Pretty embarrassing for the USA. Worlds richest country that pollutes the most per capita cannot decide if they should understand the research and be good, or be a science denier because it benifits today(narcissism) There is no confusion in the research and among climate researchers...the denial comes 99% from people not associated with any of the research being done anywhere on the globe
I think the important issue for Americans shouldn't be whether birthright citizenship is right or wrong. It should be "can an executive order override the constitution?" If it can then the constitution might as well go into the trashbin. And for conservative voters remember the precedent could be used against you.
His executive action talks about an interpretation of the constuion. It doesn't end birth right citizenship, but it or people who don't fall under u.s jurisdiction. So only illegals
@@syntaxlost9239it actually is how government works. The Supreme Court has the final say in interpreting the law, but the President has the power to enforce the law, and if the Supreme Court has not yet issued a clear ruling on an issue then the President has latitude to interpret/enforce the law as he sees fit until corrected by SCOTUS. The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether the children of illegal immigrants or of those here on temporary status receive birthright citizenship, it is an open question. Until SCOTUS provides its own ruling on the issue Trump is free to enforce the law in accordance with his own interpretation
@@goatskin4487 Not only illegals, but absolutely anyone Supreme Court would wants to be outside of US jurisdiction. Nothing is said about revoking citizenship or of anyone's legal status. Judges themselves are under the jurisdiction of being human, scared, deluded or tempted. There is the controversy if that amendment was forced thru instead of fair legislature, so be nulled, if the judges want. The constitution doesn't even give them the right to the judiciary review. That could be revoked by congress, all is legal then, if it passes the process. Judges can choose not to follow any legislature passed, complain, can refuse to do their job, but cant void anything as power directly vested by constitution. Constitution isn't a wall or clear directives, it is whatever people want it to be, just much harder to do so, then without it.
Trump wants to stop incentives for illegals to have us citizen babies. Because having an American baby hives you access to food stamps, housing and big tax refunds
@@danielstarr8957 Permanent residency. The highlighted text in the document contained a passage that permitted US citizenship if the father is at least a permanent resident.
he's going to deport most the people who pick food in America so food rots in the fields, and put huge tariffs on the countries that import food making food imports more expensive. So that should bring down prices, right? That's how economics works... isn't it?
Why would the children of people in the country illegally be stateless, wouldn't they still have citizenship through their parents? Isn't that how this works in the UK?
There are many countries that don't give citizenship to children born abroad to their citizens. For example Canada won't give citizenship to children born abroad who are second-generation Canadian migrants. Venezuela only does it to children born abroad if both parents are Venezuelan. China won't do it if the child acquired a different nationality at birth or if the parents also have another nationality. Israel won't do it if the child isn't registered within 30 days of birth, while many other countries give a window of 5 years or more. Germany, Ireland, UK and Malta can complicate things if the German/Irish/British/Maltese parent was also born abroad. In certain cases Belgium will only give nationality if these children are still stateless when they become adults. And so on. There are probably more examples and more specific situations that can leave children stateless.
Only if their parents are citizens of countries that use the right of blood for citizenship. But almost every country in South America, as well as a few others, have birthright citizenship.
The birth might not be known to the parents' home country, hence they will not have citizenship for that country. Obviously, it would be fairly easy to organise but temporarily they probably would be stateless (which I think might be against international law)
Well, in America (the continent) ius solis is much stronger in most countries and to get citizenship you need to prove your relation to the country and the parents plus (in some cases) you have to live in that country for a number of years. So it would very much be difficult to give them their parent's citizenship while in the US.
@@jenniferclark9842He controls both houses of congress, I don’t know what you mean by him getting bent lol. An executive order is an immediate measure he enforce before he gets it pushed into law through congress which takes far far longer.
@@crabberdabberyeit’ll never get passed Congress, he literally signed nothing, you need 34 states, both sides to even attempt to repeal the 14th amendment
Jus Soli is extremely common in both north or South America. The VAST MAJORITY of countries in this chunk of the world have it including Canada. Everyone portraying it as weird or unusual is patently untrue and incorrect.
Counteies built on immigration usually have laws supporting immigrants, who would have thought? It's only recently they have begun again being used as the national scapegoat for the countries problems
6 Republican Judges, 3 Democrat Judges in the United States Supreme Court. Yeah conservatives or Republicans have a majority but judging by how the Supreme Court often does diverge from Trump's agenda sometimes yeah it's not completely under his control.
Be USA: - is making entering the country more difficult - is making isolationist moves - is claiming the seas have their name - has a powerful military - is getting hostile with its neighbours and not - has a wall with one of its neighbours - is being governed by executive order - the president plans to circumvent the parliament Is USA becoming a pariah state?
SCOUTS in US Vs ARK already said both parents have to be a resident or 1 parent has to be a US citizen. 1920 they passed the Snyder Act which gave Native Americans citizenship. If birthright citizenship was a thing, that would have not needed to be done.
@@drugoviicno it is, in most countries you get the citizenship if you were born and reside there regardless of where your parents came from. It's like basic rights by that point you'd be punishing the child for not being born from your country which would make most people in most countries non-citizens
Birthright citizenship is older than the XIVth amendment. The Supreme Court as far back as at least 1830 said birthright citizenship was the common law rule. The exceptions were for children of diplomats, children of invading armies (so if some British officer had a kid in 1778 or 1814 not a citizen), members of sovereign Indian tribes, and the children of slaves. It was that last one that lead to Dred Scott and required the XIVth Amendment.
As the father of an American citizen, I can say that I went through hell and high water to enable her citizenship. Acquiring a visa, running a profitable business, hiring US citizens... there was a whole process of creating opportunity and providing to the US. In return my daughter was gifted a passport just for being born there. The idea people just waltz over and get that benefit is ridiculous.
Theyre called anchor babies. 10,000,000+ people have waltzed over the border in the last 4 years, barely even identifying themselves. Any of those that have had a baby since, have gifted their baby american citizenship.
But people do though… usually South or Central Americans. Oftentimes pregnant women will try to reach the US to give birth bc the child will have all birthright benefits.
But it is you did all the work, not your daughter. Why she should get all privileges, but not the children with worse birth lottery ticket (like happened to have parents who just walzt over?
How about being an example and renounce your daughter's citizenship? First European settlers did not colonize North America without blood and violence so their next generations could inherit the land. Grow the F up
You're going to have to restart the TLDR US. I know the last time it fizzled out when Biden came to power but Trump is a different animal. He drives engagement, seems to have a new outrageous story every day and some people are going to be interested only in him because of the morbid curiosity. If you put every Trump video on here first of all your schedule is going to be crazy, plus you're going to have more engagement with Trump videos. The algorithm will notice this pattern and maybe not push your Trumpless videos. So it's going to turn into a "Trump-cover" channel anyway.
I can kind of understand removing the incentive to immigrate illegally, but the thing is, if we let them remove birthright citizenship for one group of people, who's to say they will stop there?
They’re not gonna revoke citizenship for anyone. They’re just going to hault the practice of being a citizen because you’re born here. No country in the eastern hemisphere allows birthright citizenship. America should be by rule of blood
There's no evidence that birthright citizenship is an 'incentive to immigrate illegally'. Yes, some of the illegal immigrants who come here have children, but you can say that about any large group of people. Undocumented immigrants don't get pregnant any more often than regular people do.
3:43 so quick correction. It's 2/3 of congress to propose an amendment to the states. It still requires 3/4 of the states to ratify for it to become the highest law.
@@stunstar4553 Except in this case the 14th amendment says everyone born and under the jurisdiction of the United States is a citizen of the United States, so Trump's order very much does involve the Constitution and thus will end up going to the Supreme Court when the inevitable lawsuits claiming the order is unconstitutional are filed.
@@stunstar4553 ??? It literally does involve the constitution. Now, maybe SCOTUS will use some political propaganda based mental gymnastics to try to allow it, but they shouldn't. It's blatantly unconstitutional
Your thumbnail is wrong. It is not a law. It is an executive order. There is a hierarchy, and laws (passed by Congress and signed by the President) are higher than executive orders. In theory, executive orders are supposed to be the WAY the President carries out the laws.
Congress makes statutory law, the President makes executive law, executive agencies make administrative law. It's all law, it just differs in what powers each type of law is allowed, as these different types of law are not all equal.
It depends on the parents' citizenship(s). There are countries for example that only give citizenship to the first generation born abroad, so the second generation born abroad wouldn't qualify. That could lead to a stateless child.
@@australianword3812Difference beeing that "Seezar" is said that way because the name was translated into english. Like "Octavian". Ius Soli is actual latin, and a term still used to this day. If you can't use the proper pronounciation that's not the end of the world, but it IS a mistake.
@inserisciunnome it really isn't. It is the *English* pronunciation of a legal term. The Corpus Juris Secundum isn't pronounced "Corpus Iuris Secoondum", nor is Corpus Juris for that matter. It's like insisting the croissant be pronounced "KWASONG"
@@australianword3812 It must be different elsewhere then. "Corpus Iuris" (along with other latin terms) is pronounced and written in latin where im from.
@ I've literally never heard it pronounced juice until this very video. And I basically ONLY watch and read content in English online. EDIT: th-cam.com/video/0daVAp2GQGc/w-d-xo.html
Not that immigration is not a real problem, but the general anti immigration stance of politicians is just a distraction from the real problem of inequality between super rich and citizens.
Yes. 10 millions more or less people, 11 millions of illegals in the US, the native population of major European countries becoming a minority in a few generations aren't a big deal, a mere distraction from social issues.
@@BobScheuren The native populations of Europe becoming a minority isn't a problem in and over itself. The propagation of "certain ideologies" in Europe is far more dangerous.
2:58 omg look at that graph. What an existential crisis. A roughly stable population that slowly fell for 15 years and then rose again slightly. But not close to its historic peak. How will the US cope with this unprecedented situation?
Please tell me one country that is half as successful as the United States that has birthright citizenship for children of people in the country illegally. Like the democrat senator in the video said, no sane country would do that. Like the commentator said, virtually no other countries even have it for children of two non-citizens. Even if Trump got everything he wanted, the U.S. would still have the most liberal birthright citizenship of ANY developed country.
@@rabidlorax1650 no country is half as successful as the united states and they lack full birthright citizenship. suddenly your own argument is going against the point you're trying to make.
@@rabidlorax1650 France, this is why a lot of people from Comores come to Mayotte to have their children there. (But in consequence there is the same debat in France than in the US but to make Mayotte an exception in the birth right in France).
It’s ridiculous to simply allow anyone being born in USA to automatically become a citizen. No wonder there’s a black market for pregnant women to arrive there and soon give birth. It’s just common sense that at least one of the parents must be a citizen ffs
Pole here and we also require at least one parent to have Polish citizenship for the newborn baby to be a citizen. In fact, that seems to be the case in most European countries and seems pretty logical to me. America acts surprisingly fast & loose with citizenship of newborns.
Most of the country in Old World use Jus Sanguinis. In New World most use Jus Soli simply the fact that most of people is descendant of the people that are migrated from the old world. But some country in Old world also have mix of Jus Sanguinis and Jus Soli, for example Thailand used full Jus Sanguinis with limited Jus Soli, so foreign descent that born in Thailand can apply to become citizen of Thailand by birth right.
Well I wish Canada scrap birthright citizenship. A lot of women give birth here, don't pay the bill. Goes back home then when the child grows up, goes back to canada
Doesn't sound so bad. In dry economic terms you get a worker without having to pay for their education. In human terms, someone managed to get somewhere they wanted to be in life. Nearly all Canadians are descendants of immigrants, and you're hardly lacking in space.
So Canada pays for the birth, another country pays for all the healthcare, food, education, security, and then they come back as adults and Canada gets the tax revenue? That seems like a pretty sweet deal for Canada.
I don’t really agree with parts of the video, largely with the argument that other countries don’t do the same as a way to explain this. Firstly, the right to bear arms is basically nonexistent in most of the world, or the right to free speech without any type of censorship whatsoever including hate speech is also special, does that mean we get rid of that as well? This is apart from the fact that it’s the norm in the Americas to grant unconditional jus soli because these countries like the US are countries of immigrants and everyone had their ancestors come from somewhere, unlike in Europe where generations have lived in the same country and its mostly ethnic based. Adding to this, the fact is that the 14th Amendment protects birthright citizenship, and United States v Wong Kim Ark only established three exceptions to this rule, which are the children of diplomats, a hostile military force or native american tribes because they were not under US legal jurisdiction. Native Americans later gained this right through the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. I agree with a lot of Trump’s policies but this is very unconstitutional and I see very little way that SCOTUS (even with the conservative supermajority) will allow this as it is very clearly written and has over 120 years of precedent.
There is 120 years of precedence, but I would not call it very clearly written. "Subject to its jurisdiction" is not a clear statement. If we go by what Lyman Trumbull, a contemporary who was a major player in passing the 14th amendment, his understanding of it excludes those who were here temporarily and in line with the executive order Trump signed.
@@evancombs5159 Unfortunately, the intent of the writers are rarely considered in modern American law. For example, the 2nd ammendment was most likely only intended for regulated militias rather than everyone, but now we consider it as a right for every American. Interpretation through the Supreme Court is how ammendments are legally defined. Only through a reversal by the supreme court can this change. Additionally the 14th ammendment also states that people are "subject to jurisdiction" through being born or naturalized in the US, so it is pretty clear that they intended for birthright citizenship.
@qilinger4685 if you read the writings of those who created and passed the second amendment the intent was for everyone to have that right not just regulated militias. The problem we have is what is clear to those writing and voting on a law may not be clear decades or centuries later. We can usually get clarity by going back and reading what those creates wrote about their laws, but unfortunately those writings are not law and not in the law. So while they can be presented in a court case, those writings can also be ignored by judges.
@@evancombs5159 Actually it is very clear. If they can be arrested, tried and punished for breaking the law, they are obviously subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The only scenarios where someone on U.S. soil isn't subject to U.S. law involve diplomatic immunity and invading armies.
presumably people would just go to democrat led states and get citizenship anyway. If the order is illegal, it wont be followed in areas that aren't slavishly loyal to trump.
@@None-ef6nf how can you be protected by the constitution if you're not even a citizen? The constitution protects the American people. If you're here illegally, you're not an American citizen.
So you forgot the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was Vetoed by Democratic President Andrew Johnson and overridden by the Republican Majority Congress. The intent of the 14th Amendment was to make sure future governments didn't not try and deny citizenship and legal protections to the recently freed slaves. The 14th Amendment excluded Diplomats and their children, as well as Indians who owed allegiance to their tribes and did not pay tax, as neither party was subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States, even though they resided within it. Same goes for a tourist or an invading soldier or a person not legally in the United States as they owe no allegiance, duties or pay tax to the country. A good example is if a tourist commits a murder, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States laws, but they are no obligated to have allegiance to the United States, as they are subject to a foreign power. Same goes for civil rights, which doesn't allow a non-citizen the right to vote, but also protects them from being murdered, robbed or assaulted, as they are protected by the country's laws while within it. Although Indians gained full citizenship in 1924, no law was passed that recognized the citizenship of children of people illegally residing or those merely traveling or temporarily residing in the United States. The current legal fiction of birthright citizenship is completely a creation of the courts, not Congress.
If you're facing a dwindling population it's a good thing, beside the reason why it was in place was because fuck slavery. So are you trying to tell us something?
No, he can’t. The president can’t legislate, it would be up to congress and the Supreme Court, and they’re deeply antagonistic towards nativist policies like these.
@@urbaraskpraetor3316The news tells you they’re all fanatic national-socialists, but I swear to you they are _nothing_ but a load of liberal boomers. They wouldn’t let it happen, they think it’s racist, or bad for the economy, or some such nonsense.
@@urbaraskpraetor3316 Trump doesn't have the majorities needed to amend the constitution. There is no "novel interpretation" of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment, it is as plainly written as it gets. The ability of the US government to deport undocumented migrants and charge them with crimes means those persons are under the jurisdiction of the US and Jus Soli applies to their US born children.
Okay. Renaming Mountain Denali to Mount McKinley seems alright. Not a problem with that. But renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America Doesn't sound like it makes sense. If I Were president and want to change the Name of Gulf of Mexico to that, I Would Preferable Call it "Gulf of the America's" I Think that would sound very appealing since the gulf it wrapped around central america.
Yeah but that’s not why he did it, you really think he cares about any other country in America? He just wants it to be named after the US, mainly to distract from the fact he hasn’t done anything for lowering prices or tackling homelessness and drugs
@@lachlanchester8142 the only thing I remember from his first term was reforming prisons state and federal... I think that's the only thing that's significant...
They should create a law that take away parentship of those immigrants having kids just to get theirselves a citizenship or at least their ensure their safety on their stay. That's just disgusting. Making people just to improve their lives...
@@static2223 Still waiting for Biden to codify Roe v Wade and re-establish American democratic leadership abroad. Trump has done more in 1 day than Biden has in 4 years.
@@static2223 you are idiot or what 😂😂 he just took the office and you are expecting that eggs price to drop in the first week that he is in office 😂😂 you should blame Harris and Biden that you support for high prices they have been 5 years in power they only rised the prices Trump have only 2 days in the office and have done more for US then Kamela and Biden in 5 years you Americans are the most idiotic people that exist in this world 😂😂😂😂 and about Russia Ukraine don't you watch the news both are ready for peace treaty the moment that Trump stepped in Office
Yeah, Trump is a natural leader. Amazing how effortlessly he did all those things, while answering unscripted questions too. The difference between him and Biden is insane.
Tesla’s stock has shown significant long-term growth. Even through market fluctuations, it’s proven to be a strong performer, thanks to their innovative approach and leadership in the EV market
With Tesla’s continuous advancements in technology, like their push into AI and robotics with Optimus, the future looks bright, I have never heard or gotten any lost with the help of Mr Elon and his team, so Investing now could mean benefiting from future growth.
Tesla has helped me diversify my portfolio. It’s not just about electric cars-they’re also leaders in energy storage and solar technology, which adds more layers to their profitability
With just twenty one thousand three hundred dollar portfolio I’ve been able to earn up to seventy seven thousand five hundred in returns so far. The community program offers diverse opportunities, clear terms, and on-time payouts, which is rare in today’s world.
Joining the Tesla investor community has been amazing. Everyone shares insights and strategies, and it’s helped me stay informed and confident in my investment.
With an initial Bull-run stock deposit plan of about twenty seven thousand dollars I’ve been able to earn up to a reasonable amount of income about seventy- three thousand dollars in withdrawal returns so far. The program offers diverse opportunities, clear terms, and on-time payouts, which is rare in today’s world.
TLDR neolibs missed the most important part of the legal debate: SCOTUS was silent on the issue of illegal alien birthright citizenship for 84 years after Wong Kim Ark until Plyler v. Doe (1982), noted in a footnote-i.e., non-binding dicta-that Wong Kim Ark also applied to children of illegal aliens. SCOTUS has never held this, though. The footnote to it in Plyler was pure unbinding dicta, and it is substantively incorrect on multiple levels.
I don't rly care much about who gets citizenship and who doesn't. What's more concerning is that if he succeeds undoing birthright citizenship, than he will have evectivly torn the constitution to shreds.
Not to mention that it’s in the constitution. If he wants to change it, he needs to do it through Congress and the House of Representatives. He can’t just use the stacked Supreme Court or executive order. That’s outright dangerous.
The executive order will be faught in the political arena and court premises. But he has given an important political signal to his militant and visceral base, supporters and sympathisers.
In opinion that was the point, he wanted for this issue to go up to the Supreme Court so they can revisit the interpretation of the law. That outcome can be uncertain, but with a 6 republican majority it could go either way. I think he knows congress would not pass a new admend for the 14th.
@bratwurststattsucuk4517 i think i read that white amaricans r movie to Asia and especially Europe in larger numbers because of better living conditions and healthcare.
Read the 14th amendment. The first line is “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” do illegal immigrants live under the jurisdiction of our federal government? Sure sounds like illegal immigrants aren’t supposed to be getting citizenship to me
@@evancombs5159 nah, they just don't like birthright citizenship for racial reason (ie they want to keep america white), so they pretend like there is a disagreement on what the 14th amendment means when that was settled over a century ago.
The birthright citizenship is a good idea but it's so highly abused at this point and should be amended. As in my country, It's just common sense the child follows the parents'citizenship. So I don't get why people say the children will be stateless?
It was a good idea when America was "empty" and trying to fill itself with European migrants, but now we're "full" and don't appreciate millions flooding into the country. Amending the 14th is appropriate at this stage of our development.
Calling America ‘full’ is ignorant and detached from reality. The U.S. is far from full-we face labor shortages, an aging population, and rely on immigrants to sustain economic growth. The 14th Amendment wasn’t created to fill an ‘empty’ country with European migrants; it was designed to ensure that anyone born here has the rights of citizenship, period. Eliminating birthright citizenship would create a permanent underclass of stateless children, destabilizing society and undermining the principles of equality and opportunity that this nation was built on. If you think the U.S. no longer needs immigrants, you’re ignoring history, economics, and the reality of a globalized world. This isn’t about being ‘full’-it’s about upholding the values that define America.
You're welcome, nay encouraged, to use either amendment process if you're unhappy with the constitution. But in doing so, you're granting the state increased powers to deny citizenship by greatly increasing the burden of evidence required to prove it. We see the negative impacts play out amongst ethnic Koreans born in Japan across multiple generations and the discrimination they face in part by being blocked from gaining Japanese citizenship. Similarly, when we saw the Myanmar strip native Rohingya of their citizenship as part of the genocide enactment. Or in India, we've seen the enactment of their new citizenship law under Modi specifically to target and discriminate against Muslims. It's not uncommon to see the curtailing of basic rights associated with citizenship attached to some pretty serious discrimination and abuses, hence why you'll see some pretty heavy resistance to any amendment to revoke the 14th. "It was a good idea when America was "empty" and trying to fill itself with European migrants, but now we're "full" and don't appreciate millions flooding into the country. Amending the 14th is appropriate at this stage of our development." Holy shit, dude! That ain't no dog whistle.
Most countries in the Americas have Jus Soli and may not grant citizenship to children born to their citizens abroad. Especially South American countries.
It's crazy that Trump is in office. He's shown to be completely delerious. In several interviews on this topic he's describing Cuban asylum laws not birthright citizenship.
@@kevinrod14 Slightly under a third of the electorate voted for him in an election where the clear winner was "not voting because they both suck." Trump got just under 32% of the eligible vote, Harris got just under 31%, and 36% of eligible voters didn't bother.
@@Talisguy More people voted in 2024 than ever before, excluding in 2020. And apart from 2020, it once again had the highest voting percentages since the 1960's.
That is not a guarantee, every country has its own laws. You should remember a lot of people are refugees or immigrants with no remaining connection to their home country's government. Children are born stateless everyday to people in complicated situations, in some cases there might be a claim to citizenship but it is often difficult or impossible to claim. Our country is honestly spoiled in having birthright citizenship for everyone born here. A birth certificate being near absolute proof of citizenship is much much easier to handle logistically than verifying the citizenship of the parents. When you have to figure out citizenship using complicated rules involving the parents history it gets incredibly complicated. For example if you're a U.S. citizen but left the country as a child before the age of 14 you likely can't transmit citizenship to your child, that's the kind of complicated rules that apply to citizenship in these situations.
@@ethancoster1324 because it is difficult and time consuming, also you wont get citizenship if you have done any previous crimes/have a criminal record in other countries
@@Khneefer You ignored what I said. I gave an example where a U.S. Citizen mother would be unable to transmit citizenship to her child born abroad if she left the United States before the age of 14 and never moved back before that point. That's part of U.S. citizenship law. It is not as simple as every child being a citizen of their parents country, there's eligibility rules (often about the parents residency in said country) that vary greatly between countries. Even if a child technically is entitled to the citizenship of a parent's country, again not always the case, the burden of proof they may not be able to meet with the documentation they have.
@@kevinrod14not crying, just stating the lack of justice Trump has faced. Maybe your own bias has blinded you from looking at that statement with an objective view, but if your reading writing something that cannot convey emotion without context or being explicitly stated, with emotion I suggest you reexamine your you bias’s and the way you make judgments on this subject.
You complete idiot. Banning birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants is banning birthright citizenship! Because birthright citizenship means "No exceptions!". That is what makes it a right and not a privilege! Did they replace basic civics with faith based initiatives or something?
@@AnthonyGarcia-sy3yk slippery slopes require... you know, slopes and not something with a huge barrier. That would be the case if not for, as everyone else keeps pointing to, the constitution. No slope. No real change to the constitution either. just reinterpreting whats there as the reality requires.
@Snake369 lol really funny the constitution is really flexible when suits your point of view but rock solid when doesn't , when it comes to the second amendment oh no the founder fathers design that way you becomes constitutional textualism really quick 🤣.
@AnthonyGarcia-sy3yk i take it you share those 2nd ammendment guys views then? surely the founding fathers believed citizens should be able to own howitzer artillery and that any reasonable limitation is also a slippery slope 🫠🤣😅😂😇🥰😍🫢🥲
Why are we Europeans talking so much about this topic? We have countries doing this same change and the others are debating it, even in france it was passed by the macron government, and he's somewhat center, it only makes sense to remove the urge to illegal citizens go to a country just before labor
An EO can’t change the interpretation of the constitution. That is beyond the scope of an EO. If the US government ants to change this, they have to do it via legislation
Challenging an EO in court can cause judges to change the interpretation if they decide the previous interpretation was in error. This is how mistakes get corrected.
@ there is quite a bit of precedent. The thing is “jurisdiction” is not well defined in the constitution. If Trump defines it in an EO and then that EO gets overridden, does that mean another interpretation is valid? It creates too much instability. EOs can only command federal bureaucracies to behave in a certain way. They can’t defy Supreme Court precedent. Now if the Supreme Court wants to go ahead and use the EO as an excuse to suddenly say that the constitution is a living, breathing document, than they are legislating from the bench.
Not in the Americas. The vast majority of both South and North America have it. Including Canada. In former colonies it is very common. So no it would be extremely unusual for this continent.
I apologise for being a stickler, but for everyone reading: The J in Jus Soli or Jus Sanguinis is pronounced like a Y, so it sounds more like eoos solee etc
Americans have a false belief that America is some great Emerald city that everyone wants to come to. As someone who lived overseas for many years, that isn't true.
It's certainly a major immigration hub given that millions seek entry yearly The anglosphere in general, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the States are some of the most advanced and wealthy nations in the history of Mankind, there is a reason people flee there on boats, stuff themselves into shipping containers, trek thousands of miles by land or enter legally on aircraft and ferries They may not be shining cities on a hill, and the tarnish is showing in parts, but theyre certainly more appealing prospects than Senegal, Brazil or Russia, people look to them with hope for a brighter future and will do anything to go there, even if they need to break local and international law to do so
Birthwright citizenship changes are gonna cause more problems than not. Adding stateless children when precedent gives it more often than not isn't going to fix a problem. It's things like this that makes me wish United States vs Wong Kim Ark was a more well known Supreme Court ruling.
Only time will tell. I mean, if you’re already born in the United States during the emergency of a pregnancy water break or anywhere in the world you land you become that citizen. I don’t know everything but laws are weird.
@@notsosuavemate and btw you have to pay the taxes no matter where you are; Even if you're born while your parents where traveling and you never return to the US.
Let's see how you feel in 3 months. Got children? Their future is no more. Trump pulled us out of WHO & Paris agreement, ending Green New Deal. He is ripping up our Constitution. Next is pulling out of NATO & UN. Our alliances are being attacked while Trump continues to divide America and model his presidency as a dictator. World chaos is our future. Want authoritarianism? Go to Russia, N Korea, China then! Want a Theocracy? Iran already has one - go there. You would be much happier!
@ I’m all for defending country and border but installing a king and being deeply racist about it is exactly how nazis came to power. You are the equivalent of a nazi sympathizer
you couldn't be happier than the president is overturning the constitution? How stupid are you? There is no world in which the constitution being changed on the whim of a tyrant is a good thing, even if you like this particular change you should still be very concerned that he can illegally steal people's rights.
legally he cannot. It is a constitutional right. The president has no authority to change that. The proper way to change this would be a constitutional amendment. But he is probably counting on his puppet supreme court doing something they very much are not supposed to do in order to get away with it.
Of course he can't. The President has no power over it. And the fact that various European countries don't have birthright citizenship is completely immaterial. It's the Constitution of the United States that matters for US law. What Germany allows or does not allow is irrelevant.
It's constitutionally protected by the 14th Amendment. No, he cannot just scrap it with an executive order. This will go to the Supreme Court, Trump is just hoping they will ultimately rule his way.
Love the videos, but you guys should do more to cite your sources. Not at all saying I don’t believe the figures, rather I think it would improve viewers’ understanding of the most reliable sources out there!
This is a non-starter. Citizenship birthright is in the constitution. He would not only need a 2/3's congressional majority, but it would need to pass the courts....
@@Commonsense-u1h I promises you the framers of the 14th amendment did not mean for it to include millions of illegal migrants. Even harry Reid a major democrat called it insane because it is!
Yeah, if we didn't have the overturn on Roe v Wade or the presidential immunity rulings I'd be way more confident on this order being successfully challenged.
Kind of an important thing to go over with the amendment is "the spirit of the law" vs "the letter of the law." It was intended for former slaves and racism, not illegal immigration. Thats kind of a HUGE deal for why its debated. Then again, not the BEST news channel on the tubes either. Guess Ill file this one under "sometimes."
@abydosianchulac2 false. There were far more firearms in existence than just muskets and muzzle loaders at the time. Repeating rifles existed yet they didnt specify. Try again.
When something is as clearly written as the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment there is no "spirit of the law" argument, that would be saying a clearly written law doesn't work the way it is written.
I think you mischaracterized the prevalence of jus soli; it's the most common practice in North and South America, not a unique US policy. Also you missed the point that since jus soli is common in the Americas, it means that the home countries of undocumented migrants will not recognize children of migrants as citizens, because they were born in the USA, which is how they become stateless. This will also violate commitments the USA made to the UN when the USA signed UN conventions on preventing statelessness.
How about this. The child will be a US Citizen, but the parent would not be. Which leaves two choices, the child returning with the parent, or the child being put up for foster care. Any mother who is heartless enough to abandon their own child should be punished to the maximum extent back in her home country.
TLDR would be better served if they consulted someone with a US Law Constitutional background. The issue in question has never been officially adjudicated. The 1898 Supreme Court Case Untied States v Wong Kim Ark concerned two Chinese parents who while not US Citizens had legal status in the US. There is no Supreme Court case that has ever addressed the children of illegal aliens. The US Executive cannot overturn the US Constitution. The Executive Action is designed to force the opposition to sue and thus move the issue toward a Supreme Court decision.
It doesn't matter either way. SCOTUS interprets the constitution in bad faith so no matter what it has written down it will be interpreted with motivated reasoning to serve Republicans.
@@ThePlaidPuffin The couple in question in the United States v Wong Kim Ark were not immigrants. They were foreign workers who later returned to China.
From the way I understand it no since Trump is a citizen. It would only apply when both parents are considered illegal. Not sure though, maybe someone else can explain it.
No. One of his parents is a US citizen. This would only target those born from two non citizen parents who came into the country illegally. Plus I think she was a citizen by the time Barron was born
Infairness though, birth right citizenship shouldn't be a thing for illegal immigrants or immigrants generally. It should only be a thing for citizens of the US. Whether naturally born, or immigrants who became citizens.
@@Midnightmonty97 Laws that were good 150 years ago might not necessarily be still a good idea 150 years later. Back during the colonials day citizenship by place of birth was a good idea, but nowadays this law is being abused and thus needs to be modified.
@@TheZettsay that to all of those people who abused it during the Staten Island migration waves of the early 1900s. Besides how else are you going to grow the us population and keep the economy going? White people aren’t having babies, do you want to end up like Japan and Korea? With a declining birth rate?
If the U.S is going to end this, they should also end the stupid requirement of being born in the U.S to be elected President. So what if Americans decide to elect a person who were born in say, France or w/e.
There is an easy way to get around it so long as the country they came from is friendly and willing to donate a few sqft of land, just get a state to annex the room they were born in! Then boom they were born on territory that is now the us so they can be president.
@@xeganxerxes4319 They wouldn't necessarily be a French citizen - they'd only get birthright citizenship if at least one of their parents was a French citizen. It would be ridiculous, to me, to disqualify a perfectly qualified candidate who'd lived in the States for pretty much their entire life just because they happened to be born during their American parents' French holiday.
@ Sure, but I was questioning his take on birthright citizenship rather than inherited citizenship. It is dumb to say an American citizen should have to be born in the USA to become President but that’s another issue. I wouldn’t support, for example, a French couple having a child in the US and that child being handed American citizenship.
All people born in the United States are citizens under the 14th amendment. The constitution makes ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS for children of illegal immigrants. Literally all you have to do is READ THE CONSTITUTION!
@@WalkerOne if you can’t get drafted because you are undocumented then you are inherently not a citizen. Like, no one who is undocumented is a citizen, because then they wouldn’t be undocumented. They have documentation now. They would be a citizen. Those are different categories.
Abortion rights were once settled case law. We have prevailed over an unjust status quo before, and hopefully will do again. Case precedential frameworks are slow to change, but change they do.
@mr.x817 Interesting. Just like Republicans to blame all their stupid ideas on the Democrats. Btw, have you heard an update on the Jewish space lasers lately?
My view is that I agree with the goal, it makes sense, but I doubt that it's constitutionaly viable. It'll probably get struck down especially since the supreme court positioned themselves that the constitution is meant to be interpreted as it was meant, not adjusted for todays realities and norms (I forget the term a laywer used) and in accordance to that stance they'd have to strike down such an order as unlawful. They could, but it would be massively hypocritical and probably remove any (however unbelievable already) excuse that they are not politically motivated or aligned.
Interestingly, it's possible an actual amendment would pass at this point in history. Many people voted for Trump strictly on his immigration policies (lord knows he has nothing else to offer), so there is a lot of support for it.
@@GeoEstes He still doesn't have enough congressional support for an amendment though, and if Trumps economic plans backfire like so many economists think they will, he will have even less support after mid terms.
@@GeoEstes the problem is that it still requires both houses to pass a 2/3 super majority vote and then for 38 states to ratify it. And from what I understood that's not entirely something popular support gets to influence (IRC there supposedly were studies made that showed that laws passed by legislature practically have no correlation to public support, but does have correlation with lobbyist support)
@@OhNotThat the president does not have the authority to override the constitution. It doesn't matter what he says about it. Only the supreme court or a constitutional amendment can change it. And no sane supreme court would overturn 100+ years of jurisprudence.
@@ThatGuy-bz2in Let's get to the real point though, people are afraid when this ends up in front of the Supreme Court they will rule in Trump's favor, that is, illegal immigrants, by nature of entering unlawfully, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and thus their children aren't applicable for birthright citizenship. I don't understand how someone can do something illegally while also not being subject to someone's jurisdiction but stranger things have happened with this court.
Joining the paris climate agreement, then leaving it, then rejoining, then leaving again. 😅
Then we're joining it again it's just gonna be a headache
Pretty embarrassing for the USA.
Worlds richest country that pollutes the most per capita cannot decide if they should understand the research and be good, or be a science denier because it benifits today(narcissism)
There is no confusion in the research and among climate researchers...the denial comes 99% from people not associated with any of the research being done anywhere on the globe
The US would have a hard time rejoining it.
A ripoff if youre getting back in and out its simply a rip off just stay out then @@Tab1300
We should rename the US as Yoyoland in honor of all the rebounds.
Hey, TLDR team, I think the next four years will be eventful for America, so what about restarting the US specific channel?
…. Sounds like an American afraid to learn anything about the wider world. 😂
@@rrmuf why would we even need to?
WTF USA exists to serve this purpose
@@user_0088I hope ur joking
@@rrmuf TLDR & USA... I mean if you were trying to be funny, so many much better joke you could have made. Too bad. Haha
I think the important issue for Americans shouldn't be whether birthright citizenship is right or wrong. It should be "can an executive order override the constitution?" If it can then the constitution might as well go into the trashbin. And for conservative voters remember the precedent could be used against you.
His executive action talks about an interpretation of the constuion. It doesn't end birth right citizenship, but it or people who don't fall under u.s jurisdiction. So only illegals
@@goatskin4487 That's not how government works. The executive doesn't have the power to interpret laws.
@@syntaxlost9239 all executives technically have to interpret laws if they hope those to pass muster with the courts.
@@syntaxlost9239it actually is how government works. The Supreme Court has the final say in interpreting the law, but the President has the power to enforce the law, and if the Supreme Court has not yet issued a clear ruling on an issue then the President has latitude to interpret/enforce the law as he sees fit until corrected by SCOTUS.
The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether the children of illegal immigrants or of those here on temporary status receive birthright citizenship, it is an open question. Until SCOTUS provides its own ruling on the issue Trump is free to enforce the law in accordance with his own interpretation
@@goatskin4487 Not only illegals, but absolutely anyone Supreme Court would wants to be outside of US jurisdiction. Nothing is said about revoking citizenship or of anyone's legal status. Judges themselves are under the jurisdiction of being human, scared, deluded or tempted. There is the controversy if that amendment was forced thru instead of fair legislature, so be nulled, if the judges want. The constitution doesn't even give them the right to the judiciary review. That could be revoked by congress, all is legal then, if it passes the process. Judges can choose not to follow any legislature passed, complain, can refuse to do their job, but cant void anything as power directly vested by constitution. Constitution isn't a wall or clear directives, it is whatever people want it to be, just much harder to do so, then without it.
So basically Trump want to convert citizenship to how the UK does it as someone needs to be have PR or citizenship at a child' birth
Trump wants to stop incentives for illegals to have us citizen babies. Because having an American baby hives you access to food stamps, housing and big tax refunds
Which makes sense. But logic doesn't work with the Left.
PR?
@@danielstarr8957
PR = Permanent Residence
@@danielstarr8957 Permanent residency. The highlighted text in the document contained a passage that permitted US citizenship if the father is at least a permanent resident.
So the editor is a 40K nerd confirmed XD
Came here for this!
Saw that XD
Best news of the day.
What point does it show 40k reference?
@Zeeno when talking about jus sanguine, sanguinius of 40k fame pops up
You thought we would miss our boi Sanguinius didn't ya
Was about to say some cheeky warhammer sneaking in there
For The Emperor and Sanguinius!
Our Glorious Golden Hawk Boy
Nero*
We’re getting killed by Horus with this one 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥🗣️🔈🔉🔊🔊🔊🔊
Correction: most of Latin America offer unrestricted birthright citizenship. So it’s not exactly rare.
Exactly! You could say is more of an American (meaning belonging to the Americas) characteristic
Canada, Mexico, Jamaica, Costa Rica, Barbados, Argentina and Brazil to name a few.
no one is going to latin America to push out kids ....ya sound stupid
Meta's Llama chat bot says 32 countries have birthright citizenship, but that includes Chile, which I believe is not unrestricted for foreigners
Nice 40K reference 1:15
so is the cost of food down yet?
Only going up from here
We need trump tariffs, so the price of farming increases, and foreign imports price increase. So the American family has to pay more
@@howardmurphy743 ... when you are completely ignorant about a topic, but still comment about it anyway 🤡
he's going to deport most the people who pick food in America so food rots in the fields, and put huge tariffs on the countries that import food making food imports more expensive. So that should bring down prices, right? That's how economics works... isn't it?
weird i thought biden had a strong economy and jobs were booming
Why would the children of people in the country illegally be stateless, wouldn't they still have citizenship through their parents? Isn't that how this works in the UK?
thats right, they are from the country with right of blood
There are many countries that don't give citizenship to children born abroad to their citizens. For example Canada won't give citizenship to children born abroad who are second-generation Canadian migrants. Venezuela only does it to children born abroad if both parents are Venezuelan. China won't do it if the child acquired a different nationality at birth or if the parents also have another nationality. Israel won't do it if the child isn't registered within 30 days of birth, while many other countries give a window of 5 years or more. Germany, Ireland, UK and Malta can complicate things if the German/Irish/British/Maltese parent was also born abroad. In certain cases Belgium will only give nationality if these children are still stateless when they become adults.
And so on. There are probably more examples and more specific situations that can leave children stateless.
Only if their parents are citizens of countries that use the right of blood for citizenship. But almost every country in South America, as well as a few others, have birthright citizenship.
The birth might not be known to the parents' home country, hence they will not have citizenship for that country. Obviously, it would be fairly easy to organise but temporarily they probably would be stateless (which I think might be against international law)
Well, in America (the continent) ius solis is much stronger in most countries and to get citizenship you need to prove your relation to the country and the parents plus (in some cases) you have to live in that country for a number of years. So it would very much be difficult to give them their parent's citizenship while in the US.
"Citizenship Law"? He issued an executive order, Congress passed no law.
Because he knows that Congress would tell him to get bent if he tried going through them.
@@jenniferclark9842He controls both houses of congress, I don’t know what you mean by him getting bent lol. An executive order is an immediate measure he enforce before he gets it pushed into law through congress which takes far far longer.
@@crabberdabberyeit’ll never get passed Congress, he literally signed nothing, you need 34 states, both sides to even attempt to repeal the 14th amendment
@@OI-rs1bf Hispanics voted for Trump in large numbers 😂
@@everburn Not large enough, and not a majority of Latino voters.
Jus Soli is extremely common in both north or South America. The VAST MAJORITY of countries in this chunk of the world have it including Canada. Everyone portraying it as weird or unusual is patently untrue and incorrect.
It is an outlier in developed economies.
@@griegomas is Canada not a developed economy?
Counteies built on immigration usually have laws supporting immigrants, who would have thought? It's only recently they have begun again being used as the national scapegoat for the countries problems
@@themacintoshnerdis it? Seems like shits about to go back to third world. Nice housing crisis buddy
@@griegomas And? Goalpost shifting.
Sure he can. He owns the supreme court.
Nah, not all of it, but it can be done and it's not a certainty tho.
Of course just abolish the outdated program.. they have done with other visas
he can delete anything
We call him cheeseburger jesus
6 Republican Judges, 3 Democrat Judges in the United States Supreme Court.
Yeah conservatives or Republicans have a majority but judging by how the Supreme Court often does diverge from Trump's agenda sometimes yeah it's not completely under his control.
any amendment to the constitution needs congressional approvel not the supreme courts.
Be USA:
- is making entering the country more difficult
- is making isolationist moves
- is claiming the seas have their name
- has a powerful military
- is getting hostile with its neighbours and not
- has a wall with one of its neighbours
- is being governed by executive order
- the president plans to circumvent the parliament
Is USA becoming a pariah state?
more like discounted theocracy mixed with plutocracy 😅
I Hope so.
They're so full of themselves, bout time the world starts ignoring them.
Yeah
Most brutal dictatorship, led by biblical laws
No, the alternatives are worse.
SCOUTS in US Vs ARK already said both parents have to be a resident or 1 parent has to be a US citizen. 1920 they passed the Snyder Act which gave Native Americans citizenship. If birthright citizenship was a thing, that would have not needed to be done.
2:35 You should still note that, in the Americas, unconditional birthright citizenship is the norm in pretty much every country.
@@santmlb Europeans when another continent does things differently 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯
Doesn't work , especially in Japan
not true most countries illegal alliens don't get it
@@drugoviicno it is, in most countries you get the citizenship if you were born and reside there regardless of where your parents came from. It's like basic rights by that point you'd be punishing the child for not being born from your country which would make most people in most countries non-citizens
Is that relevant though? How many anchor babies are born in Guyana every year?
Birthright citizenship is older than the XIVth amendment. The Supreme Court as far back as at least 1830 said birthright citizenship was the common law rule. The exceptions were for children of diplomats, children of invading armies (so if some British officer had a kid in 1778 or 1814 not a citizen), members of sovereign Indian tribes, and the children of slaves. It was that last one that lead to Dred Scott and required the XIVth Amendment.
It's tragically hilarious that sheeple want to blame those with the least power for the problems that the powerful have created.
As the father of an American citizen, I can say that I went through hell and high water to enable her citizenship. Acquiring a visa, running a profitable business, hiring US citizens... there was a whole process of creating opportunity and providing to the US. In return my daughter was gifted a passport just for being born there. The idea people just waltz over and get that benefit is ridiculous.
Theyre called anchor babies. 10,000,000+ people have waltzed over the border in the last 4 years, barely even identifying themselves. Any of those that have had a baby since, have gifted their baby american citizenship.
But people do though… usually South or Central Americans.
Oftentimes pregnant women will try to reach the US to give birth bc the child will have all birthright benefits.
But it is you did all the work, not your daughter. Why she should get all privileges, but not the children with worse birth lottery ticket (like happened to have parents who just walzt over?
How about being an example and renounce your daughter's citizenship? First European settlers did not colonize North America without blood and violence so their next generations could inherit the land.
Grow the F up
It's not ridiculous!
I remember when the USA was considered the "Leader of the free world". That was quite a few years back though....
the constitution is very clear and this should get struck down unanimously in the US supreme court.
You're going to have to restart the TLDR US. I know the last time it fizzled out when Biden came to power but Trump is a different animal. He drives engagement, seems to have a new outrageous story every day and some people are going to be interested only in him because of the morbid curiosity.
If you put every Trump video on here first of all your schedule is going to be crazy, plus you're going to have more engagement with Trump videos. The algorithm will notice this pattern and maybe not push your Trumpless videos. So it's going to turn into a "Trump-cover" channel anyway.
WKA had a relevant aspect: his parents were prohibited by law from becoming naturalized citizens, so their residence was arguably temporary.
I can kind of understand removing the incentive to immigrate illegally, but the thing is, if we let them remove birthright citizenship for one group of people, who's to say they will stop there?
They’re not gonna revoke citizenship for anyone. They’re just going to hault the practice of being a citizen because you’re born here. No country in the eastern hemisphere allows birthright citizenship. America should be by rule of blood
Exactly. Which is why I support it
@@SamSepiolTheHereticBro what the fuck
We need to get rid of citizenship for Libs
There's no evidence that birthright citizenship is an 'incentive to immigrate illegally'. Yes, some of the illegal immigrants who come here have children, but you can say that about any large group of people. Undocumented immigrants don't get pregnant any more often than regular people do.
3:43 so quick correction. It's 2/3 of congress to propose an amendment to the states. It still requires 3/4 of the states to ratify for it to become the highest law.
Its in the constitution if you want to change it you have to amend it not signing an executive order.
The Supreme Court has the power of interpretation and can say that this executive order does not involve the Constitution
@@stunstar4553 yes, the same court that says the president can have his political rivals murdered and there is nothing anyone can do to stop him....
@@stunstar4553 Except in this case the 14th amendment says everyone born and under the jurisdiction of the United States is a citizen of the United States, so Trump's order very much does involve the Constitution and thus will end up going to the Supreme Court when the inevitable lawsuits claiming the order is unconstitutional are filed.
@@stunstar4553 SCOTUS would argue English doesn't exist then?
@@stunstar4553
???
It literally does involve the constitution. Now, maybe SCOTUS will use some political propaganda based mental gymnastics to try to allow it, but they shouldn't. It's blatantly unconstitutional
You think we didn't spot lil old Sanguinius? XD
Your thumbnail is wrong. It is not a law. It is an executive order. There is a hierarchy, and laws (passed by Congress and signed by the President) are higher than executive orders. In theory, executive orders are supposed to be the WAY the President carries out the laws.
Except the Cheeto in chief doesn't seem to understand that!
Congress makes statutory law, the President makes executive law, executive agencies make administrative law. It's all law, it just differs in what powers each type of law is allowed, as these different types of law are not all equal.
New Jersey isn't worth a single Charizard new unopened card.
Why would the children be stateless? Wouldn’t they take on citizenship of the countries of their parents’ births?
I think many countries dont allow citizenship for children borrn abroad
It depends on the parents' citizenship(s). There are countries for example that only give citizenship to the first generation born abroad, so the second generation born abroad wouldn't qualify. That could lead to a stateless child.
Just like in every other country. 😂 Only 5 countries have birth right citizenship. Where are all stateless babies?
@@yusted1 Which one,😂?
What on Earth are you talking about? 33 countries use jus soli citizenship, not 5. And there are 4.5 million stateless people around the world.
It's "yus", not "juice". Also, stress on first syllable: "sòli", not "solì".
"iTs kAySAr nOT sEEzAr"
@@australianword3812Difference beeing that "Seezar" is said that way because the name was translated into english. Like "Octavian". Ius Soli is actual latin, and a term still used to this day. If you can't use the proper pronounciation that's not the end of the world, but it IS a mistake.
@inserisciunnome it really isn't. It is the *English* pronunciation of a legal term. The Corpus Juris Secundum isn't pronounced "Corpus Iuris Secoondum", nor is Corpus Juris for that matter. It's like insisting the croissant be pronounced "KWASONG"
@@australianword3812 It must be different elsewhere then. "Corpus Iuris" (along with other latin terms) is pronounced and written in latin where im from.
@ I've literally never heard it pronounced juice until this very video. And I basically ONLY watch and read content in English online.
EDIT: th-cam.com/video/0daVAp2GQGc/w-d-xo.html
Not that immigration is not a real problem, but the general anti immigration stance of politicians is just a distraction from the real problem of inequality between super rich and citizens.
@@fasamelon So, he should scrap it. Talking about the real problem doesn't solve this problem.
Yes. 10 millions more or less people, 11 millions of illegals in the US, the native population of major European countries becoming a minority in a few generations aren't a big deal, a mere distraction from social issues.
@@BobScheuren The native populations of Europe becoming a minority isn't a problem in and over itself. The propagation of "certain ideologies" in Europe is far more dangerous.
@@BobScheuren But also, to play devil's advocate here, all of what you mentioned are what are considered the distractions from the real issues.
@@BobScheurenRace Itself Doesn't matter specially in The US and Europe to Lesser extent.
2:58 omg look at that graph. What an existential crisis. A roughly stable population that slowly fell for 15 years and then rose again slightly. But not close to its historic peak. How will the US cope with this unprecedented situation?
Please tell me one country that is half as successful as the United States that has birthright citizenship for children of people in the country illegally. Like the democrat senator in the video said, no sane country would do that. Like the commentator said, virtually no other countries even have it for children of two non-citizens. Even if Trump got everything he wanted, the U.S. would still have the most liberal birthright citizenship of ANY developed country.
@@rabidlorax1650Birthright citizenship is a core US value and should stay as such
@@rabidlorax1650 no country is half as successful as the united states and they lack full birthright citizenship.
suddenly your own argument is going against the point you're trying to make.
ya but fox news showed me scary latino caravans at the border. we are LITERALLY being invaded rn. surely this will lower the price of eggs.
@@rabidlorax1650 France, this is why a lot of people from Comores come to Mayotte to have their children there.
(But in consequence there is the same debat in France than in the US but to make Mayotte an exception in the birth right in France).
Very good reporting on this issue. Very balanced and unemotional
It’s ridiculous to simply allow anyone being born in USA to automatically become a citizen. No wonder there’s a black market for pregnant women to arrive there and soon give birth. It’s just common sense that at least one of the parents must be a citizen ffs
In Croatia you are citizen if both parents are citizens or if only one is but you are born in Croatia. It would be a good model for US as well.
Pole here and we also require at least one parent to have Polish citizenship for the newborn baby to be a citizen.
In fact, that seems to be the case in most European countries and seems pretty logical to me.
America acts surprisingly fast & loose with citizenship of newborns.
Most of the country in Old World use Jus Sanguinis. In New World most use Jus Soli simply the fact that most of people is descendant of the people that are migrated from the old world. But some country in Old world also have mix of Jus Sanguinis and Jus Soli, for example Thailand used full Jus Sanguinis with limited Jus Soli, so foreign descent that born in Thailand can apply to become citizen of Thailand by birth right.
Well I wish Canada scrap birthright citizenship. A lot of women give birth here, don't pay the bill. Goes back home then when the child grows up, goes back to canada
Doesn't sound so bad. In dry economic terms you get a worker without having to pay for their education. In human terms, someone managed to get somewhere they wanted to be in life. Nearly all Canadians are descendants of immigrants, and you're hardly lacking in space.
@fearghal10 you know nothing of the situation so kindly shut your ignorant mouth :)
The problem is scrapping It would put a lot of people in legal limbo.
So Canada pays for the birth, another country pays for all the healthcare, food, education, security, and then they come back as adults and Canada gets the tax revenue? That seems like a pretty sweet deal for Canada.
Not when millions did it. Find a job, sponsor their parents, now a worst housing crisis
I don’t really agree with parts of the video, largely with the argument that other countries don’t do the same as a way to explain this. Firstly, the right to bear arms is basically nonexistent in most of the world, or the right to free speech without any type of censorship whatsoever including hate speech is also special, does that mean we get rid of that as well? This is apart from the fact that it’s the norm in the Americas to grant unconditional jus soli because these countries like the US are countries of immigrants and everyone had their ancestors come from somewhere, unlike in Europe where generations have lived in the same country and its mostly ethnic based. Adding to this, the fact is that the 14th Amendment protects birthright citizenship, and United States v Wong Kim Ark only established three exceptions to this rule, which are the children of diplomats, a hostile military force or native american tribes because they were not under US legal jurisdiction. Native Americans later gained this right through the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. I agree with a lot of Trump’s policies but this is very unconstitutional and I see very little way that SCOTUS (even with the conservative supermajority) will allow this as it is very clearly written and has over 120 years of precedent.
the US "right to free speech" is a joke compared to most other countries with that right. It ranks almost at the bottom of the chart.
There is 120 years of precedence, but I would not call it very clearly written. "Subject to its jurisdiction" is not a clear statement. If we go by what Lyman Trumbull, a contemporary who was a major player in passing the 14th amendment, his understanding of it excludes those who were here temporarily and in line with the executive order Trump signed.
@@evancombs5159 Unfortunately, the intent of the writers are rarely considered in modern American law. For example, the 2nd ammendment was most likely only intended for regulated militias rather than everyone, but now we consider it as a right for every American. Interpretation through the Supreme Court is how ammendments are legally defined. Only through a reversal by the supreme court can this change.
Additionally the 14th ammendment also states that people are "subject to jurisdiction" through being born or naturalized in the US, so it is pretty clear that they intended for birthright citizenship.
@qilinger4685 if you read the writings of those who created and passed the second amendment the intent was for everyone to have that right not just regulated militias. The problem we have is what is clear to those writing and voting on a law may not be clear decades or centuries later. We can usually get clarity by going back and reading what those creates wrote about their laws, but unfortunately those writings are not law and not in the law. So while they can be presented in a court case, those writings can also be ignored by judges.
@@evancombs5159 Actually it is very clear. If they can be arrested, tried and punished for breaking the law, they are obviously subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The only scenarios where someone on U.S. soil isn't subject to U.S. law involve diplomatic immunity and invading armies.
This shouldve been done 50 years ago
Yes Boris johnson wouldn't hold a US certificate, by the way you are welcome to him.
At this point the question isn't just whether the order survives but also whether anybody will care if they do it anyway.
presumably people would just go to democrat led states and get citizenship anyway. If the order is illegal, it wont be followed in areas that aren't slavishly loyal to trump.
TLDR 40k channel when?
I think he can scrap it for people who are illegally in the country, sure. That makes sense.
Any other Constitutional consideration you believe that a President can just scrap?
@@None-ef6nfwhat would an idiot brit know about a constitutional law?
So he can also just scrap the 5th amendment? The 1st? 21st? Just because he feels like it and signs an EO?
@@None-ef6nf how can you be protected by the constitution if you're not even a citizen? The constitution protects the American people. If you're here illegally, you're not an American citizen.
I’m all for it! My grandma came in the legally from Mexico and got her citizenship.
So you forgot the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was Vetoed by Democratic President Andrew Johnson and overridden by the Republican Majority Congress. The intent of the 14th Amendment was to make sure future governments didn't not try and deny citizenship and legal protections to the recently freed slaves. The 14th Amendment excluded Diplomats and their children, as well as Indians who owed allegiance to their tribes and did not pay tax, as neither party was subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States, even though they resided within it. Same goes for a tourist or an invading soldier or a person not legally in the United States as they owe no allegiance, duties or pay tax to the country. A good example is if a tourist commits a murder, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States laws, but they are no obligated to have allegiance to the United States, as they are subject to a foreign power. Same goes for civil rights, which doesn't allow a non-citizen the right to vote, but also protects them from being murdered, robbed or assaulted, as they are protected by the country's laws while within it. Although Indians gained full citizenship in 1924, no law was passed that recognized the citizenship of children of people illegally residing or those merely traveling or temporarily residing in the United States. The current legal fiction of birthright citizenship is completely a creation of the courts, not Congress.
You completely passed over the subject to the jurisdiction clause which is exactly the clause that Trump is basing his order on.
Can anyone explain why unconditional birthright citizenship is anything but a bad idea for a country?
It is inhumane.
Surely it would lead to some people being citizenless? If their parents country don’t recognise them?
If you're facing a dwindling population it's a good thing, beside the reason why it was in place was because fuck slavery. So are you trying to tell us something?
Yeah it sucks, but I fear that it will never get revoked, since the US has gotten so polarized that good plans of either party will never be passed.
because childrens have rights and they should be protected independently of your ideology, you can’t just let a child to their own mercy
No, he can’t. The president can’t legislate, it would be up to congress and the Supreme Court, and they’re deeply antagonistic towards nativist policies like these.
Supreme court was originally like that, remember it has known been taken over by trumps lackeys since it's leaning extremely far right
Until the election where congress flipped republican, and the supreme court that has 4 trump appointees on it . . .
@@urbaraskpraetor3316The news tells you they’re all fanatic national-socialists, but I swear to you they are _nothing_ but a load of liberal boomers. They wouldn’t let it happen, they think it’s racist, or bad for the economy, or some such nonsense.
@@urbaraskpraetor3316 Trump doesn't have the majorities needed to amend the constitution. There is no "novel interpretation" of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment, it is as plainly written as it gets. The ability of the US government to deport undocumented migrants and charge them with crimes means those persons are under the jurisdiction of the US and Jus Soli applies to their US born children.
Okay. Renaming Mountain Denali to Mount McKinley seems alright. Not a problem with that. But renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America Doesn't sound like it makes sense. If I Were president and want to change the Name of Gulf of Mexico to that, I Would Preferable Call it "Gulf of the America's" I Think that would sound very appealing since the gulf it wrapped around central america.
Yeah but that’s not why he did it, you really think he cares about any other country in America? He just wants it to be named after the US, mainly to distract from the fact he hasn’t done anything for lowering prices or tackling homelessness and drugs
@@lachlanchester8142 the only thing I remember from his first term was reforming prisons state and federal... I think that's the only thing that's significant...
Hopefully so!
They should create a law that take away parentship of those immigrants having kids just to get theirselves a citizenship or at least their ensure their safety on their stay. That's just disgusting. Making people just to improve their lives...
Surprised he actually stayed true to his word and signed all of what he promoted on his campaign on Day 1, while live streaming it via media to.
Did the cost of eggs go down yet? Where's the ukraine 24hrs plan?
@@static2223 Still waiting for Biden to codify Roe v Wade and re-establish American democratic leadership abroad. Trump has done more in 1 day than Biden has in 4 years.
@@static2223 you are idiot or what 😂😂 he just took the office and you are expecting that eggs price to drop in the first week that he is in office 😂😂 you should blame Harris and Biden that you support for high prices they have been 5 years in power they only rised the prices Trump have only 2 days in the office and have done more for US then Kamela and Biden in 5 years you Americans are the most idiotic people that exist in this world 😂😂😂😂 and about Russia Ukraine don't you watch the news both are ready for peace treaty the moment that Trump stepped in Office
Yeah, Trump is a natural leader. Amazing how effortlessly he did all those things, while answering unscripted questions too. The difference between him and Biden is insane.
@@static2223 In half a day? Seems like you just want to see Trump fail.
Tesla’s stock has shown significant long-term growth. Even through market fluctuations, it’s proven to be a strong performer, thanks to their innovative approach and leadership in the EV market
With Tesla’s continuous advancements in technology, like their push into AI and robotics with Optimus, the future looks bright, I have never heard or gotten any lost with the help of Mr Elon and his team, so Investing now could mean benefiting from future growth.
Tesla has helped me diversify my portfolio. It’s not just about electric cars-they’re also leaders in energy storage and solar technology, which adds more layers to their profitability
With just twenty one thousand three hundred dollar portfolio I’ve been able to earn up to seventy seven thousand five hundred in returns so far. The community program offers diverse opportunities, clear terms, and on-time payouts, which is rare in today’s world.
Joining the Tesla investor community has been amazing. Everyone shares insights and strategies, and it’s helped me stay informed and confident in my investment.
With an initial Bull-run stock deposit plan of about twenty seven thousand dollars I’ve been able to earn up to a reasonable amount of income about seventy- three thousand dollars in withdrawal returns so far. The program offers diverse opportunities, clear terms, and on-time payouts, which is rare in today’s world.
Thou shalt not infringement on rights granted by the constitution
its not a right.
@@jonashanfland-b9g False. The 14th amendment mandates otherwise.
We do it all the time. Why stop here? When doing it will help, rather than hurt, real Americans?
@ imagine thinking that revoking birthright citizenship will benefit the average American.
@nikoniortnike Imagine thinking it wouldn’t.
TLDR neolibs missed the most important part of the legal debate:
SCOTUS was silent on the issue of illegal alien birthright citizenship for 84 years after Wong Kim Ark until Plyler v. Doe (1982), noted in a footnote-i.e., non-binding dicta-that Wong Kim Ark also applied to children of illegal aliens.
SCOTUS has never held this, though. The footnote to it in Plyler was pure unbinding dicta, and it is substantively incorrect on multiple levels.
Short answer: no, he can’t just slash Birthright citizenship via executive order
I don't rly care much about who gets citizenship and who doesn't. What's more concerning is that if he succeeds undoing birthright citizenship, than he will have evectivly torn the constitution to shreds.
Then you should care
@christiancsq ya I do care. Just who gets citizenship and who doesn't isn't neccarily the most concerning part of this whole situation to me.
It's literally putting the US in line with the rest of the west wtf are u doing
Not to mention that it’s in the constitution. If he wants to change it, he needs to do it through Congress and the House of Representatives. He can’t just use the stacked Supreme Court or executive order. That’s outright dangerous.
okay kamala
The executive order will be faught in the political arena and court premises. But he has given an important political signal to his militant and visceral base, supporters and sympathisers.
In opinion that was the point, he wanted for this issue to go up to the Supreme Court so they can revisit the interpretation of the law. That outcome can be uncertain, but with a 6 republican majority it could go either way. I think he knows congress would not pass a new admend for the 14th.
I thought US is having a birth rate crisis 3:42
We are. We are below the replacement rate of 2.1. As of 2022 we were at 1.79
Not the US but White America is
Doesn't mean a nation should invite the filth of the earth.
@bratwurststattsucuk4517 i think i read that white amaricans r movie to Asia and especially Europe in larger numbers because of better living conditions and healthcare.
@bratwurststattsucuk4517 All Americans are. First generations always have higher birthrates but the second generation is on par with all others.
And these people say they hold the constitution in high regard. What a grift.
normally I don't give the news a like but that 40K reference was worth it alone lol.
Isn't the 14th Admendment about that ?
Read the 14th amendment. The first line is “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” do illegal immigrants live under the jurisdiction of our federal government? Sure sounds like illegal immigrants aren’t supposed to be getting citizenship to me
Yeah, but there is disagreement about what it means to be subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
@@evancombs5159 oh okay
I don't think brutally saying 1 interpretation is correct with an executive order is correct tho
@@evancombs5159 nah, they just don't like birthright citizenship for racial reason (ie they want to keep america white), so they pretend like there is a disagreement on what the 14th amendment means when that was settled over a century ago.
The birthright citizenship is a good idea but it's so highly abused at this point and should be amended. As in my country, It's just common sense the child follows the parents'citizenship. So I don't get why people say the children will be stateless?
It was never a good idea, you're crazy
It was a good idea when America was "empty" and trying to fill itself with European migrants, but now we're "full" and don't appreciate millions flooding into the country. Amending the 14th is appropriate at this stage of our development.
Calling America ‘full’ is ignorant and detached from reality. The U.S. is far from full-we face labor shortages, an aging population, and rely on immigrants to sustain economic growth. The 14th Amendment wasn’t created to fill an ‘empty’ country with European migrants; it was designed to ensure that anyone born here has the rights of citizenship, period.
Eliminating birthright citizenship would create a permanent underclass of stateless children, destabilizing society and undermining the principles of equality and opportunity that this nation was built on. If you think the U.S. no longer needs immigrants, you’re ignoring history, economics, and the reality of a globalized world. This isn’t about being ‘full’-it’s about upholding the values that define America.
You're welcome, nay encouraged, to use either amendment process if you're unhappy with the constitution.
But in doing so, you're granting the state increased powers to deny citizenship by greatly increasing the burden of evidence required to prove it. We see the negative impacts play out amongst ethnic Koreans born in Japan across multiple generations and the discrimination they face in part by being blocked from gaining Japanese citizenship.
Similarly, when we saw the Myanmar strip native Rohingya of their citizenship as part of the genocide enactment.
Or in India, we've seen the enactment of their new citizenship law under Modi specifically to target and discriminate against Muslims.
It's not uncommon to see the curtailing of basic rights associated with citizenship attached to some pretty serious discrimination and abuses, hence why you'll see some pretty heavy resistance to any amendment to revoke the 14th.
"It was a good idea when America was "empty" and trying to fill itself with European migrants, but now we're "full" and don't appreciate millions flooding into the country. Amending the 14th is appropriate at this stage of our development."
Holy shit, dude! That ain't no dog whistle.
Most countries in the Americas have Jus Soli and may not grant citizenship to children born to their citizens abroad. Especially South American countries.
It's crazy that Trump is in office. He's shown to be completely delerious. In several interviews on this topic he's describing Cuban asylum laws not birthright citizenship.
Watch some different news
he’s a populist, everyone supports the populists
@@0xCAFEF00D welll majority of the country voted for him..
@@kevinrod14 Slightly under a third of the electorate voted for him in an election where the clear winner was "not voting because they both suck."
Trump got just under 32% of the eligible vote, Harris got just under 31%, and 36% of eligible voters didn't bother.
@@Talisguy More people voted in 2024 than ever before, excluding in 2020. And apart from 2020, it once again had the highest voting percentages since the 1960's.
What if someone’s parent was conceived in another nation but born in USA, does there children still have citizenship?
No.
There's nothing to scrap. He's making it so ILLEGALS can't abuse this.
7:20 - not stateless - they can got citzenship of parents country of origin. If you don't want a problem, just immigrate to the US legally.
That is not a guarantee, every country has its own laws.
You should remember a lot of people are refugees or immigrants with no remaining connection to their home country's government. Children are born stateless everyday to people in complicated situations, in some cases there might be a claim to citizenship but it is often difficult or impossible to claim.
Our country is honestly spoiled in having birthright citizenship for everyone born here. A birth certificate being near absolute proof of citizenship is much much easier to handle logistically than verifying the citizenship of the parents. When you have to figure out citizenship using complicated rules involving the parents history it gets incredibly complicated. For example if you're a U.S. citizen but left the country as a child before the age of 14 you likely can't transmit citizenship to your child, that's the kind of complicated rules that apply to citizenship in these situations.
@@thecollinanderson Every country gives citizenship to the children of its citizens. If you don't want a problem, just immigrate to the US legally.
And why don't the majority do so legally? @@Khneefer
@@ethancoster1324 because it is difficult and time consuming, also you wont get citizenship if you have done any previous crimes/have a criminal record in other countries
@@Khneefer You ignored what I said.
I gave an example where a U.S. Citizen mother would be unable to transmit citizenship to her child born abroad if she left the United States before the age of 14 and never moved back before that point. That's part of U.S. citizenship law.
It is not as simple as every child being a citizen of their parents country, there's eligibility rules (often about the parents residency in said country) that vary greatly between countries. Even if a child technically is entitled to the citizenship of a parent's country, again not always the case, the burden of proof they may not be able to meet with the documentation they have.
The law clearly hasn’t applied to Trump for the last 8 years, so yes he can.
Crazy how ppl are still delusional. Cry more! I love to see it
@@kevinrod14not crying, just stating the lack of justice Trump has faced. Maybe your own bias has blinded you from looking at that statement with an objective view, but if your reading writing something that cannot convey emotion without context or being explicitly stated, with emotion I suggest you reexamine your you bias’s and the way you make judgments on this subject.
@@kevinrod14 trump is president, u go cry
@@owensilvant what exactly has he done?
@@GreekGloyper I’m happy Trump won!! Wipe your tears kid
How can you read "ban birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants" and then turn it into "ban birthright citizenship". It's not the same.
Slippery slope dude ..when you allow something the next step is easier and easier.
You complete idiot. Banning birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants is banning birthright citizenship! Because birthright citizenship means "No exceptions!". That is what makes it a right and not a privilege! Did they replace basic civics with faith based initiatives or something?
@@AnthonyGarcia-sy3yk slippery slopes require... you know, slopes and not something with a huge barrier. That would be the case if not for, as everyone else keeps pointing to, the constitution. No slope. No real change to the constitution either. just reinterpreting whats there as the reality requires.
@Snake369 lol really funny the constitution is really flexible when suits your point of view but rock solid when doesn't , when it comes to the second amendment oh no the founder fathers design that way you becomes constitutional textualism really quick 🤣.
@AnthonyGarcia-sy3yk i take it you share those 2nd ammendment guys views then? surely the founding fathers believed citizens should be able to own howitzer artillery and that any reasonable limitation is also a slippery slope 🫠🤣😅😂😇🥰😍🫢🥲
Why are we Europeans talking so much about this topic? We have countries doing this same change and the others are debating it, even in france it was passed by the macron government, and he's somewhat center, it only makes sense to remove the urge to illegal citizens go to a country just before labor
An EO can’t change the interpretation of the constitution. That is beyond the scope of an EO.
If the US government ants to change this, they have to do it via legislation
Challenging an EO in court can cause judges to change the interpretation if they decide the previous interpretation was in error. This is how mistakes get corrected.
@ there is quite a bit of precedent. The thing is “jurisdiction” is not well defined in the constitution. If Trump defines it in an EO and then that EO gets overridden, does that mean another interpretation is valid?
It creates too much instability. EOs can only command federal bureaucracies to behave in a certain way. They can’t defy Supreme Court precedent.
Now if the Supreme Court wants to go ahead and use the EO as an excuse to suddenly say that the constitution is a living, breathing document, than they are legislating from the bench.
@@asterpw not after a century they don't. This is almost as much precedent as the US has history. Overturning it would be insane.
Lots of western countries dont have birthright citizienship, it's not that unusual
No Western country permits the writ large possession of firearms by civilians yet it's a Constitutional right here in the United States
We’re talking about the Americas not Europe. Jus Soli has always been the norm because old world immigrants to the new world.
Not in the Americas. The vast majority of both South and North America have it. Including Canada. In former colonies it is very common. So no it would be extremely unusual for this continent.
Most countries don’t owe their existence to birthright citizenship like the US does. We need immigration or we die
@@rickymac54321 which is outdated, because it's no longer the new world
I apologise for being a stickler, but for everyone reading: The J in Jus Soli or Jus Sanguinis is pronounced like a Y, so it sounds more like eoos solee etc
Americans have a false belief that America is some great Emerald city that everyone wants to come to. As someone who lived overseas for many years, that isn't true.
Given that in the original book "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz", The Emerald City is an illusion of sorts, the analogy sort of fits the US.
Good so people can stay in their own countries
The issue is, they'll point at numbers of things like job opportunity, economic growth and immigration numbers is the issue
It's certainly a major immigration hub given that millions seek entry yearly
The anglosphere in general, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the States are some of the most advanced and wealthy nations in the history of Mankind, there is a reason people flee there on boats, stuff themselves into shipping containers, trek thousands of miles by land or enter legally on aircraft and ferries
They may not be shining cities on a hill, and the tarnish is showing in parts, but theyre certainly more appealing prospects than Senegal, Brazil or Russia, people look to them with hope for a brighter future and will do anything to go there, even if they need to break local and international law to do so
If you are really poor then it is a good place to go to, it doesn't really apply to EU or many Asian countries like Japan, Korea and even China now
Birthwright citizenship changes are gonna cause more problems than not. Adding stateless children when precedent gives it more often than not isn't going to fix a problem. It's things like this that makes me wish United States vs Wong Kim Ark was a more well known Supreme Court ruling.
Supreme Court will decide the birth right citizenship
Only time will tell. I mean, if you’re already born in the United States during the emergency of a pregnancy water break or anywhere in the world you land you become that citizen. I don’t know everything but laws are weird.
@@notsosuavemate and btw you have to pay the taxes no matter where you are;
Even if you're born while your parents where traveling and you never return to the US.
yo 40k refrence no way
As an American, I couldn’t be happier
you’re a fascist
Let's see how you feel in 3 months. Got children? Their future is no more. Trump pulled us out of WHO & Paris agreement, ending Green New Deal. He is ripping up our Constitution. Next is pulling out of NATO & UN. Our alliances are being attacked while Trump continues to divide America and model his presidency as a dictator. World chaos is our future.
Want authoritarianism? Go to Russia, N Korea, China then! Want a Theocracy? Iran already has one - go there. You would be much happier!
@@ajohndaeal-asad6731If fascist means taking care of your own citizens and defending your own border so be it
@ I’m all for defending country and border but installing a king and being deeply racist about it is exactly how nazis came to power. You are the equivalent of a nazi sympathizer
you couldn't be happier than the president is overturning the constitution? How stupid are you? There is no world in which the constitution being changed on the whim of a tyrant is a good thing, even if you like this particular change you should still be very concerned that he can illegally steal people's rights.
Of course he can scrap birthright. A number of countries don’t allow it, Germany for example. I don’t know about the other EU countries.
legally he cannot. It is a constitutional right. The president has no authority to change that. The proper way to change this would be a constitutional amendment. But he is probably counting on his puppet supreme court doing something they very much are not supposed to do in order to get away with it.
Of course he can't. The President has no power over it. And the fact that various European countries don't have birthright citizenship is completely immaterial. It's the Constitution of the United States that matters for US law. What Germany allows or does not allow is irrelevant.
It's constitutionally protected by the 14th Amendment. No, he cannot just scrap it with an executive order. This will go to the Supreme Court, Trump is just hoping they will ultimately rule his way.
Loved the video, especially loved the little Sanguinius pop up.
Love the videos, but you guys should do more to cite your sources. Not at all saying I don’t believe the figures, rather I think it would improve viewers’ understanding of the most reliable sources out there!
This is a non-starter. Citizenship birthright is in the constitution. He would not only need a 2/3's congressional majority, but it would need to pass the courts....
May I point out our current Supreme Court.
@@CortexNewsServiceexactly since when did they care about what's actually in the constitution
Illegal immigranhts could be not subject to US jurisdiction, therefore they don't get birthright citizenship
@@Commonsense-u1h I promises you the framers of the 14th amendment did not mean for it to include millions of illegal migrants. Even harry Reid a major democrat called it insane because it is!
Yeah, if we didn't have the overturn on Roe v Wade or the presidential immunity rulings I'd be way more confident on this order being successfully challenged.
Kind of an important thing to go over with the amendment is "the spirit of the law" vs "the letter of the law." It was intended for former slaves and racism, not illegal immigration. Thats kind of a HUGE deal for why its debated. Then again, not the BEST news channel on the tubes either. Guess Ill file this one under "sometimes."
Then the intention of the 2nd amendment was for militia maintenance and concerned musket wielding, not casual ownership of semiautomatics.
@abydosianchulac2 false. There were far more firearms in existence than just muskets and muzzle loaders at the time. Repeating rifles existed yet they didnt specify. Try again.
@@abydosianchulac2 lol no, thomas Jefferson owned a pucklegun and new exactly what he was thinking when he wrote it
@@hans2936 James Madison wrote most of the text of the first 10 amendments
When something is as clearly written as the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment there is no "spirit of the law" argument, that would be saying a clearly written law doesn't work the way it is written.
I think you mischaracterized the prevalence of jus soli; it's the most common practice in North and South America, not a unique US policy.
Also you missed the point that since jus soli is common in the Americas, it means that the home countries of undocumented migrants will not recognize children of migrants as citizens, because they were born in the USA, which is how they become stateless. This will also violate commitments the USA made to the UN when the USA signed UN conventions on preventing statelessness.
How about this. The child will be a US Citizen, but the parent would not be. Which leaves two choices, the child returning with the parent, or the child being put up for foster care. Any mother who is heartless enough to abandon their own child should be punished to the maximum extent back in her home country.
That's *already* the way it works.
TLDR would be better served if they consulted someone with a US Law Constitutional background. The issue in question has never been officially adjudicated. The 1898 Supreme Court Case Untied States v Wong Kim Ark concerned two Chinese parents who while not US Citizens had legal status in the US. There is no Supreme Court case that has ever addressed the children of illegal aliens. The US Executive cannot overturn the US Constitution. The Executive Action is designed to force the opposition to sue and thus move the issue toward a Supreme Court decision.
7:04
It doesn't matter either way. SCOTUS interprets the constitution in bad faith so no matter what it has written down it will be interpreted with motivated reasoning to serve Republicans.
@@ThePlaidPuffin The couple in question in the United States v Wong Kim Ark were not immigrants. They were foreign workers who later returned to China.
Wouldn't this technically mean that Barron would have to get deported because Melania was born in Slovenia
From the way I understand it no since Trump is a citizen. It would only apply when both parents are considered illegal. Not sure though, maybe someone else can explain it.
Hey man, laws only apply to poor people
@ But Melania wasn't bron in the us. So Trump being born here doesn't matter Baron is still affected by the law because his mother is an immigrant.
No. One of his parents is a US citizen.
This would only target those born from two non citizen parents who came into the country illegally.
Plus I think she was a citizen by the time Barron was born
Melania is a citizen of the U.S. Being born isn’t the only way to achieve citizenship.
Infairness though, birth right citizenship shouldn't be a thing for illegal immigrants or immigrants generally. It should only be a thing for citizens of the US. Whether naturally born, or immigrants who became citizens.
How did those Americans arrive in the New world?
@@Midnightmonty97 Laws that were good 150 years ago might not necessarily be still a good idea 150 years later.
Back during the colonials day citizenship by place of birth was a good idea, but nowadays this law is being abused and thus needs to be modified.
"it was good when white people did it but isnt good that now that brown people do it too"@@TheZett
@@TheZettsay that to all of those people who abused it during the Staten Island migration waves of the early 1900s. Besides how else are you going to grow the us population and keep the economy going? White people aren’t having babies, do you want to end up like Japan and Korea? With a declining birth rate?
That defeats the purpose of birthright citizenship genius.
If the U.S is going to end this, they should also end the stupid requirement of being born in the U.S to be elected President. So what if Americans decide to elect a person who were born in say, France or w/e.
There is an easy way to get around it so long as the country they came from is friendly and willing to donate a few sqft of land, just get a state to annex the room they were born in! Then boom they were born on territory that is now the us so they can be president.
Why would a French citizen be President of the USA?
Yeah, no I look at Europe and see a mess that they want to deny and all were doing is going back to how it originally was
@@xeganxerxes4319 They wouldn't necessarily be a French citizen - they'd only get birthright citizenship if at least one of their parents was a French citizen.
It would be ridiculous, to me, to disqualify a perfectly qualified candidate who'd lived in the States for pretty much their entire life just because they happened to be born during their American parents' French holiday.
@ Sure, but I was questioning his take on birthright citizenship rather than inherited citizenship. It is dumb to say an American citizen should have to be born in the USA to become President but that’s another issue. I wouldn’t support, for example, a French couple having a child in the US and that child being handed American citizenship.
I need nothing more then the Primarch Sanguinius popping up. My day is complete.
Omg, how is that even controversial. People come illegally, they don't follow the laws, so they are not supposed to have any rights.
The US government can't draft an illegal immigrant into the army, so the same argument should be used to exclude them from citizenship.
They tax them without paying them benefits already. So they're more valuable for the US that way than regular citizens.
???? Plenty of people cannot be drafted, like the orange man himself, they should be able to revoke his citizenship.😀🤣
All people born in the United States are citizens under the 14th amendment. The constitution makes ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS for children of illegal immigrants. Literally all you have to do is READ THE CONSTITUTION!
@@abigailcollins8443 They pay low taxes and take up local jobs that would be paying more taxes most don't even pay taxes.
@@WalkerOne if you can’t get drafted because you are undocumented then you are inherently not a citizen. Like, no one who is undocumented is a citizen, because then they wouldn’t be undocumented. They have documentation now. They would be a citizen. Those are different categories.
Birthright citizenship is settled case law (United States v. Wong Kim Ark). Trump idea that he can retroactively end birthright citizenship is stupid.
It can be unsettled
Abortion rights were once settled case law. We have prevailed over an unjust status quo before, and hopefully will do again. Case precedential frameworks are slow to change, but change they do.
They corrected Roe v. Wade, they can correct this one as well
wasn't Dredd Scott settled law as well?
@@mcnoided Yes nazi maga
I propose we rename the Gulf of Mexico as Trump's Folly. More countries will consider that renaming.
Trolly for short.
We should rename it Harris Lost 😂.
@mr.x817 Interesting. Just like Republicans to blame all their stupid ideas on the Democrats. Btw, have you heard an update on the Jewish space lasers lately?
@@mr.x817You tried. 🎻
@@Dryzark she still lost 😂🤣. Revived President Trump legacy.
Well those undocumented immigrants would be forced to get citizenship if they want to stay 🤷🏽♂️
Don't be hating on New Jersey!!!
Meanwhile he keeps giving his billionaire buddies tax breaks, insanity. Focusing on non issues so he can keep exploiting the working class.
If they’re so exploitative, why do you want to keep importing vast numbers of new poors to be abused by them???
My view is that I agree with the goal, it makes sense, but I doubt that it's constitutionaly viable. It'll probably get struck down especially since the supreme court positioned themselves that the constitution is meant to be interpreted as it was meant, not adjusted for todays realities and norms (I forget the term a laywer used) and in accordance to that stance they'd have to strike down such an order as unlawful. They could, but it would be massively hypocritical and probably remove any (however unbelievable already) excuse that they are not politically motivated or aligned.
Interestingly, it's possible an actual amendment would pass at this point in history. Many people voted for Trump strictly on his immigration policies (lord knows he has nothing else to offer), so there is a lot of support for it.
@@GeoEstes He still doesn't have enough congressional support for an amendment though, and if Trumps economic plans backfire like so many economists think they will, he will have even less support after mid terms.
@@GeoEstes the problem is that it still requires both houses to pass a 2/3 super majority vote and then for 38 states to ratify it. And from what I understood that's not entirely something popular support gets to influence (IRC there supposedly were studies made that showed that laws passed by legislature practically have no correlation to public support, but does have correlation with lobbyist support)
No it's in the Constitution.
Doesn't matter.
@@OhNotThatIt does matter
@@OhNotThat the president does not have the authority to override the constitution. It doesn't matter what he says about it. Only the supreme court or a constitutional amendment can change it. And no sane supreme court would overturn 100+ years of jurisprudence.
@@ThatGuy-bz2in Let's get to the real point though, people are afraid when this ends up in front of the Supreme Court they will rule in Trump's favor, that is, illegal immigrants, by nature of entering unlawfully, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and thus their children aren't applicable for birthright citizenship. I don't understand how someone can do something illegally while also not being subject to someone's jurisdiction but stranger things have happened with this court.
@OhNotThat it does
i dont get why its such a huge deal that u should come here legally
that has literally nothing to do with the topic. thanks for playing though.
Trump can do and will do what ever he likes to do