Yeah you Don't know How Many Millions of immigrants Maybe 100 Millions, Maybe it's Better to Pass a Bill Wich All 100 Million of Immigrants Can Pay Taxes to the Countrie.
This will solve a lot of issues we have with pregnant women risking their lives to come across the border 8 months pregnant, over filling our hospitals, with no abiliy to pay. Why this wasn't done decades ago is beyond me.
Decades ago, we didn't have Millions of Illegals coming across our borders & the problem was mostly in our border states until the Biden Administration turned a blind eye to the total situation!
Jaysen- read the 14th amendment in its entirety. It may have started out with slavery, but it implies to everybody born in this country. They can pass words and leave something out and try and make it sound different, but the 14th Amendment says explicitly if you were born on us soil, you are a us citizen. And there's no way to get around that
@@angelc1167 section 1 of the fourteenth amendment "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
What is really mentioned to me according to you the 14 men says clearly that whoever is born in this country is considered as citizen. There’s nothing else to add to that he has been rule the 1896 I think similar case
@@NathanWade12 This is why you are not a lawyer or an English teacher, did you read the phrase under the jurisdiction thereof? Yes, the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution. The Supreme Court's power to interpret the Constitution is called judicial review. Explanation Judicial review gives the Supreme Court the power to declare laws that violate the Constitution unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's role as interpreter of the Constitution helps ensure that all branches of government respect the limits of their power. The Supreme Court's role as interpreter of the Constitution also helps protect civil rights and liberties. The Supreme Court established the doctrine of judicial review in the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison. Methods of interpretation Textualism: Relying on the plain meaning of words in the Constitution Originalism: Relying on the original meaning of the Constitution Evolving societal values: Considering the values and purpose of the Constitution in the context of current societal values
Most educated people (who grew up looking for information, rather than offense) know that the 14th was designed to make sure the children of salves were US citizens. It was not designed as an anchor point for invaders.
Dumb. The language of the 14th amendment is incredibly clear. Like, no question. If Trump wants to overturn then he's gotta support a campaign to amend the constitution. I thought you people believed in and understood the constitution. I guess not.
Neither of vivek’s parents were citizens when Vivek was born. You let him be in Doge. Aren’t you hypocrites for promoting Vivek, born of non citizens. Trumps 3 oldest kids were vorn before Ivana was naturalized. Deport Don Jr Eric and ivanka!
I can’t wait for the US Supreme Court to rule on this issue because I also believe that if the parent is not a citizen, then the child is not a citizen
@@SuperOptimusPrime2no it is fair the child can go back home with thier parents instead of thier parents abusing a loophole in our country's outdated immigration policy
It not about fault. No, it’s not the child’s fault. It’s the parents fault to enter our country illegally and conspire to have a child to ensure they can not get deported. To me that is an act of FRAUD! And Fraud is not legal.
I read your 14th amendment section one , and it clearly states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States of America and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. But this is the legal glitch that is going to win this one for the Trump administration when it gets to the SCOTUS , if both the child's parents entered the USA illegally prior to the child's birth , because they are not legal residents or naturalized citizens of the USA , they do not fall under the jurisdiction thereof , and therefore that baby has no right or entitlement to an American citizenship.
That is the primary argument. If they're here illegally, they do not fall under the Amendment's jurisdiction and the child is automatically considered a foreign citizen. The extra cover for this argument are the circumstances under which the Amendment were passed: right after the abolition of slavery, and immediately following the 13th Amendment, which was the legal statement that permanently abolished any form of slavery or forced servitude outside of a punishment issued by a ruling court. The whole thing was deliberately set up to make sure the Democrats (who were extremely pro-slavery at the time) didn't immediately shunt all of the slaves out of the country, or at least make sure their children couldn't continue their legacy as legal citizens.
True! But don't expect this SC to rule in Trump's favor. We know for sure that 3 of them will rule against. And Roberts is always a let down. Which leaves ACB, and she's been a let down recently also. I predict this will be 5 to 4 against. So Trump should approach this a different way.
That is NOT what the 14th Amendment says. There is NO BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP. It says: "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Persons living in or born in a STATE HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THEM made them CITIZENS in 1868. Persons OCCUPYING SPACE from another country are SUBJECTS OF THAT COUNTRY, THEIR CHILDREN ARE SUBJECTS OF THAT COUNTRY. Not American citizens. It also PRECLUDES the states from depriving citizens of their RIGHTS BY THE STATE through legislation or proclamation (state can not regulate any of the bill of rights EVEN THE 2nd AMENDENT)
@@Ellenwood1991foreigners being ruled by certain set of local laws does not mean they are totally subject to the jurisdiction of the country they are in. In fact, foreign country's embassy could intervene in many cases to support, protect their compatriat abroad. Easy argument.
@@tocu9808 It's not and the Supreme Court has clearly decided this entire argument. The Constitutionality of birthright citizenship is solid. The only way that would be changed is if the Supreme Court decides to reinterpret the amendment and break precedence and stare decisis.
We need to finish birthright citizenship . I am a foreign born american . I am myself watching our system abused. Free hospital stay and food stamp frdd educations Some foreigner say US citizenship is gift to their children
Hopefully Trump wins. Is so sad what's happening. Specially seeing them having the baby to take advantage of the country. And they are not thankful or proud of USA. Free things are never appreciated.
Wrong. They are not automatically subject to jurisdiction if they are born in the United States. They must be born or naturalized, AND be subject to jurisdiction. This does not apply to illegal immigrants who are parents of the child born here on soil.
A non citizen is a visitor, you'd never expect of a visitor what you would a citizen. They are exempt from the states jurisdiction, so their children born here are not our citizens. They are citizens of their parents country.
I cant wait to hear the arguments for and against as this makes its way to the supreme court you can learn alot about things if you listen to the arguments
There is no need to change the 14th amendment. It just needs clarification from Supreme Court. Birthright citizenship actually only applies on permanent resident/US citizens only. Jurisdiction just means if US has controlled over it. For example, Puerto Rico, it’s a different nation but US has jurisdiction on it, because of this, all citizens of Puerto Rico are US citizens.
That’s is incorrect anyone on us soil must follow us law therefore they are within the jurisdiction. This was added to the 14th amendment because after slavery black people who were brought here as slaves who had children were not considered citizens.
I love this. An hour ago Fox was reporting that a court blocked the EO. Now the SCOTUS is basically saying "lol, lmao." I will never tire of winning like this!
The people of this country should be the only force allowed to change the constitution. Not the courts not the government. By the people for the people.
The people do not know how their country works and have limited information of their rights. This was by design. The schools failed the students when they installed woke liberal teachers in the schools.
All one need do is look at the contemporaneous writings of those that passed the 14th amendment and the actions of those from 1968 through at least 1959 when President Eisenhower kicked out hundreds of Mexicans from the Bracero program including their American born children. It was not until after the passage of the Hart-Celler immigration act that some federal agency, we really are not sure which one, started us on this road of saying that the children, born on US soil, even of illegal migrants are citizens. Finally, I would submit that it should not matter. The founders made clear that the constitution was not intended to be a suicide pact. Yes, primarily that refers to constitutional amendments, but this nation is too polarized now to get the consent of two-thirds of state legislatures regarding anything. We already have birth tourism where women from China and some other countries come here to give birth and then take their " American" child home. We do not know what bitter fruit that might one day produce. One day, an enemy who takes a bit of a long view might flood this country with new "citizens" by simply recruiting thousands, perhaps millions of poor pregnant women to come into this country, give birth and stay. It may have already started and if so, it will doom this republic if we lack the courage to stop it, regardless of what our 19th century forebearers may or may not have thought.
The problem I have with this 14th Amendment issues is that what these congressman said here, makes sense. Too often has certain individuals bastardized the letter of the law for their own ends. Rather this ends be in the interests of humanity or civilly or for ill, it does not matter. The letter of the law, especially the Constitution, have to be upheld. If there is a need to create a situation where Birthright Citizenship becomes a reality, there could have been a law that would have provided it by now.
Saving America for what I hear all this mega talking about saving America freedom bullshit. It’s a bunch of horseshit. We have all the freedom we want and there’s nothing to save America has been safe for so long.
n United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court affirmed that a child born in the United States to non-citizen parents-provided they are lawfully present and not serving as foreign diplomats-is a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment. This decision reinforced the principle of jus soli, meaning citizenship by birth on U.S. soil. The Court clarified that "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States means being subject to U.S. laws and authority, excluding specific cases like children of diplomats or enemy forces. These exceptions do not apply to most individuals born in the U.S., securing their citizenship regardless of parental nationality. The 14th Amendment also ensures that states cannot infringe on the rights of citizens, explicitly protecting life, liberty, and property through due process and equal protection. States are barred from enacting laws that contradict these federal guarantees, including any attempts to undermine citizenship or constitutional rights. The principle of birthright citizenship remains a cornerstone of constitutional law. Any actions to deny it contradict not only established precedent but also the President’s sworn duty to uphold the Constitution.
I’m 50/50. It definitely should be revised! 2 illegal parents I understand, but if 1 parent is a citizen, you’re violating their rights by trying to deport their children. This is going to get messy.
No it's not the illegal parent can get the freak out and do it the right way and the other parent becomes a single parent too bad so sad for lying and coming in illegally.
Pass a Constitutional Amendment . 35 states ratify and with 60% voting for in House and Senate. Don’t go through the courts to decide this. I don’t like the courts making laws. If Trump wants to change the law /Constitution then do it the right way.
Thanks for the breakdown! I have a quick question: I have a SafePal wallet with USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (mistake turkey blossom warfare blade until bachelor fall squeeze today flee guitar). What's the best way to send them to Binance?
I think the consitutuon should be amended to end seeking asylum or citizenship, and they shouldn't have birthright citizenship either! We don't want foreign investment either, in or out of the USA! The consitution is clear on it! And extremely resrtricted trade!
In your dreams, deep down window, the American economy depends also other countries just like other countries depend on this American economy. It will be naïve of the American people who think that they can isolate themselves from the whole world is ridiculous.
I cant believe people giving up high paying jobs like dentistry being a Doctor a Lawyer to go into politics. How many are doing it for the good of the country or the money. More politicians are millionaires then doctor and lawyers or dentists. You could bet on that
Maybe we should be politicians right since the government is the one that is making money and not the private sector. I wonder all these people are there for the same reason and not for the reasons that the American people are thinking of.
These are a bunch of lap dogs playing into their master kissing ass that’s all they know deep down they cannot change the constitution people will oppose
Are you trying to imply that they could've foreseen the issues we have today with immigration, so they left some mildly vague wiggle room for interpretation? There IS no interpretation. you CANNOT be born a citizen of the united states of America to Illegal parents! the system has been bled dry by those who would take advantage of our country's capacity for giving and assistance, and use it to their advantage while giving nothing back into the system. Imagine how many women in their third-trimester of pregnancy make the journey to America with the sole purpose being to have the child on American soil, knowing it will be "considered a citizen". It's cheat-codes, dude!!! It does not work that way, and it looks like government has finally decided enough is enough. sorry about the rant.
@@Sonnabend00 If the amendment was only meant for freed slaves, why didn’t they say so explicitly? Why did they use language that could clearly be applied to future groups? You didn't actually answer my question.
Yes, the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution. The Supreme Court's power to interpret the Constitution is called judicial review. Explanation Judicial review gives the Supreme Court the power to declare laws that violate the Constitution unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's role as interpreter of the Constitution helps ensure that all branches of government respect the limits of their power. The Supreme Court's role as interpreter of the Constitution also helps protect civil rights and liberties. The Supreme Court established the doctrine of judicial review in the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison. Methods of interpretation Textualism: Relying on the plain meaning of words in the Constitution Originalism: Relying on the original meaning of the Constitution Evolving societal values: Considering the values and purpose of the Constitution in the context of current societal values
FROM: Congressional Record -- House June 13, 1967 H7161 The 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional The purported 14th Amendment to the United States is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void and unconstitutional for the following reasons: 1. The Joint Resolution proposing said Amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress. Article I, Section 3, and Article V of the U.S. Constitution. 2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval. Article I, Section 7. 3. The proposed 14th Amendment was rejected by more than one fourth of all the states then in the Union, and it was never ratified by three fourths of all the States in the Union. Article V. I.
I'm sorry, but there are more important battles than this one that need to be fought. It's best to just drop it and come back to it later with further support. I don't see them ruling in their favor on this at this time.
Andy should read the 14th amendment. It's very clear. The court will not change the direct words of the Constitution. Amendments aren't easy. To be approved, the amending resolution must be passed by a two-thirds supermajority vote in both the House and the Senate. If the amendment is ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or ratifying conventions, it becomes part of the Constitution.
No one is proposing a constitutional amendment. This is about the interpretation of an existing constitutional amendment. That is literally what SCOTUS exists to do and what they do everyday while in session.
He has and did read it, then explained it. Now, you need to read it for yourself. The Court can't change it, the Court interprets the law. Clearly illegal entry does NOT allow you to become a citizen nor your newborn baby, you are still a citizen of the country you left.
You people just do not listen, they said they were not going to change anything except how it is interpreted, did you not hear that? Yes, the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution. The Supreme Court's power to interpret the Constitution is called judicial review. Explanation Judicial review gives the Supreme Court the power to declare laws that violate the Constitution unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's role as interpreter of the Constitution helps ensure that all branches of government respect the limits of their power. The Supreme Court's role as interpreter of the Constitution also helps protect civil rights and liberties. The Supreme Court established the doctrine of judicial review in the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison. Methods of interpretation Textualism: Relying on the plain meaning of words in the Constitution Originalism: Relying on the original meaning of the Constitution Evolving societal values: Considering the values and purpose of the Constitution in the context of current societal values
The think, "subject to the juridiction thereof" means to be a resident or citizen already, it does not. An undocumented foreigner on American Soil is still subject to American laws and should they violate those laws, are subject to the penal system that we have in place. Therefore, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The only 2 parties that are not subject to the United States are "Enemies in hostile occupation" or "Foreign Diplomats that have immunity" Any overturning of this policy is to spit on legal precedence. This should be an easy 9-0 decision to block any EO or Law that states otherwise
Correct but they sure can interpret it correctly. Yes, the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution. The Supreme Court's power to interpret the Constitution is called judicial review. Explanation Judicial review gives the Supreme Court the power to declare laws that violate the Constitution unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's role as interpreter of the Constitution helps ensure that all branches of government respect the limits of their power. The Supreme Court's role as interpreter of the Constitution also helps protect civil rights and liberties. The Supreme Court established the doctrine of judicial review in the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison. Methods of interpretation Textualism: Relying on the plain meaning of words in the Constitution Originalism: Relying on the original meaning of the Constitution Evolving societal values: Considering the values and purpose of the Constitution in the context of current societal values
Because you're unhappy makes no difference. They've gained support. Even the hardcorp dems are giving up so they have chance at some point in the future. Bro they were chanting USA USA USA at the store! The store man! Yeah go ahead and keep messing with them. It keeps getting worse.
Oh yes it is, what is not right is sneaking in the country knowing if you have a baby they will have to let you stay. If they amendment fails they should deport the family and let the baby comeback when it is 18 or deport the family and put the baby up for adoption.
Andy has inhaled too much Arizona dust. If the illegal immigrants are subject to our laws. Else you couldn’t get a speeding ticket. The exemption for people not subject the laws of the U.S. applies to diplomats stationed here. If they have children here they are not subject to U.S. Laws and therefore not citizens. It is written pretty clear. If they want to change it, pas a new amendment as we did to repeal Prohibition.
I had an illegal friend and he drove for 10 years without a license, I asked him what happens when you get a ticket, "he replied who are they giving the ticket too?" Have you ever heard of fake ID's he told me he could get me one for $50 dollars, is that under the jurisdiction?
If that be the case of doing away with 14th Amendment birthright you have to look at everyone, none excluded. What is truly the meaning of illegal immigrant? Who came up with that concept? Being a criminal and interring, yes have laws in place.
@, I understand the “concept” perfectly. The same people that sits the rules breaks the rule to make it seem as though its a problem (create/fix). The people of Mexico would cross that boarder for years working and would return home. We can’t deny it was the past administration that caused the illegal flux. Did they ever take care of the area in Canada where illegal immigrants were coming through to the US?
So basically everyone in the united states will be not a citizen if they arent native Americans because technically everyone family's weren't from here they all came here illegally
The legislation is not talking about your old forefathers as basis but the citizenship and permanent residence of your parents as basis. Your parents mean your father and your mother.
This guy's ridiculous. If you are in the United States you are subject to its jurisdiction. Even without papers, a Social Secuirty # or a driver's license if a person from Mars shoots someone on 5th avenue, they get arrested and charged with murder. You all either need a supreme court ruling changing 160 years of jurisprudence, or you need a constitutional amendment. GTFO with this nonsense. We have a constitution and it applies to all of us. I could just as easily say that the 2nd Amendment grants the right to bear arms only to a "well regulated militia", and say that means National Guard only. But that's not how the courts have interpreted it for 200 years. See how that works bozo? A federal judge has already stuck this down as "blatantly unconstitutional". Over 30 counties, including Canada, have birthright citizenship and it works *just fine*. You should mention that to Trump who doesn't seem to know that. Cope.
Ridiculous post. The 14th Amendment becomes contestable because foreigners and their lawyers have been exploiting its weak wordings in order to abuse the birthright citizenship to benefit them. The 14th Amendment was passed in 1866, about 5 years after the civil war. This is one of those laws that needs clarification as regards to its real intent, and that is by going back to the legislative debate and discussions done in 1866 before the approval of the 14t Amendment. It is found in the legislative discussions in 1866 that the intent of the 14th Amendment was “to extend the liberties and rights to formerly enslaved people (minorities)" in America because the American civil war of 1861 might have produced a negative effect on the Bill of Rights of enslaved people (minorities). Thus, the intent of the 14th Amendment, as debated in 1886, was for the benefit of "enslaved people (minorities)" of that generation only. It is not intended for today's generation of tourists or foreign migrant workers or their children. Trump is definitely right!
@@RommelsAsparagus So . I guess we will have to wait for the SCOTUS opinion. Reading the past SCOTUS interpretations doesn’t look good for those unlawfully present having anchor babies . Better read Wong decision.
Everyone on US soil in 1868 including Native Americans could be charged with a crime, with the exception of foreign diplomats. But that clause of the amendment was not written about diplomats, it was written in regards to Native Americans. It did not say that children born on reservation land were not citizens, which they could have easily said if they wanted to. Instead is talks about 'jurisdiction'. This is because Native Americans were, for the most part, free to travel off their reservation land. But if they travelled off their reservation to give birth on land controlled by a state that explicitly did not mean that the child would be given US citizenship. It was not until a Native American chose to become a 'tax paying Indian' that their subsequent children would be citizens from birth. And so just like a Native American in 1868 who travels off of reservation land, an illegal migrant who travels across the border or overstays a visa is not considered to be under the jurisdiction of the US, despite the fact that in both instances they could be arrested by US law enforcement for committing a crime. That is because 'jurisdiction' in the 14th amendment is not about the ability for law enforcement to arrest you.
I wish people actually read, understood the 14th amendment, and why it was actually created.
For the slaves. So the Supreme Court could not overrule civil rights.
HELL They can't even understand "shall not be infringed."
The key part of the 14 amendment was written for the slaves and non of them are slaves
Bunch of Fools Just wasting Time Changing the Constitution of United States.
Yeah you Don't know How Many Millions of immigrants Maybe 100 Millions, Maybe it's Better to Pass a Bill Wich All 100 Million of Immigrants Can Pay Taxes to the Countrie.
This will solve a lot of issues we have with pregnant women risking their lives to come across the border 8 months pregnant, over filling our hospitals, with no abiliy to pay. Why this wasn't done decades ago is beyond me.
You’re acting like all Americans pay their hospital bills 💀
Decades ago, we didn't have Millions of Illegals coming across our borders & the problem was mostly in our border states until the Biden Administration turned a blind eye to the total situation!
@Sisco035, yes, we do. We can use that money for other things.
no data to support any benefit you are talking about. dumb.
A child born in the US shouldn't be a citizen, unless the parent is a citizen.
Where does it say that in the constitution
@@angelc1167did you not watch the video?
The video is 4 old farts adding words and excuses that are not there
Jaysen- read the 14th amendment in its entirety. It may have started out with slavery, but it implies to everybody born in this country. They can pass words and leave something out and try and make it sound different, but the 14th Amendment says explicitly if you were born on us soil, you are a us citizen. And there's no way to get around that
@@angelc1167 section 1 of the fourteenth amendment "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So, it's not about amending the law, but to correct the interpretation of the law, and to use it accurately as what it's really meant to be.
What is really mentioned to me according to you the 14 men says clearly that whoever is born in this country is considered as citizen. There’s nothing else to add to that he has been rule the 1896 I think similar case
@@NathanWade12 This is why you are not a lawyer or an English teacher, did you read the phrase under the jurisdiction thereof?
Yes, the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution. The Supreme Court's power to interpret the Constitution is called judicial review.
Explanation
Judicial review gives the Supreme Court the power to declare laws that violate the Constitution unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court's role as interpreter of the Constitution helps ensure that all branches of government respect the limits of their power.
The Supreme Court's role as interpreter of the Constitution also helps protect civil rights and liberties.
The Supreme Court established the doctrine of judicial review in the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison.
Methods of interpretation
Textualism: Relying on the plain meaning of words in the Constitution
Originalism: Relying on the original meaning of the Constitution
Evolving societal values: Considering the values and purpose of the Constitution in the context of current societal values
Most educated people (who grew up looking for information, rather than offense) know that the 14th was designed to make sure the children of salves were US citizens. It was not designed as an anchor point for invaders.
Why wasn’t the 14th Amendment written with specifics to just enslaved people? The 13th Amendment had verbiage referring to slavery
Exactly. In 1857 the facts of the Supreme Court Case, ruled that Black people had no standing in Court because they were not American Citizens
Dumb. The language of the 14th amendment is incredibly clear. Like, no question. If Trump wants to overturn then he's gotta support a campaign to amend the constitution. I thought you people believed in and understood the constitution. I guess not.
It begins with the parents. They are not citizens...
Neither of vivek’s parents were citizens when Vivek was born. You let him be in Doge. Aren’t you hypocrites for promoting Vivek, born of non citizens. Trumps 3 oldest kids were vorn before Ivana was naturalized. Deport Don Jr Eric and ivanka!
I can’t wait for the US Supreme Court to rule on this issue because I also believe that if the parent is not a citizen, then the child is not a citizen
Well explained. 😊
Unfair. Thats not the child’s fault.
@@SuperOptimusPrime2no it is fair the child can go back home with thier parents instead of thier parents abusing a loophole in our country's outdated immigration policy
It not about fault. No, it’s not the child’s fault. It’s the parents fault to enter our country illegally and conspire to have a child to ensure they can not get deported. To me that is an act of FRAUD! And Fraud is not legal.
@@SuperOptimusPrime2 Well too bad.
I read your 14th amendment section one , and it clearly states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States of America and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. But this is the legal glitch that is going to win this one for the Trump administration when it gets to the SCOTUS , if both the child's parents entered the USA illegally prior to the child's birth , because they are not legal residents or naturalized citizens of the USA , they do not fall under the jurisdiction thereof , and therefore that baby has no right or entitlement to an American citizenship.
That is implying language that is not in the constitution.
Correct. 😊
That is the primary argument. If they're here illegally, they do not fall under the Amendment's jurisdiction and the child is automatically considered a foreign citizen. The extra cover for this argument are the circumstances under which the Amendment were passed: right after the abolition of slavery, and immediately following the 13th Amendment, which was the legal statement that permanently abolished any form of slavery or forced servitude outside of a punishment issued by a ruling court. The whole thing was deliberately set up to make sure the Democrats (who were extremely pro-slavery at the time) didn't immediately shunt all of the slaves out of the country, or at least make sure their children couldn't continue their legacy as legal citizens.
BINGO!
This is all a distraction from falling wages and disappearing health insurance.
Should be...the 14 amendment doesn't state that people who crossed illegally has the right to have a baby be born legally as a citizen in the USA. 😏
Birthright citizenship should have been rectified years ago!
True! But don't expect this SC to rule in Trump's favor. We know for sure that 3 of them will rule against. And Roberts is always a let down. Which leaves ACB, and she's been a let down recently also. I predict this will be 5 to 4 against. So Trump should approach this a different way.
Since 1990s this has been the proposed law ...
Have “neighbors” bragging they cranked out a kid just recently so they are “set” . So glad we have Trump.
That is NOT what the 14th Amendment says. There is NO BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP. It says: "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Persons living in or born in a STATE HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THEM made them CITIZENS in 1868. Persons OCCUPYING SPACE from another country are SUBJECTS OF THAT COUNTRY, THEIR CHILDREN ARE SUBJECTS OF THAT COUNTRY. Not American citizens. It also PRECLUDES the states from depriving citizens of their RIGHTS BY THE STATE through legislation or proclamation (state can not regulate any of the bill of rights EVEN THE 2nd AMENDENT)
If you are within the confines of our borders, you are subject to our laws, no matter your citizenship status
@@Ellenwood1991foreigners being ruled by certain set of local laws does not mean they are totally subject to the jurisdiction of the country they are in. In fact, foreign country's embassy could intervene in many cases to support, protect their compatriat abroad.
Easy argument.
That’s if the person who committed the crime was in the embassy and not outside it. Your claim is flawed.
@@tocu9808 It's not and the Supreme Court has clearly decided this entire argument. The Constitutionality of birthright citizenship is solid. The only way that would be changed is if the Supreme Court decides to reinterpret the amendment and break precedence and stare decisis.
@@Ellenwood1991no, it is not.
We need to finish birthright citizenship .
I am a foreign born american . I am myself watching our system
abused.
Free hospital stay and food stamp frdd educations
Some foreigner say US citizenship is gift to their children
A child can only be what the parents are point blank.
What if one of the parents is a citizen and the other is not?
We support president trump all the way that’s exactly what the people voted for
no more anchor babies
So good to listen to educated, clever people, at last!!
Very simple, you come here on vacation or illegally and have a baby. You need to go home with the baby. Done!!!!
They're going to be depressed when it's confirmed. The te x t couldn't be clearer. It over
Hopefully Trump wins. Is so sad what's happening. Specially seeing them having the baby to take advantage of the country. And they are not thankful or proud of USA. Free things are never appreciated.
The illegal immigrants are still subject to the jurisdiction of the nation they came from and are here illegally.
Wrong. They are not automatically subject to jurisdiction if they are born in the United States. They must be born or naturalized, AND be subject to jurisdiction. This does not apply to illegal immigrants who are parents of the child born here on soil.
@dmana3172 Their parents are under their countries jurisdiction that makes the babies illegal.
@dmana3172 I guess the SCOTUS will have to give you a lesson in Constitutional law.
@dmana3172 That amendment was created for slaves after the civil war.
@dmana3172 Nobody has ever challenged it. But Trump intends to.
A non citizen is a visitor, you'd never expect of a visitor what you would a citizen. They are exempt from the states jurisdiction, so their children born here are not our citizens. They are citizens of their parents country.
I cant wait to hear the arguments for and against as this makes its way to the supreme court you can learn alot about things if you listen to the arguments
Time for a review of birth rights 💁🏻♀️
There is no need to change the 14th amendment. It just needs clarification from Supreme Court. Birthright citizenship actually only applies on permanent resident/US citizens only. Jurisdiction just means if US has controlled over it. For example, Puerto Rico, it’s a different nation but US has jurisdiction on it, because of this, all citizens of Puerto Rico are US citizens.
That’s is incorrect anyone on us soil must follow us law therefore they are within the jurisdiction. This was added to the 14th amendment because after slavery black people who were brought here as slaves who had children were not considered citizens.
This would bean that trumps son isn’t a us citizen, but ah yes, rules for thee but not for me
I love this. An hour ago Fox was reporting that a court blocked the EO. Now the SCOTUS is basically saying "lol, lmao." I will never tire of winning like this!
The current SCOTUS hasn't said anything yet.
uhh
How are you getting the SCOTUS going LOL? It hasn't gone before them yet...more liberal left lies as usual
It has not yet come before the Supreme Court.
The people of this country should be the only force allowed to change the constitution. Not the courts not the government. By the people for the people.
Exactly right
Preach!!
The people do not know how their country works and have limited information of their rights. This was by design. The schools failed the students when they installed woke liberal teachers in the schools.
It's not being charged it's being interrupted correctly
Nobody is changing the constitution, get your facts straight.
Whether they do or don’t, congress can pass a law to clarify it.
This is a move in the right direction.
Yes!!!
Naa Naa Naa Naa, Naa Naa Naa Naa, Hey, Hey,Hey GOOD BY😂❤🇺🇲
Jesus said the righteous go through the gate but thieves go over the fence.
Completely taking the bible out of context and messing it’s meaning to fit your political agenda. Very Christian of you.
Very right and well done
Wasn't this debated in full may 10th 1866 after the Civil War
All one need do is look at the contemporaneous writings of those that passed the 14th amendment and the actions of those from 1968 through at least 1959 when President Eisenhower kicked out hundreds of Mexicans from the Bracero program including their American born children. It was not until after the passage of the Hart-Celler immigration act that some federal agency, we really are not sure which one, started us on this road of saying that the children, born on US soil, even of illegal migrants are citizens. Finally, I would submit that it should not matter. The founders made clear that the constitution was not intended to be a suicide pact. Yes, primarily that refers to constitutional amendments, but this nation is too polarized now to get the consent of two-thirds of state legislatures regarding anything. We already have birth tourism where women from China and some other countries come here to give birth and then take their " American" child home. We do not know what bitter fruit that might one day produce. One day, an enemy who takes a bit of a long view might flood this country with new "citizens" by simply recruiting thousands, perhaps millions of poor pregnant women to come into this country, give birth and stay. It may have already started and if so, it will doom this republic if we lack the courage to stop it, regardless of what our 19th century forebearers may or may not have thought.
14th amendment was for us and not the world
If it was just for black people it would have stated that.
Congress can fix this now!
No they can't, that is why it is going to the Supreme Court.
Praying it’s upheld 🇺🇸
The constitution or these idiots opinions?
It will be.
Tired of people gaming the system, it's literally a bug in the software. Get to fixing it, devs...the American dream is becoming unplayable.
Peoples lives are not games.
We can only hope.
You won't be able to, keep violating the law
The problem I have with this 14th Amendment issues is that what these congressman said here, makes sense. Too often has certain individuals bastardized the letter of the law for their own ends. Rather this ends be in the interests of humanity or civilly or for ill, it does not matter. The letter of the law, especially the Constitution, have to be upheld. If there is a need to create a situation where Birthright Citizenship becomes a reality, there could have been a law that would have provided it by now.
Omg republicans found their stones. Thank you 🙏 save america
uhh
Saving America for what I hear all this mega talking about saving America freedom bullshit. It’s a bunch of horseshit. We have all the freedom we want and there’s nothing to save America has been safe for so long.
Great arguments. Birth right is toast.
There’s a process to change this won’t go through already blocked
They should uphold it. Trump knows what he is doing 🇺🇸🏛🦅🇺🇸🏛🦅🇺🇸🏛🦅🇺🇸🏛🦅🇺🇸🏛🦅🇺🇸🏛🦅🇺🇸
I didn’t know we had a king what’s the point of having three branches of government I ask
Can a non-citizen be arrested or face criminal charges
This law has been in the books, collecting dust for decades.
The situation requires an update
I hope Biggs is right.
He is, read the 14th Ammendment for yourself and give it some thought.
n United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court affirmed that a child born in the United States to non-citizen parents-provided they are lawfully present and not serving as foreign diplomats-is a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment. This decision reinforced the principle of jus soli, meaning citizenship by birth on U.S. soil.
The Court clarified that "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States means being subject to U.S. laws and authority, excluding specific cases like children of diplomats or enemy forces. These exceptions do not apply to most individuals born in the U.S., securing their citizenship regardless of parental nationality. The 14th Amendment also ensures that states cannot infringe on the rights of citizens, explicitly protecting life, liberty, and property through due process and equal protection. States are barred from enacting laws that contradict these federal guarantees, including any attempts to undermine citizenship or constitutional rights.
The principle of birthright citizenship remains a cornerstone of constitutional law. Any actions to deny it contradict not only established precedent but also the President’s sworn duty to uphold the Constitution.
Lawfully present is the key phrase. Illegal entry is not lawful, duh!
His parents were under the jurisdiction thereof meaning they were legally here.
@@anthonyfrank5785 Did you ship the “lawfully present” clause on purpose?
You can't enter Mexico without permission because they don't write words on fancy pieces of paper and play cute word games.
🙏👍🙏👍🙏❤️❤️❤️🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲
It's a loophole for freeloaders
I’m 50/50.
It definitely should be revised!
2 illegal parents I understand, but if 1 parent is a citizen, you’re violating their rights by trying to deport their children.
This is going to get messy.
No it's not the illegal parent can get the freak out and do it the right way and the other parent becomes a single parent too bad so sad for lying and coming in illegally.
They can petition their family to be legal if one is a citizen, theres a process for that.
Pass a Constitutional Amendment . 35 states ratify and with 60% voting for in House and Senate.
Don’t go through the courts to decide this. I don’t like the courts making laws. If Trump wants to change the law /Constitution then do it the right way.
@@tammytambrella6816 they are not making a law - they are interrupting it.
They are not making laws, there interpreting which is their job.
Checkers got up there and 2 people bailed out of the screen shot. Lol
So, which amendment will be next on the chopping block? The 13th? The 19th? All the way back to the plantation colonies?
Nah just this one.
@@RenardGarzaroI assure you it is not just this one
Bye bye America. 😂😂😂
Thanks for the breakdown! I have a quick question: I have a SafePal wallet with USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (mistake turkey blossom warfare blade until bachelor fall squeeze today flee guitar). What's the best way to send them to Binance?
It needs to be revised with the right language.
It's all about demographics and voting rights...
It's about messing with the bull.
Eventually it's gonna be all horns
I think the consitutuon should be amended to end seeking asylum or citizenship, and they shouldn't have birthright citizenship either! We don't want foreign investment either, in or out of the USA! The consitution is clear on it! And extremely resrtricted trade!
In your dreams, deep down window, the American economy depends also other countries just like other countries depend on this American economy. It will be naïve of the American people who think that they can isolate themselves from the whole world is ridiculous.
no interpretations needed on amendments- they are as is
I cant believe people giving up high paying jobs like dentistry being a Doctor a Lawyer to go into politics. How many are doing it for the good of the country or the money. More politicians are millionaires then doctor and lawyers or dentists. You could bet on that
Maybe we should be politicians right since the government is the one that is making money and not the private sector. I wonder all these people are there for the same reason and not for the reasons that the American people are thinking of.
You're full of crap.
I was some thing allowed but not backed by law. Check history
Im sure their parents came illegally too running away from something too
????????????
He just bought Thomas a new RV and Alito a really big flag to fly upside down. So they should interpret the Constitution anyway Trump wants.
John Turnbull who literally wrote the amendment said himself that birthright citizenship was not meant for foreigners.
What don't you understand?
With the border clamped tight birthright has no problems
Looks like they're playing no more games.
Too many here now, we are foreigners in our own country.
What makes Biggs think that he is a citizen and able to deport people who he doesn't like?
Do the same with the 2nd amendment!!!
Nah just the 14th.
Changing the constitution is insane
Listen, they are not changing it, just interpreting original intent.
Anen
Andy Biggs please go ask your parents how they came to this country before you open your mouth and talk nonsense.
These are a bunch of lap dogs playing into their master kissing ass that’s all they know deep down they cannot change the constitution people will oppose
He asked. He said they came legally. No one has an issue with legal immigration.
Any other questions?
So, why wouldn't the framers make it clear that they were referring to a specific type of jurisdiction? Why would they leave it broad?
Are you trying to imply that they could've foreseen the issues we have today with immigration, so they left some mildly vague wiggle room for interpretation? There IS no interpretation. you CANNOT be born a citizen of the united states of America to Illegal parents! the system has been bled dry by those who would take advantage of our country's capacity for giving and assistance, and use it to their advantage while giving nothing back into the system. Imagine how many women in their third-trimester of pregnancy make the journey to America with the sole purpose being to have the child on American soil, knowing it will be "considered a citizen". It's cheat-codes, dude!!! It does not work that way, and it looks like government has finally decided enough is enough.
sorry about the rant.
Because back then they didnt have illegal immigrants
@@Sonnabend00 If the amendment was only meant for freed slaves, why didn’t they say so explicitly? Why did they use language that could clearly be applied to future groups? You didn't actually answer my question.
Lol, the 14A isn’t even legal. Listen to Episode #1074 of the Brion McClanahan Show for some explanation by a historian.
Who is Bryon malanga’s. Never heard of him!
You realize it is an amendment, therefore, it is literally textual language of the Constitution
If you want to change birthright citizenship, then amend the consititution
Exactly. Do it the right way. 35 states ratify and 2/3 vote in Congress.
They're not changing it they're showing the Constitution properly. Big freaking difference.
@ They argue that they aren’t changing /disregarding the 14th amendment through a technicality. Guess the courts will decide whether they are or not
Yes, the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution. The Supreme Court's power to interpret the Constitution is called judicial review.
Explanation
Judicial review gives the Supreme Court the power to declare laws that violate the Constitution unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court's role as interpreter of the Constitution helps ensure that all branches of government respect the limits of their power.
The Supreme Court's role as interpreter of the Constitution also helps protect civil rights and liberties.
The Supreme Court established the doctrine of judicial review in the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison.
Methods of interpretation
Textualism: Relying on the plain meaning of words in the Constitution
Originalism: Relying on the original meaning of the Constitution
Evolving societal values: Considering the values and purpose of the Constitution in the context of current societal values
The party is over! Thank you President Trump!
Not an expert here, but how can one claim someone is not „subject to the jurisdiction“ but still could be prosecuted for violating laws?
FROM: Congressional Record -- House June 13, 1967 H7161
The 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional The purported 14th Amendment to the United States is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void and unconstitutional for the following reasons:
1. The Joint Resolution proposing said Amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress. Article I, Section 3, and Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval. Article I, Section 7.
3. The proposed 14th Amendment was rejected by more than one fourth of all the states then in the Union, and it was never ratified by three fourths of all the States in the Union. Article V. I.
I'm sorry, but there are more important battles than this one that need to be fought. It's best to just drop it and come back to it later with further support. I don't see them ruling in their favor on this at this time.
The title of the video and its description are contradictory.
Andy should read the 14th amendment. It's very clear. The court will not change the direct words of the Constitution. Amendments aren't easy. To be approved, the amending resolution must be passed by a two-thirds supermajority vote in both the House and the Senate. If the amendment is ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or ratifying conventions, it becomes part of the Constitution.
Next 12yrs are going to be hard for you.
No one is proposing a constitutional amendment. This is about the interpretation of an existing constitutional amendment. That is literally what SCOTUS exists to do and what they do everyday while in session.
It's not amending the law, but to correct the interpretation of the law, use it accurately as what it's really meant to be.
He has and did read it, then explained it. Now, you need to read it for yourself. The Court can't change it, the Court interprets the law. Clearly illegal entry does NOT allow you to become a citizen nor your newborn baby, you are still a citizen of the country you left.
You people just do not listen, they said they were not going to change anything except how it is interpreted, did you not hear that?
Yes, the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution. The Supreme Court's power to interpret the Constitution is called judicial review.
Explanation
Judicial review gives the Supreme Court the power to declare laws that violate the Constitution unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court's role as interpreter of the Constitution helps ensure that all branches of government respect the limits of their power.
The Supreme Court's role as interpreter of the Constitution also helps protect civil rights and liberties.
The Supreme Court established the doctrine of judicial review in the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison.
Methods of interpretation
Textualism: Relying on the plain meaning of words in the Constitution
Originalism: Relying on the original meaning of the Constitution
Evolving societal values: Considering the values and purpose of the Constitution in the context of current societal values
Not up to supreme court.
Melania better be leaving too
Did her parent come here illegally?
Educate yourself before you make an ignorant comment. 🙄 @tammytabrella
Why? She came here legally. That’s THE issue. Legally vs. illegally.
uhh
EXACTLY! Trump needs to be careful what he wishes for. Weren’t a few of his wives foreigners??
No they will not. Only Congress can change it.
Dummy, they said they were not changing it, just interpreting it for the original intent through the Supreme Court
lol I feel like everyone in comments don’t a happy life 😂 I love Jesus ❤😂 bless y’all
Reichwingers at it again….
The think, "subject to the juridiction thereof" means to be a resident or citizen already, it does not. An undocumented foreigner on American Soil is still subject to American laws and should they violate those laws, are subject to the penal system that we have in place. Therefore, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
The only 2 parties that are not subject to the United States are "Enemies in hostile occupation" or "Foreign Diplomats that have immunity"
Any overturning of this policy is to spit on legal precedence. This should be an easy 9-0 decision to block any EO or Law that states otherwise
You start off by saying "the think" some of us have no idea what you are saying.
Couldn't be more wrong but thanks for the salty tears. Lol you even said hostile occupiers
Finally, somebody speaking sense
@@jerrykimbrough539 Ya, They think
@@erickapler4707 yes, we are not at war with any country.
Sticky problem.
Andy I like you but you need to change up your rat tail situation
The Supreme Court cannot overrule the birthright citizenship.
Correct but they sure can interpret it correctly.
Yes, the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution. The Supreme Court's power to interpret the Constitution is called judicial review.
Explanation
Judicial review gives the Supreme Court the power to declare laws that violate the Constitution unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court's role as interpreter of the Constitution helps ensure that all branches of government respect the limits of their power.
The Supreme Court's role as interpreter of the Constitution also helps protect civil rights and liberties.
The Supreme Court established the doctrine of judicial review in the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison.
Methods of interpretation
Textualism: Relying on the plain meaning of words in the Constitution
Originalism: Relying on the original meaning of the Constitution
Evolving societal values: Considering the values and purpose of the Constitution in the context of current societal values
I'm sorry but this is not right !!!!!
Because you're unhappy makes no difference. They've gained support. Even the hardcorp dems are giving up so they have chance at some point in the future. Bro they were chanting USA USA USA at the store! The store man! Yeah go ahead and keep messing with them. It keeps getting worse.
Oh yes it is, what is not right is sneaking in the country knowing if you have a baby they will have to let you stay. If they amendment fails they should deport the family and let the baby comeback when it is 18 or deport the family and put the baby up for adoption.
Is that a blanket revocation ? Please send Marco Rubio back to Cuba !
All white men
Andy has inhaled too much Arizona dust. If the illegal immigrants are subject to our laws. Else you couldn’t get a speeding ticket. The exemption for people not subject the laws of the U.S. applies to diplomats stationed here. If they have children here they are not subject to U.S. Laws and therefore not citizens. It is written pretty clear. If they want to change it, pas a new amendment as we did to repeal Prohibition.
I had an illegal friend and he drove for 10 years without a license, I asked him what happens when you get a ticket, "he replied who are they giving the ticket too?" Have you ever heard of fake ID's he told me he could get me one for $50 dollars, is that under the jurisdiction?
If that be the case of doing away with 14th Amendment birthright you have to look at everyone, none excluded. What is truly the meaning of illegal immigrant? Who came up with that concept? Being a criminal and interring, yes have laws in place.
The TRUE meaning?😳 Oh. That's easy. . . An illegal immigrant is an immigrant who is illegal.🙂
The concept is to get in the country you have to ask permission, get vetted doing other wise is breaking the law hence the term illegal.
@, I understand the “concept” perfectly. The same people that sits the rules breaks the rule to make it seem as though its a problem (create/fix). The people of Mexico would cross that boarder for years working and would return home. We can’t deny it was the past administration that caused the illegal flux. Did they ever take care of the area in Canada where illegal immigrants were coming through to the US?
Is andy biggs taking his vitamins?He looks awfully pale
So basically everyone in the united states will be not a citizen if they arent native Americans because technically everyone family's weren't from here they all came here illegally
The legislation is not talking about your old forefathers as basis but the citizenship and permanent residence of your parents as basis. Your parents mean your father and your mother.
Can you prove that?
I guess you missed the word 'naturalisation' when you read the 14th Amendment. You did read the 14th Amendment right?
Exactly my ancestors walk these lens what are they talking about?
There are no Native Americans, they migrated too, everyone migrated except Adam and Eve
I've never seen so many white racist men in my lifetime
I'm black, and it is not racism it is wanting America to be America, we use racism so much it means nothing.
For all those expecting MAGA to read the 14th Amendment, don't waste your breath. It is beyond their 4th grade reading ability.
This guy's ridiculous. If you are in the United States you are subject to its jurisdiction. Even without papers, a Social Secuirty # or a driver's license if a person from Mars shoots someone on 5th avenue, they get arrested and charged with murder. You all either need a supreme court ruling changing 160 years of jurisprudence, or you need a constitutional amendment. GTFO with this nonsense. We have a constitution and it applies to all of us. I could just as easily say that the 2nd Amendment grants the right to bear arms only to a "well regulated militia", and say that means National Guard only. But that's not how the courts have interpreted it for 200 years. See how that works bozo? A federal judge has already stuck this down as "blatantly unconstitutional". Over 30 counties, including Canada, have birthright citizenship and it works *just fine*. You should mention that to Trump who doesn't seem to know that. Cope.
admirable comment, but you cant reason with these people.
Yall wouldn't be running mouths and crying but it is sinking in that it's over. Look around you. They not stopping just the opposite
Ridiculous post. The 14th Amendment becomes contestable because foreigners and their lawyers have been exploiting its weak wordings in order to abuse the birthright citizenship to benefit them. The 14th Amendment was passed in 1866, about 5 years after the civil war. This is one of those laws that needs clarification as regards to its real intent, and that is by going back to the legislative debate and discussions done in 1866 before the approval of the 14t Amendment. It is found in the legislative discussions in 1866 that the intent of the 14th Amendment was “to extend the liberties and rights to formerly enslaved people (minorities)" in America because the American civil war of 1861 might have produced a negative effect on the Bill of Rights of enslaved people (minorities). Thus, the intent of the 14th Amendment, as debated in 1886, was for the benefit of "enslaved people (minorities)" of that generation only. It is not intended for today's generation of tourists or foreign migrant workers or their children. Trump is definitely right!
Just proves you don't know law or English.
@@RommelsAsparagus So . I guess we will have to wait for the SCOTUS opinion. Reading the past SCOTUS interpretations doesn’t look good for those unlawfully present having anchor babies . Better read Wong decision.
If they can Be charged with a crime, they are subject to the jurisdiction of. This has been litigated before.
You clearly don't know what your talking about.
@ “ a nation had jurisdiction over all people and things within its territory.”
Everyone on US soil in 1868 including Native Americans could be charged with a crime, with the exception of foreign diplomats. But that clause of the amendment was not written about diplomats, it was written in regards to Native Americans. It did not say that children born on reservation land were not citizens, which they could have easily said if they wanted to. Instead is talks about 'jurisdiction'. This is because Native Americans were, for the most part, free to travel off their reservation land. But if they travelled off their reservation to give birth on land controlled by a state that explicitly did not mean that the child would be given US citizenship. It was not until a Native American chose to become a 'tax paying Indian' that their subsequent children would be citizens from birth.
And so just like a Native American in 1868 who travels off of reservation land, an illegal migrant who travels across the border or overstays a visa is not considered to be under the jurisdiction of the US, despite the fact that in both instances they could be arrested by US law enforcement for committing a crime. That is because 'jurisdiction' in the 14th amendment is not about the ability for law enforcement to arrest you.
I don't think babies commit crimes so I don't think they need to worry about that part do they.
@@angeladuncan7338 That is not what jurisdiction means in that statement.