to be dropping Anchors Away, which really pushes back against the Supreme Court, this idea that if you are pregnant and you are from a foreign nation, you know what, it is time for Congress to pass a law that says you cannot come here. You cannot have a baby on U.S. Soil and exploit this loophole.”
🇺🇸Join👉 @SGTnewsNetwork
Video:
https://t.me/SGTnewsNetwork/142276
Along with Anchors Away there should be Four interrelated laws or policies enacted:
If they drop an anchor-baby they can go back to their home country without their child and be left with no other option than putting the child up for US adoption. Or if they raise the child as a citizen of their home country, doing so removes the child’s US citizenship.
You gonna get it past traitor Thune?
I like the thought; but it will only work in this administration and will disappear when another, less amenable, takes over. Unless, this move gets challenged in court and rapidly moves up to the Supreme Court. Would this Supreme Court overturn some of its precedent? I am not a chess player and can’t see how it plays out.
THIS is why I come here! Thank You Sundance! Turn it all back on them!!! Bravo!
Excellent article Sundance, I hope the administration will try to do some radical things here.
Maybe someone in the white house will read this.
The problems this court just created for our nation is crazy.
A valid proposal. Sadly, our legislative branch will not do anything to address or support such a common sense solution..
I really like this Roberts Requirement idea. I just wish there was a way to make Kavanaugh and Barret equally infamous for their complicity in this atrocity.
The buck stops with the Emperor of the United States.
Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.
They are, by association, and if each article published mentions that association with the Roberts ruling… then…
RKB rule
Great thought. Love it
This idea should extend to those who identify as female. As Justice Brown has demonstrated, it can very difficult to determine just who is a woman and who isn’t. Best to have all bases covered.
Since we can’t know who qualifies as female, make the requirement universal.
The fact that this suggestion is an executive only action makes it that much more elegant.
I can see a whole host of escalation steps that can ratchet up the obstacles. These requirements could also be integrated as part of all trade agreements going forward, so even after the Trump era the rules remain the same. Two can play this game.
For even further media apopolectic wailing, initiate a whole of society crowd supported top 10 regulation proposal contest with prizes (all expenses paid trip to D.C. for the presidential signing event).
I fully approve and support this response. This needs to be implemented at Trump speed.
On the way home from work I heard Greg Jarrett on radio saying congress has power of enforcement via section 5 of 14th amendment. So could this be a type enforcement they enact? If not done by state dept?
Sorry for train of thought that isn’t well thought out. By the time he mentioned this nugget he’d been talking for awhile and I wasn’t fully paying attention.
CONgress cannot figure out who has a right to vote in US elections. Greg Jarrett should not even dream that CONgress will figure this out. They won’t, but they’ll fundraise off of it for 5 decades like they did with Roe.
Sadly I agree with you but it got my mind engaged. I’d never heard of this before (by design I’m sure).
Trump needs to drop a ‘bug’ in marco’s ear and make the pain felt across the supreme court……
The LAW ignored / ignores the 14th numerous times in the past several years, but particularly during covid.
This idea x 1,000,000!
I hope the right people listen to you!
🙏
Heck! Make the men take them too since according to the left men can have babies too. 🤣
According to at least one member of SCOTUS.
Excellent suggestion!
Oh, if only…! Alas, a lack of boldness and courage seems to carry the day.
Bravo, Sundance, GMTA.
Make’em test before departure of their foreign air port or other terminal AND again at US Custom’s Inspection when they arrive on USA territory.
Also limit each Visa issued to a foreign woman of child baring are (aka, Dim’s “Birthing Person”) to no mo more than six months, to prevent pregnancies from reaching a nine month term after they obtain lawful admission into the USA/territories.
Be sure to Mock Roberts, et al, by having State name this new Visa Rule: the Robert’s Visa TAX.
‘bearing age’… lol
Also end dual citizenship.
Yes. This is a must and should have been done years ago. You’re an American citizen or your not. Period.
bingo, mexico does NOT recognize us citizenship for illegal alien kids born in usa , for them, they are mexican
All this and the requirement that turning up pregnant is “lying on a visa application” and grounds for removal from USA.
… and a lifetime ban from entering USA again.
And in the interim ban all pregnant women from the United States.
Oh and the pregnancy test should be mandatory on the day of travel to the United States and every month after that.
When the squatter has been officially given the keys to the property you can no longer say that crime doesn’t pay.
Sundance, I think your Roberts Requirement should go up to age 55, it happens.
Older than that, now.
The ones who will eagerly embrace the pregnancy test visa requirement will be the foreign trans creatures. It will validate (in their mind) that they are female. LOL
MARINATE –> ROBERTS and BARRETT IN Their OWN SAUCE !
Call the VISA REQUIREMENTS the ” ‘Roberts Requirement’ ”
and
the Pregnancy Addendum the ” BARRETT PREGNANCY Check ”
MEXICO and CANADA – YOUR governments HAVE Screwed Up a GREAT DEAL that YOU HAD.
MAKE IT SO as per SUNDANCE
I invite all women of child bearing age to travel to the US when pregnant. Come on, come on you all. Half a billion women from India, and millions from China, the rest of Asia, Africa and South America. Let’s not forget the Europeans, who established this land as a nation centuries ago.
I won’t live long enough to see how the US will change over time. But that is OK…
We are all the same, right? All cultures are as valid and worthy of praise. After all, what inventions and character have each culture blessed the world with?
Love it!
And transgender “women” visa applicants have the same requirements.
If they refuse they MUST reapply as males and permanently forfeit switching back.
That will either keep them out or prove what a scam it is.
The age requirement is too narrow. Age 10-55 because pregnancy is possible within those extremes.
How about 9 years old?
We can’t be mean to all those young Muslim brides, can we?
Evidently Trump had a no-pregnant-women-will-be-admitted visa restriction during his first term.
Boasberg will never allow it. It’ll get struck down immediately. The higher courts won’t hear it.
That’s the point where you ignore Blowusberg.
Sundance to the rescue!
💯💯🇺🇸💥🦅
MAGA Trump Sundance solution.