The fact that these clowns made the argument that we can’t have gun control because of the 2nd amendment and yet will gladly disregard the 14th amendment of the constitution
As WSJ said, Trump can’t directly change the constitution with an executive order. The only way to change the constitution is through a constitutional amendment proposed by Congress or by a constitutional convention called by the states. The process of amending the constitution is lengthy and time consuming because our founding fathers wanted a constitutional amendment to be supported by everyone within the country. They also done it to prevent the Constitution from being changed frequently because they feared that it would end up being a disaster because it could have led to instability.
No. He can refuse to issue any recognition to children of illegals born in the country. Then a challenge to read the constitution correctly will lead to a Supreme Court decision. - the right to gun possession is in the constitution but it doesn’t include ailens. -- Birthrate citizenship by soil was done to give all slaves citizenship. That’s it. If children of Ambassadors who are born in US are not citizens, then same logic applies to illegal ailens. Calling it ending “Birthright” is a misnomer. Citizenship will continue to be bestowed to anyone at the moment of birth, so long they have one parent who is a citizen (which is what happens in every country in the world) but citizenship for birth on soil will be restricted to lawful permanent ailens (who they are on official pipeline to be naturalized).
JD Vance doesn't even make sense. He says if you dont fall under US jurisdiction then you are not a citizen. A person who does not fall under US jurisdiction would be a person who does not have to abide by US laws nor can be prosecuted by US laws. This throws that argument out the window because the only ones who would fall under this catagory would be those with imunity and diplomats of foreign countries. Moreover, he says that these people do not plan to be here permenantly yet them and their children spend their rest of their lives here working and paying taxes for benefits they will never receive.
If you consider the children of an invading army as an analogy, it’s possible to label illegal occupying migrants as part of an invasion whose children are equally ineligible for citizenship.
@sikeajax "occupying" has a very specific meaning, requiring persons in question to be trained enemy combatants of a foreign nation. Crossing a border into the US DOES NOT mean you are occupying the US.
@@cullendonaldson6452”A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. “. This is a weird sentence that can be interpreted as the right to bear arms are within the context of maintaining a militia, for the defense of the United States aka the National Guard. It’s all one sentence. If it was purely the right to bear arms it would have left out the Militia part and “well regulated” at that. That being said it could still be interpreted as everyone having their own guns that they can bring along if they are called upon to defend the freedom of the state.
But why would Americans want people who aren't legally residing in the United states have babies and automatically become Americans -when their parents aren't?! It seems very logical to me, as an Australian, that tourists shouldn't automatically get some sort of citizenship advantage just because they give birth in Australia. Please explain... Like please.
@@frankjonestbaif you are born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e. you are not family of a foreign diplomat or an occupying enemy combatant), you are a US citizen. That's it.
When is Trump going to work on things like lowering the cost of living instead of taking about ending birthright citizenship, annexing Greenland, making Canada a state, and taking back the Panama Canal?
Never. That’s never been the goal of the GOP, and especially not Trump presently. His only goal is to sell America out to enrich himself and the billionaires that surround him. Very telling he had Musk, Zuck, and Bezos closer to him at his inauguration than his own cabinet members.
@@eltopo71 I'm surprised that he didn't try to rename Denali Mt. Trump. No worries though, just like Cape Canaveral was named Cape Kennedy and then changed back to Cape Canaveral, gulfs and mountains can be renamed when he is 6 feet under.
Owning a gun is so sacred because it’s written in the constitution, but then birth right citizenship is also in the constitution, why can’t they respect that?
@@danielmakinde-v9kthat's not the point he made. He's saying you respect the constitution entirely or you dont. There should be no in between. You May not like a law but u dont have to change it. 4 years ago we all heard about how sacred the constitution was, and it was the most beautiful thing ever written. Now he wants to change because he does not like a law.
You are not following what is going on, Trump is defending the 14th amendment. It is in that amendment where it says, "not under the jurisdiction". It's those who ignore that who are giving disrespect.
@@TheRadioAteMyTV Are you saying that no US court has jurisdiction to prosecute those people? They can't be arrested / jailed for crimes, only deported?
1:17 - It's easy to dismiss concerns, as VP Vance did, with "If you're not here permanently..." But I have been living and working legally in the U.S. on an H-1B visa for the past 12 years. By law, I am not a permanent resident, yet I have built a life here. Under Trump's executive order, my yet-to-be-born child due in April would not be granted birthright citizenship. Given the 150-year backlog for Indians in EB-2/EB-3, I will likely remain on H-1B throughout my career. Why should my child suffer along with me? Update/Edit: I appreciate the concerns and questions in the comments. However, I will no longer respond to discussions about why this is tough/hard, as it's difficult to repeatedly justify the pain. The struggle is real, and I encourage independent research for further inquiries. I don’t believe in playing the victim card (inspired by Munger’s wisdom), but it’s disheartening that the challenges faced by H-1B legal workers-especially those from India-receive so little attention.
And the funny thing is, it doesn’t seem like they want to reform the immigration system, in order to actually make it viable, or reform the H1-B visa.. facepalm🥲
You will most likely be dragged out of your home, put in a detention center and deported. Trump said he will do this by enacting the aliens and enemies act. Good luck.
We already have a permanent underclass. They're called the American Working Class. And both parties have been negelcting their problems & struggles for decades.
Building the Trump Tower, 1980: _"The documents contain testimony that Trump sought out the [undocumented/illegal] Polish workers when he saw them on another job, instigated the creation of the company that paid them and negotiated the hours they would work."_ - Time Magazine August 2016
You work for 42yrs to have $2m in your retirement, Meanwhile some people are putting just $20k in a meme coin for just few months and now they are multi-millionaires I pray that anyone who reads this will be successful in life...
Well explain thank you for bringing up this video Financial education is indeed required for more than 80% of the society in the country as very few are literate on the subject. The value of the US🇺🇲 dollar is declining due to inflation, but it is increasing in comparison to other currencies and commodities such as gold and real estate. I'm worried that rising inflation will cause my 550k in my retirement funds to lose value, But with the help of Mrs Katie Walters I hit 220k this week from my investment of 45k, I am truly grateful for all the knowledge and nuggets you have given me over the past few months.
@@angelmonroy3012 we're already there. Have you been on twitter recently? All bots. Even Meta is purposely putting bots on their platforms now with their "AI Users"
"Even this Supreme Court is not going to find what the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't say what it does. They start with the text; they're an originalist court." The Supreme Court: "Hold my beer."
Personally i blame Biden on this one. He was told to put in judges that would defend the constitution. He decide to not increase the supreme court and now Trump passes everything because those judges are all bought and paid for
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.
@@DudleySchmedlap-s6ithe amendments was written and passed in response to newly freed slaves and their children. It never covered illegals crossing the border
@@DudleySchmedlap-s6i by physically setting foot in this country, you are therefore subject to its jurisdiction and laws, meaning you have entered into US' authority over these lands except for: a.) native tribal lands, b.) diplomats and c.) invading army, over which the federal/local govts. have no authority or jurisdiction whatsoever.
@@ekolteenarp the 2nd amendment gives the right to bear arms. Why then can’t illegal immigrants carry guns or purchase guns? Because the 2nd amendment does not apply to illegal immigrants. The same as the 14th amendment does not apply to illegal immigrants.
The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” refers to being under the legal authority of the U.S. government, which generally applies to anyone physically present in the country, regardless of immigration status. This includes both documented and undocumented individuals, as well as U.S. citizens and lawful residents. If someone interprets this differently, it may be due to political agendas, a lack of understanding, or personal interests, but the legal meaning remains clear in its broad application to anyone within U.S. borders.
ahah, you omitted another important part, are citizens of states wherein they reside, so theres a residency requirement, the same way to naturalize you need to reside in the US
@@danielmakinde-v9ktrue and jurisdiction of doesn't only mean subject to US laws as it applies to the 14th according to the framers. It means total allegiance to the US AND being subject to the law.
@@danielmakinde-v9kI think you are misreading the state part. The state part doesn't require anything, it grants them citizenship of the state they are born in (which doesn't really mean anything these days, but that's what it says)
If those who are here illegally are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US (as the EO argues), then they can murder someone and can’t be prosecuted under US laws.
So is he gonna challenge the 2nd amendment for felons ? The 2nd amendment says nothing about restricting felons from firearms. “Shall not be infringed”!!!🇺🇸
The courts have already started to restore felons who have completed their sentence to have firearms. They have also finally started to acknowledge 18 to 20 year olds are entitled to have handguns too.
I've done research & found that the best case scenario for a migrant or refugee to legally earn U.S. citizenship takes at the minimum 6 years & thousands of dollars, which is insane to me. Try planning a family vacation 6 years in advance & hope that nobody dies/is born or something happens to the destination that affects your plans. Everyone who lives in The U.S. pays into Social Security & other welfare programs through sales & property taxes, but only U.S. citizens are eligible to receive them. Contrary to what many Republican politicians & Conservative media hosts claim, nobody from another country can just get on a plane & become a U.S. citizen that gets welfare overnight. If we made it easier & faster for people to come to The U.S. legally & become citizens, we would have far fewer people waiting to come to the country, far fewer migrants living here legally or illegally, & more people able to achieve the American Dream.
Sales and property taxes are not technically considered contributions and alot of those funds go to state use. Some states mostly use property taxes up. The only people who pay into social security are employees
It’s not our job to provide the world with everything. No one voted for living in a Bazaar of people who don’t assimilate and just force their problems on everyone else. I wouldn’t go to Japan and disrespect their culture while refusing to learn the language or culture. The same applies here. Maybe other people should start trying to fix their own countries instead of leeching off ours.
The wall street journal making this video like they didn't actively do their best to get Trump elected so they can make videos like this for the next 4 years.
If the supreme court points out some loophole on the 14th amendment, which is as clear cut as it gets, they set a precedent for the same on the 2nd amendment
If he can legit amend birthright citizenship, what will stop him or any other future president from amending any other amendments in the constitution? 2nd amendment, here we come!!!
He isn't trying to 'ratify' the 14th Amendment with an Exec order, ratification applies to the process of approval by states (2/3 needed to ratify, add). Trump is seeking clarification of the 14th by stating his interpretation from the Exec branch: that illegals were never meant to be allowed to come here to give birth to 'citizens', they are not under permanent U.S. jurisdiction.The Amendment was intended for black Americans, here before the Constitution! The SCOTUS will have to determine if the historical intent of the Amendment and the language is being applied correctly.
@@stevenpeters1717 Basically they pick and choose how to interpret the constitution not simply based on the text but on their own personal bias of what they "want" to be the law. It's not a republican/democrat issue, it's just politics. I can't speak for the original poster of this. But for me, I don't care if it's republican or democrat, trying to bend the constitution to your personal aspirations or opinions of what is "right" is wrong. It doesn't help that the text in the constitution is often times half incomprehensible with ambiguous loaded language.
@pedro80ds . . . The US Constitution is NOT "sacred". It is a flawed document, full of ambiguities. It is based on 18th century approaches to human rights, individual freedom and property rights, some of which in modern times are antiquated.
@@DudleySchmedlap-s6iwell pretty much because politicians stops writing laws that actually is most relevant to todays society. Thus goes with the OPs point, when politicians benefit from it they are untouchable but if a change threatens them it’s deemed unconstitutional
If Trump wants to cut federal benefits, he should send a Bill to the congress. Trump has the majority in both houses. Let the Republicans pass the Cuts to federal benefits for their constituents!
Just like slavery it took a civil war to end slavery so "All men" are not equal even though constitution say otherwise. Even then black could not vote until a century later.
@@alma09876SCOTUS did not say “must have.” They’re literally saying that even if you are subordinate to another jurisdiction (China) your children are US citizens because of the 14th amendment.
@@airforcex9412 there's a "BUT" Clause in the ruling. The parents were LEGALLY RESIDING in the US at the time of his birth. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a landmark decision[4] of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, BUT HAVE A PERMANENT DOMICILE AND RESIDENCE in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.
So what Trump is saying is that legal immigrants are not subject to US jurisdiction and therefore, there is no need for legal immigrants to pay taxes to the US government. Just for reference, Indian diaspora makes 1% of the US population but pays 6% of the taxes (which is ~$300B). So no need now! Thanks Trump! 🎉
Almost no country does this as this is just a crude interpretation of the law that was written for slave at the time. "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" If a child is a dependent would their subject to jurisdiction not coincide with the adult? also why would the framers even put that in there? If it is not meant to be exclusionary then you don't even need it to enforce the law as it currently being enforced.
@@burgetttldid you watch the video? Subject to jurisdiction is present to exclude - diplomats, Native American tribes and invading army (American laws don’t apply to them); to everyone else American law applies as soon as they set foot in the USA.
@DemetrioAlbidrez . . . That is irrelevant and moot. Trump was born in the USA and neither of his parents were here illegally. So what's your point, other than the one at the top of your head?
For that guy at the end to say if "Americans will believe in the rule of law" is laughable, and should have made his segments hit the cutting room floor. There's a point where people stop calling you hypocrite and just recognize you are lying.
To be fair, this birthright citizenship is not really seen in other countries. In the UK you only get british citizenship if the parents are legal in the country. It makes sense
The US history unlike the UK is unique and different. By that token, the only people that truly deserve to call themselves citizens are the native Americans. Every other group was naturalized.
Thirty countries in the world have birthright citizenship, which in the law is called "jus soli" and the rest of the 195 countries require the parents to be citizens to confer citizenship upon their children and that law is called "jus sanguines".
@mdhmthrvnn . . . The ancestors of what you call "Native Americans" crossed over the land bridge which is now the Bearing Straight between Russia and Alaska. So how can those people be "native"? NOBODY, it seems, is native. Also, those "Indians" did not own the land they occupied. Just as in China, where they dynasties occupied land, only to be divested when a dynasty changed, Indian tribes fought each other for territory and the winner of the wars was determined the rightful occupier of the lands they seized. NOBODY owned land back then, in China or in North America. We only occupy land. The concept of land ownership is a more recent development and exists only because laws have made it so.
I think we should just go back to the basic constitutions on this topic, and that is birthright citizenships is legal. Same thing with second amendment.
@ The way the executive order is written, trump is saying that the law was misinterpreted and therefore should NEVER have allowed the child of illegals to claim citizenship. I don’t think that anyone should be stripped of citizenship because they disagree with interpretation of the constitution that has already been challenged in court. If he wants to try and prevent future illegal immigrants from having citizenship granted to their children, then go ahead and try to do that. We are not the only country to do allow it btw. I don’t care one way or another, but I truly loathe the idea that my fellow countrymen would be stripped of part of their identity and their home.
The only reason I don't want to support this is that I don't want this to set a precedence to overturn / alternatively interpret the constitution in the future. Both democrats & republicans could abuse this tactic. Originalist all the way, the US constitution comes first. Just stick to deportation, end the green card lottery program, and create more stringent immigration laws. The rest will ratify itself.
This article is extremely miss-leading. A person in the US on a temporary visa is not an immigrant but a non-immigrant. Because they are here TEMPORARILY. If you are here temporarily, why would it make sense to give a newborn child citizenship. What happens when the parents visa expires and they can’t renew it? They go back to their home country but what happens to the child? He goes with them and them has to pay taxes to a country he is not living in when he turns 18. It just doesn’t make sense. If you are a permanent resident though, which only means being here under a green card, you are considered an immigrant and then yes, it makes sense for kids to get it. Because you are not there temporarily anymore. The order does not ban immigrants (permanent residents under the US code), to not have citizenship at birth. But temporary or illigals aliens are not immigrants under the law.
So can we also remove other Constitutional Amendments, such as the 2A, or maybe the Right to Free Speech. You cannot just cherry pick which ones you like and which ones you don't. The Constitution is a document in whole, not just the ones you may agree with.
Trump would gladly remove the first amendment for people he considers disloyal. I imagine we will see an executive order for that also. Slowly he will erode the Constitution.
Many trump supporters also want to get rid of separation of church and state. Which state religion shall we have? How about we choose the national religion to be "Pastafarians," who believe the universe is controlled by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Because if we have a national religion, it can only be one. No Christians, Baptists, no Catholics, no Jews, no Hindus no Muslims, just Pastafarians. Roger Williams founded RI and Providence plantations to accept all religions. Which is why Newport RI has the first Synagogue in the country. The pilgrims came to America to escape religious persecution. Because they did not want to be members of the Church of England. So we have a king, a state religion, a state-run media headed y Bezos (WAPO) and Musk (Twitter). Let's just do away with the entire constitution. It is what trump and his supporters want.
who is cherry picking? The left is/trying to implement their reading of the law. 14th - "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (is being ignored) and 2nd "shall not be infringed" (is being ignored)
3:24 Most countries recognize citizenship based on parents citizenship, not where you're standing when the birth happens. If their parents are from another country, they have ties by birth to that country through their parents. I had a kid in Germany - he's American by Birthright. My German wife had a daughter in the USA - she's German by Birthright! (yes both mine)
That's why at 2:00 Supreme Court ruled in 1890s : at the time of birth, the PARENTS must have PERMANENT DOMICILE or RESIDENCE in the US" to gain the birthright citizenship.
@@alma09876 That is NOT what they ruled. The majority opinion was that all persons born on US soil and subject to the jurisdiction of thereof are US citizens. In their ruling, jurisdiction applied at the time of birth regardless of the immigration status of the parents; exceptions applied only to those "who were born to foreign rulers or diplomats, born on foreign public ships, or born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory." An exception also applied to Native Americans who were considered sovereign and under the jurisdiction of their tribal lands, but the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 granted citizenship to them afterwards.
@@ThingsRemainUnassigned there's a "BUT" Clause in the ruling. The parents were [LEGAL] PERMANENT RESIDENTS at the time of birth. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a landmark decision[4] of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, BUT HAVE A PERMANENT DOMICILE AND RESIDENCE in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.
@ThingsRemainUnassigned I just don't buy a scenario that gave more rights to people here illegally than the native Americans. The people here illegally are subject to the jurisdiction of wherever they came from. Think of jurisdiction as a synonym for nation or kingdom... subjects of the kingdom, meaning citizens. The comments the senators made when writing the amendment support that interpretation.
@alma09876 The court had remarked during the proceeding that Wong Kim Ark’s parents had at the time “a permanent domicil and residence in the United States,” but SCOTUS did not CONDITION their ruling on this fact in their interpretation of the 14th amendment, they did not make any distinction between legal or non-legal residence. Even so, undocumented immigrants that reside in the US are under the jurisdiction of the US and any child born on US soil would therefore be a US citizen.
There are in fact two previous cases prior to the 1898 case. And yes, they do not agree with the 1898 ruling which was made in direct conflict of what the framers of the 14th intended. Check the writings on the subject it is very clear.
@davidnealy6459 . . . What "case law"? Can you cite it? And what DID the "framers of the 14th" intend? Can you tell us? Of course you can't because you haven't read the case law, nor do you know what the framers intended. If you do, please share your superior knowledge.
Sure thing Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.
@ Also to the intent "Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country." There is more if you like national archives and general google search
The people who are one H1B or student visas are here legally, why wouldn't their children born here be citizens? Granted they didn't over stayed their visas
If someone is here on a H1B or other visa doesn’t mean that they’ll be here permanently. Therefore any children born while here should leave with their parents to the country of their parents, since their parents aren’t citizens. Any argument otherwise makes no sense. Just as is the case for children of foreign diplomats, born in the USA.
H1b as per USCIS id dual Intent visa its both immigrant and non-Immigrant visa category. If they are not under jurisdiction then people on H1b don’t have to pay Social Security taxes and many other taxes to US govt.
What it all comes down to is the interpretation of what ".... and subject to the jurisdiction ..." means. The US Supreme court will need to answer that question.
No need. SCOTUS has already ruled, twice, in the past on that exact definition. It means you must have allegiance i.e. be a citizen. Illegals crossing the border illegally by default DO NOT have allegiance.
@@RobinDale50 . . . Whether or not illegals crossing the border "have allegiance" or not is not the issue. The 14th Amendment says NOTHING about "allegiance". The issue is whether or not children of parents who have entered the country illegally and who were born on US soil are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States as that phrase was intended when the 14th Amendment was originally drafted. And the US Supreme Court has NOT ruled on the interpretation of "... and subject to the jurisdiction...", but it soon will. You really should let the lawyers give the legal advice Robin; it will save you from future embarrassment on TH-cam.
@@P.90.603 Any citizen born in Puerto Rico has US cituzen children no matter where those kids are born. Puerto Ricans are citizens. You're wasting time trying to disinform this audience. 😆
There have been instances where children Russian oligarchs were born in the U.S. and thereby became U.S. citizens through birthright citizenship. Miami has become a hotspot for Russian birth tourism, where wealthy Russians including those connected to oligarchs or political elites, travel to the U.S. to have their children born there. Companies specialize in helping these individuals navigate the process, including securing tourist visas and arranging for medical care and accommodations. Even if Russian oligarchs who support Putin, and have kids in the U.S, the kids will get U.S citizenship, because of political views of the parents are not a determining factor.
@CHAD-RYAN they were still able to fake travel reasons, and utilize elite medical services to avoid detection. This is also practiced by some Chinese Communist Party linked figures have also been suspected of engaging in birth tourism to circumvent U.S. immigration laws. Federal investigations have uncovered criminal networks facilitating birth tourism, particularly in Los Angeles and Miami, where maternity tourism companies have engaged in visa fraud, tax evasion, and money laundering.
@CHAD-RYAN but they're still committing visa fraud. Especially when applying for B1/B2 tourist visa then give birth in the U.S
16 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา
@@CHAD-RYAN Being here legally is not the same as being a legal US citizen. That's why birthright needs to stop...and I am a democrat. If one of the parents is not a US citizen, neither is their child born here. Period
I've been an attorney for decades. I never thought an issue like this would seriously arise in my lifetime. Of course, a constitutional amendment could change this rule. But absent that, the rule is clear. If we have the US Supreme Court uphold the Trump adminstration on this, then we are lost as a country.
lost as a country? do you think all other countries are lost as no one else besides a couple outliers grant citizenship through simply being born on the land. The laws current interpretation is open to be challenged especially with "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" If a child is a dependent would their subject to jurisdiction not coincide with the adult? also why would the framers even put that in there? If it is not meant to be exclusionary then you don't even need it to enforce the law as it currently being enforced.
@ Is the parent not subject to the jurisdiction of another country via through draft, prosecution, ect.. even if they are temporally working/residing in another country? What sense does it make for the dependent to have separate citizenship of the parent? Especially when the child does not have agency while an adolescent.
If it is in The United States Constitution, The President can not abolish it through an Executive Order. Furthermore, ending birthright citizenship would apply to everyone born in The United States (not just the children of migrants).
Yeah, sorry that is not what the authors of the amendment stated in their writings on the subject. Nor does the 2 cases prior to the 1898 case where the SCOTUS ignored previous case law and the intent of the people who created the 14th after the civil war.
NOT EXACTLY: They specified that birthright WILL STILL APPLY to anyone who has at least 1 parent who is a permanent US resident or a US Citizens. Only those who have no parent who has resident or citizen status, will not be able to claim US citizenship.
@@davidnealy6459 AMENDMENT XIV Section 1. 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.
If a French ambassador commits murder in the United States he cannot be arrested or prosecuted without the permission of his government. He is not subject to our judicial system. If his son commits murder he can be prosecuted no matter where he was born, even though being born in the United States does not confer citizenship to him. Secondly, hundreds of thousands of children born in the United States after the 14th Amendment was passed did not qualify for citizenship because their parents were American Indians and were deemed subjects of a foreign sovereignty (their tribe). It took two acts of congress to confer citizenship on all American Indians. Clearly the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not mean what this reporter claims it does.
I would just be like all other countries and state the parent needs to be a citizen but this amendment was created for slaves at the time as the parents where not and needed that statement. With the American progressive ideal we have ran off with the most extreme interpretation.
That guy is wrong that native Americans were not subject to US law in 1868. I mean you're telling me that no Native American was ever prosecuted and jailed by a US or state government until they got citizenship in 1924? Come on. Even when native Americans lived among the rest of American society their kids still didn't get birthright citizenship. There are several court cases that establish this. And what this means is that congress (or the president) have some discretion over who gets birthright citizenship. It's not an unconditional right for anyone born within US territory. If you haven't been permanently and lawfully admitted to American society then your kids don't get birthright citizenship. That's how it worked with native Americans prior to the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 and that's how it should work with illegal immigrants and temporary residents today.
The right to gun possession is in the constitution but it doesn’t include ailens. -- Birthrate citizenship by soil was done to give all slaves citizenship. That’s it. If children of Ambassadors who are born in US are not citizens, then same logic applies to illegal ailens. Calling it ending “Birthright” is a misnomer. Citizenship will continue to be bestowed to anyone at the moment of birth, so long they have one parent who is a citizen (which is what happens in every country in the world) but citizenship for birth on soil will be restricted to lawful permanent ailens (who they are on official pipeline to be naturalized).
I know many friends coming over to the U.S. for birth tourism. They have birth tourism companies partnering up with hospitals and immigration lawyers. It costs about $20~30K cash. They bring back baby, and that baby gets to pay no tax in America but still gets all the benefit when they come back to the U.S. when they need to go to college with federal aid (well over $30K). And then they will most likely go back to their country afterward. I say we need to fix this.
If you think about it that the entire history of America with the colonist going to Texas today but in the past belong to Mexico sending their people and clamming as their own land 😊😊😊😊
As was to be expected by the WSJ, you distort the legal background. The 14th amendment was indeed very clear, it did NOT include children of foreigners. This is what the part „subject to the jurisdiction thereof“ is for. The constitution does not need to be altered - the US simply has to apply it properly.
Luars, when they wrote it they knew what it meant and Patriotic American people know that they wrote it only for the black people. We need y'all to get it into Court once and for ever answer the question.
Sorry this is 100% false. Illegals are fully subject to US laws regardless of how they entered. This is why they can be arrested for breaking laws, like illegally entering the country. Illegals are not exempt from any laws, so they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
@@tesladrew2608 Foreign diplomats have been arrested and charged in the United States for crimes committed in US and sent to jail in US. Both sides of this argument will be taken up in supreme court soon.
Then why in 1917 Congress had to pass the “Jones-Shafroth Act” to grant American citizenship to Puerto Ricans born after 1899. If the 14th Amendment granted citizenship to people born on U.S. Territories, why was the Act needed.
Ok I understand the confusion, but there is no conspiracy here. PR is an unincorporated territory of the US and has been since its annexation from Spain. The US constitution does not automatically fully apply to unincorporated territories, meaning PR citizens were not entitled to birthright citizenship since they were not fully subject to US laws. Therefore, Congress passed the Jones-Shafroth Act to grant all PR citizens US citizenship in 1917. This argument does not apply to states, where the constitution fully applies and therefore the 14th amendment applies.
@@rabbits2345Puerto Ricans who were Born in The United States like the State New York before 1917 were not considered “American Citizens”, but “American/Puerto Rican Nationals” and required a Passport to travel between Puerto Rico and The United States “The Jones-Shafroth act of 1917, gave those who where born in Puerto Rico or The States Citizenship. The 1927 Act extended citizenship to Puerto Ricans born to Non- American citizen parents, as well as Puerto Ricans who had previously refused citizenship. And The 1934 Nationality Act allowed Puerto Rican women who were denationalized due to marriage before 1917 to repatriate
@sudhirmohite7021 . . . . Oooooo, Mike Tyson . . . Well, it MUST be good if old Iron Mike endorses it --after all, he has a PhD in economics, doesn't he?
@@avibhagan This has been a topic of discussion for a long time. Especially as almost no country grants citizenship through birth on soil and its not written that way either but could be left up to interpretation thus we have the debate.
@@burgetttl There's no debate. Only gaslighting and lying. If Barrack Obama did this, the people crying would support it. There is no if, because Barack Obama actually already did it. 😐.
@@burgetttl , Well no. You're wrong and/or lying. Every single country in the world grants citizenship via birthright. Either location, or parentage (at least one parent). Location is usually automatic, and and via parentage requires an application. Guyana grants citizenship via parentage automatically, because of the large portion of citizens living abroad.
Trump sows fear among migrants with shock-and-awe deportation campaign: on.wsj.com/40S9e7f
Legal immigrants have nothing to fear, and all of us see how you clipped Trump’s speech to just say ‘birthright’
WSJ sows fear by misrepresenting the truth. For example, not distinguishing between legal and illegal migrants.
Illegals should be in fear, as any wh break the law.
Illegals - that was a convenient omission
Change "trump" to "media" and you've got a super accurate comment
The fact that these clowns made the argument that we can’t have gun control because of the 2nd amendment and yet will gladly disregard the 14th amendment of the constitution
Comparing the 2nd and the 14th Amendments is a non-sequitur.
the 2nd amendment is a founding document of the united states, the 14th amendment was passed in 1868. Not a fair comparison
@@CornG4397 both part of the constitution, you don't pick and choose what part of the constitution you like, if you are a democracy that is.
Hey hey ho ho anchor babies have got to go.
@@DudleySchmedlap-s6iNo it’s not because both amendments are in the constitution if you didnt know
As WSJ said, Trump can’t directly change the constitution with an executive order. The only way to change the constitution is through a constitutional amendment proposed by Congress or by a constitutional convention called by the states. The process of amending the constitution is lengthy and time consuming because our founding fathers wanted a constitutional amendment to be supported by everyone within the country. They also done it to prevent the Constitution from being changed frequently because they feared that it would end up being a disaster because it could have led to instability.
Trump is anti American
No. He can refuse to issue any recognition to children of illegals born in the country. Then a challenge to read the constitution correctly will lead to a Supreme Court decision. - the right to gun possession is in the constitution but it doesn’t include ailens. -- Birthrate citizenship by soil was done to give all slaves citizenship. That’s it. If children of Ambassadors who are born in US are not citizens, then same logic applies to illegal ailens.
Calling it ending “Birthright” is a misnomer. Citizenship will continue to be bestowed to anyone at the moment of birth, so long they have one parent who is a citizen (which is what happens in every country in the world) but citizenship for birth on soil will be restricted to lawful permanent ailens (who they are on official pipeline to be naturalized).
he is not changing the constitution, he is challenging the meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
@@AndrewBurbo-zw6pfan argument that, still, is on shaky ground
@@AndrewBurbo-zw6pf he’ll do it. His voters who outweigh the others want this.
JD Vance doesn't even make sense. He says if you dont fall under US jurisdiction then you are not a citizen. A person who does not fall under US jurisdiction would be a person who does not have to abide by US laws nor can be prosecuted by US laws. This throws that argument out the window because the only ones who would fall under this catagory would be those with imunity and diplomats of foreign countries. Moreover, he says that these people do not plan to be here permenantly yet them and their children spend their rest of their lives here working and paying taxes for benefits they will never receive.
If you consider the children of an invading army as an analogy, it’s possible to label illegal occupying migrants as part of an invasion whose children are equally ineligible for citizenship.
@sikeajax "occupying" has a very specific meaning, requiring persons in question to be trained enemy combatants of a foreign nation. Crossing a border into the US DOES NOT mean you are occupying the US.
Amazing how they treat the 2nd Amendment as absolute while acting like the 14th is just a suggestion.
Well that’s because it is
@@cullendonaldson6452”A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
“. This is a weird sentence that can be interpreted as the right to bear arms are within the context of maintaining a militia, for the defense of the United States aka the National Guard. It’s all one sentence. If it was purely the right to bear arms it would have left out the Militia part and “well regulated” at that. That being said it could still be interpreted as everyone having their own guns that they can bring along if they are called upon to defend the freedom of the state.
They want the 2nd to be "absolute" even tho in isnt in practice(arguably). If the same is applied to the 14th.... who knows
But why would Americans want people who aren't legally residing in the United states have babies and automatically become Americans -when their parents aren't?! It seems very logical to me, as an Australian, that tourists shouldn't automatically get some sort of citizenship advantage just because they give birth in Australia.
Please explain... Like please.
@@frankjonestbaif you are born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e. you are not family of a foreign diplomat or an occupying enemy combatant), you are a US citizen. That's it.
When is Trump going to work on things like lowering the cost of living instead of taking about ending birthright citizenship, annexing Greenland, making Canada a state, and taking back the Panama Canal?
Never. That’s never been the goal of the GOP, and especially not Trump presently. His only goal is to sell America out to enrich himself and the billionaires that surround him. Very telling he had Musk, Zuck, and Bezos closer to him at his inauguration than his own cabinet members.
It's Golf of America now.
If you are the ultra rich, he is. Trump doesn't care about the average American.
@@eltopo71 I'm surprised that he didn't try to rename Denali Mt. Trump. No worries though, just like Cape Canaveral was named Cape Kennedy and then changed back to Cape Canaveral, gulfs and mountains can be renamed when he is 6 feet under.
Never..hes golfing instead.
trump should speed up the release of gta6
He ain't Jesus..
He's probably currently deporting half the GTA graphics department
@@bardsamok9221 aiming for Obamas top score.. don't think he'll beat Barry's numbers.
It's made in the UK
They are gonna say that they will delay it until trump is out like before😅
Owning a gun is so sacred because it’s written in the constitution, but then birth right citizenship is also in the constitution, why can’t they respect that?
using your argument, do illegal immigrant have access to purchase weapons in the US legally?
@@danielmakinde-v9kthat's not the point he made. He's saying you respect the constitution entirely or you dont. There should be no in between. You May not like a law but u dont have to change it. 4 years ago we all heard about how sacred the constitution was, and it was the most beautiful thing ever written. Now he wants to change because he does not like a law.
LEAVE
You are not following what is going on, Trump is defending the 14th amendment. It is in that amendment where it says, "not under the jurisdiction". It's those who ignore that who are giving disrespect.
@@TheRadioAteMyTV Are you saying that no US court has jurisdiction to prosecute those people? They can't be arrested / jailed for crimes, only deported?
1:17 - It's easy to dismiss concerns, as VP Vance did, with "If you're not here permanently..." But I have been living and working legally in the U.S. on an H-1B visa for the past 12 years. By law, I am not a permanent resident, yet I have built a life here. Under Trump's executive order, my yet-to-be-born child due in April would not be granted birthright citizenship. Given the 150-year backlog for Indians in EB-2/EB-3, I will likely remain on H-1B throughout my career. Why should my child suffer along with me?
Update/Edit: I appreciate the concerns and questions in the comments. However, I will no longer respond to discussions about why this is tough/hard, as it's difficult to repeatedly justify the pain. The struggle is real, and I encourage independent research for further inquiries. I don’t believe in playing the victim card (inspired by Munger’s wisdom), but it’s disheartening that the challenges faced by H-1B legal workers-especially those from India-receive so little attention.
Why someone need to exploit other countries law that is not cool - if some one have cancer they cannot just rob bank
And the funny thing is, it doesn’t seem like they want to reform the immigration system, in order to actually make it viable, or reform the H1-B visa.. facepalm🥲
i think you should automatically be granted permanent resident after 10 years of H-1B
You will most likely be dragged out of your home, put in a detention center and deported. Trump said he will do this by enacting the aliens and enemies act. Good luck.
@@Mooskittltrue!
This one will end up in SCOTUS and anyone suggesting otherwise is kidding themselves.
i think everyone knows that and it's even said in the video...
and i hope they uphold trumps actions.
@@xoxo4385 NO
@@AdmiralSnackbarz Be a citizen to have your kid as a citizen, simple. Or at least be here legally to do it...
@@xoxo4385they won’t cuz it’s written in plain text in the constitution. Argument isn’t strong enough
We already have a permanent underclass. They're called the American Working Class. And both parties have been negelcting their problems & struggles for decades.
This is the cringest thing I ever read
Building the Trump Tower, 1980: _"The documents contain testimony that Trump sought out the [undocumented/illegal] Polish workers when he saw them on another job, instigated the creation of the company that paid them and negotiated the hours they would work."_ - Time Magazine August 2016
You work for 42yrs to have $2m in your retirement, Meanwhile some people are putting just $20k in a meme coin for just few months and now they are multi-millionaires I pray that anyone who reads this will be successful in life...
Well explain thank you for bringing up this video Financial education is indeed required for more than 80% of the society in the country as very few are literate on the subject. The value of the US🇺🇲 dollar is declining due to inflation, but it is increasing in comparison to other currencies and commodities such as gold and real estate. I'm worried that rising inflation will cause my 550k in my retirement funds to lose value, But with the help of Mrs Katie Walters I hit 220k this week from my investment of 45k, I am truly grateful for all the knowledge and nuggets you have given me over the past few months.
I have been seeing so many recommendations about Mrs Katie Walters, she must be really good.
How...? Am a newbie in crypto investment, please can you guide me through on how you made profit?
YES!!! That's exactly her name (Mrs Katie) so many people have recommended highly about her😊 and am just starting with her from Northern Ireland
The very first time we tried, we invested $2500, and after a week, we received $19,750. That really helped us a lot to pay up our bills.
i hate that the entire internet is basically just bots now omfg what is qardum
You'll get used to it.
Look up Dead Internet Theory
@@MrRapmaster19 yep we’re pretty much there
@@angelmonroy3012 we're already there. Have you been on twitter recently? All bots. Even Meta is purposely putting bots on their platforms now with their "AI Users"
It's Golf of America now.
It's been fun watching the WSJ try to back away from this maniac they helped create
They are owned by bezos
@@KeriterJonk-v2t And Bezos is pwned by Trump.
WSJ is owned by same guy as Fox News, not bezos
@@KeriterJonk-v2t Not Bezos, Murdoch.
@ Thanks for correcting.
"Even this Supreme Court is not going to find what the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't say what it does. They start with the text; they're an originalist court."
The Supreme Court:
"Hold my beer."
New book ....best seller: How to Apply a Tourniquet to a Bleeding Heart
Personally i blame Biden on this one. He was told to put in judges that would defend the constitution. He decide to not increase the supreme court and now Trump passes everything because those judges are all bought and paid for
As a foundational black American, I agree with Trump!
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.
@P.90.603 . . . What does "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean? How does one become subject to the jurisdiction?
@@DudleySchmedlap-s6ithe amendments was written and passed in response to newly freed slaves and their children. It never covered illegals crossing the border
@@DudleySchmedlap-s6i by physically setting foot in this country, you are therefore subject to its jurisdiction and laws, meaning you have entered into US' authority over these lands except for: a.) native tribal lands, b.) diplomats and c.) invading army, over which the federal/local govts. have no authority or jurisdiction whatsoever.
@@ekolteenarpWell Said!😊
@@ekolteenarp the 2nd amendment gives the right to bear arms. Why then can’t illegal immigrants carry guns or purchase guns? Because the 2nd amendment does not apply to illegal immigrants. The same as the 14th amendment does not apply to illegal immigrants.
The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” refers to being under the legal authority of the U.S. government, which generally applies to anyone physically present in the country, regardless of immigration status. This includes both documented and undocumented individuals, as well as U.S. citizens and lawful residents. If someone interprets this differently, it may be due to political agendas, a lack of understanding, or personal interests, but the legal meaning remains clear in its broad application to anyone within U.S. borders.
ahah, you omitted another important part, are citizens of states wherein they reside,
so theres a residency requirement, the same way to naturalize you need to reside in the US
@@danielmakinde-v9ktrue and jurisdiction of doesn't only mean subject to US laws as it applies to the 14th according to the framers. It means total allegiance to the US AND being subject to the law.
@@danielmakinde-v9kI think you are misreading the state part. The state part doesn't require anything, it grants them citizenship of the state they are born in (which doesn't really mean anything these days, but that's what it says)
The 14th amendment was originally meant for the children of slaves. The law itself is pretty clear though so I really don't think he can change it.
If those who are here illegally are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US (as the EO argues), then they can murder someone and can’t be prosecuted under US laws.
So is he gonna challenge the 2nd amendment for felons ? The 2nd amendment says nothing about restricting felons from firearms. “Shall not be infringed”!!!🇺🇸
The courts have already started to restore felons who have completed their sentence to have firearms. They have also finally started to acknowledge 18 to 20 year olds are entitled to have handguns too.
When you have no idea and cnn fills your mind. The courts have already reversed that kids.
"well regulated"
@@Surelockohmstell me ur definition of that
@ means well working short bus.
You guys the reason why this whole situation is happening, shame on news media like WSJ. Down with croupt media and Tech oligarchy.
Why would anyone want to be a US citizen? To pay tax even if you are on moon? 😂
That’s the best question I would want to ask Trump too. His policy is gone so wrong. He’s crazy.
I've done research & found that the best case scenario for a migrant or refugee to legally earn U.S. citizenship takes at the minimum 6 years & thousands of dollars, which is insane to me. Try planning a family vacation 6 years in advance & hope that nobody dies/is born or something happens to the destination that affects your plans. Everyone who lives in The U.S. pays into Social Security & other welfare programs through sales & property taxes, but only U.S. citizens are eligible to receive them. Contrary to what many Republican politicians & Conservative media hosts claim, nobody from another country can just get on a plane & become a U.S. citizen that gets welfare overnight. If we made it easier & faster for people to come to The U.S. legally & become citizens, we would have far fewer people waiting to come to the country, far fewer migrants living here legally or illegally, & more people able to achieve the American Dream.
Sales and property taxes are not technically considered contributions and alot of those funds go to state use. Some states mostly use property taxes up. The only people who pay into social security are employees
It's more like 10 years.
It’s not our job to provide the world with everything. No one voted for living in a Bazaar of people who don’t assimilate and just force their problems on everyone else. I wouldn’t go to Japan and disrespect their culture while refusing to learn the language or culture. The same applies here. Maybe other people should start trying to fix their own countries instead of leeching off ours.
Noble but then more people will try to come and you'll just have a recipe for disaster, nothing in this world is free, life isn't fair
Not our problem nor our job. Follow the law or get deported. By the way we let in 1 million a year via legal method, so I guess it's not that harsh.
It's not a battle, at this point; It's a clear matter of legal precedent backed up by the basic law of the land: the Constitution.
Which says what? They don’t get it. Hahha
A document written hundreds of years ago.. what’s the argument for US gun laws again? 😂
Subject to the jurisdiction thereof...
@4362mont . . . Wow, what a naive statement. It's no wonder you don't have a law degree.
@@herbiehusker1889”Bear Arms” - you want Grizzly or black bear?
The wall street journal making this video like they didn't actively do their best to get Trump elected so they can make videos like this for the next 4 years.
This!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Say it louder they did everything to get this man elected!
What? They tried to have em tossed into jail. You have to be a bot.
Yes. The Wall Street journal and the Fox Tabloid are both owned by $780 million fine paying Murdoch. Neither has any credibility.
@Censortubes If you haven't seen how they white wash Trump, then you aren't paying attention..
@@Censortubes Murdoch family certainly not committing class treason by causing trouble for Trump, try again
Where are all of his “but he’s just after immigrant criminals” supporters?
This is ridiculous. A constitutional amendment is the only way.
If the supreme court points out some loophole on the 14th amendment, which is as clear cut as it gets, they set a precedent for the same on the 2nd amendment
Two of my brothers support Tr*MP but neither would have American citizenship if this was enforced. It would be funny if their citizenship was revoked.
its not retroactive
If he can legit amend birthright citizenship, what will stop him or any other future president from amending any other amendments in the constitution? 2nd amendment, here we come!!!
‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️🔈🔈🔈
What? I don't think that word means what you think it means. The initial proposals were ratified in order to make them amendments.
He isn't trying to 'ratify' the 14th Amendment with an Exec order, ratification applies to the process of approval by states (2/3 needed to ratify, add). Trump is seeking clarification of the 14th by stating his interpretation from the Exec branch: that illegals were never meant to be allowed to come here to give birth to 'citizens', they are not under permanent U.S. jurisdiction.The Amendment was intended for black Americans, here before the Constitution! The SCOTUS will have to determine if the historical intent of the Amendment and the language is being applied correctly.
Its not for Americans you guys just once don't get it🙄 and you're being FEAR MONGERED. AGAIN
This isn't an amendment, you are just brainwashed
It’s interesting when it’s a law that they agree the Constitution is sacred. When it’s a law they don’t agree with then it’s stupid. 🤨 🤔🧐
Hmm that’s not true though. You clearly weren’t listening to what they were saying…
@@stevenpeters1717 Basically they pick and choose how to interpret the constitution not simply based on the text but on their own personal bias of what they "want" to be the law. It's not a republican/democrat issue, it's just politics. I can't speak for the original poster of this. But for me, I don't care if it's republican or democrat, trying to bend the constitution to your personal aspirations or opinions of what is "right" is wrong.
It doesn't help that the text in the constitution is often times half incomprehensible with ambiguous loaded language.
@pedro80ds . . . The US Constitution is NOT "sacred". It is a flawed document, full of ambiguities. It is based on 18th century approaches to human rights, individual freedom and property rights, some of which in modern times are antiquated.
Both sides do that. The first amendment is pretty unambiguous, yet that doesn't prevent people on the Left from promoting govt censorship anyway.
@@DudleySchmedlap-s6iwell pretty much because politicians stops writing laws that actually is most relevant to todays society. Thus goes with the OPs point, when politicians benefit from it they are untouchable but if a change threatens them it’s deemed unconstitutional
His son Barron will also lose his citizenship if he does that 😂
No. The executive order is not retroactive so he wouldn't be affected.
Liar, Trump law only applies to parents who come here illegally.
@@l0newlf52 If it is retroactive even Donald cant be a citizen.
You guys are so dumb. Donald Trump is a US citizen so his son is a US citizen. Juls Sanguini, ever heard of it?
If Trump wants to cut federal benefits, he should send a Bill to the congress. Trump has the majority in both houses. Let the Republicans pass the Cuts to federal benefits for their constituents!
If you’re born in America, you are American. It’s always been that way. Can someone explain why they think Trump is right about this?
He just wants to change the country to be more like Israel, DNA testing required for citizenship.
Read 2:00 Supreme Court ruled in 1890s : at the time of birth, the parents must have PERMANENT DOMICILE or RESIDENCE in the US".
Just like slavery it took a civil war to end slavery so "All men" are not equal even though constitution say otherwise. Even then black could not vote until a century later.
@@alma09876SCOTUS did not say “must have.” They’re literally saying that even if you are subordinate to another jurisdiction (China) your children are US citizens because of the 14th amendment.
@@airforcex9412 there's a "BUT" Clause in the ruling. The parents were LEGALLY RESIDING in the US at the time of his birth.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a landmark decision[4] of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, BUT HAVE A PERMANENT DOMICILE AND RESIDENCE in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.
So what Trump is saying is that legal immigrants are not subject to US jurisdiction and therefore, there is no need for legal immigrants to pay taxes to the US government. Just for reference, Indian diaspora makes 1% of the US population but pays 6% of the taxes (which is ~$300B). So no need now! Thanks Trump! 🎉
Almost no country does this as this is just a crude interpretation of the law that was written for slave at the time. "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" If a child is a dependent would their subject to jurisdiction not coincide with the adult? also why would the framers even put that in there? If it is not meant to be exclusionary then you don't even need it to enforce the law as it currently being enforced.
@@burgetttldid you watch the video? Subject to jurisdiction is present to exclude - diplomats, Native American tribes and invading army (American laws don’t apply to them); to everyone else American law applies as soon as they set foot in the USA.
Trump Show Us Your birth certificate !!! Your mom was a immigrant here in America - when You were Born !!
@DemetrioAlbidrez . . . That is irrelevant and moot. Trump was born in the USA and neither of his parents were here illegally. So what's your point, other than the one at the top of your head?
Real family name is Drumpf, not "Trump".
The key word is LEGAL immigrant
@@josephcottrell4704 soo what?
His father was a citizen though.
For that guy at the end to say if "Americans will believe in the rule of law" is laughable, and should have made his segments hit the cutting room floor. There's a point where people stop calling you hypocrite and just recognize you are lying.
To be fair, this birthright citizenship is not really seen in other countries. In the UK you only get british citizenship if the parents are legal in the country. It makes sense
The US history unlike the UK is unique and different. By that token, the only people that truly deserve to call themselves citizens are the native Americans. Every other group was naturalized.
Thirty countries in the world have birthright citizenship, which in the law is called "jus soli" and the rest of the 195 countries require the parents to be citizens to confer citizenship upon their children and that law is called "jus sanguines".
Its mostly a new world/old world thing. Jus soli dominates in the new world and jus sanguines dominates in the old world
@mdhmthrvnn . . . The ancestors of what you call "Native Americans" crossed over the land bridge which is now the Bearing Straight between Russia and Alaska. So how can those people be "native"? NOBODY, it seems, is native. Also, those "Indians" did not own the land they occupied. Just as in China, where they dynasties occupied land, only to be divested when a dynasty changed, Indian tribes fought each other for territory and the winner of the wars was determined the rightful occupier of the lands they seized. NOBODY owned land back then, in China or in North America. We only occupy land. The concept of land ownership is a more recent development and exists only because laws have made it so.
Almost all the countries in the Western Hemisphere have birthright citizenship.
So , once again George Carlin was right about politicians !!
Much better that Trump shills Qardun than some memecoin as this coin has actual utility
Beep boop beep boop 🤖
Wow just stunned, no idea what is going on anymore.
Its not for Americans...you guys just once don't get it🙄 and you're being FEAR MONGERED. AGAIN
I think we should just go back to the basic constitutions on this topic, and that is birthright citizenships is legal. Same thing with second amendment.
If you want to change it, change it. But don’t strip it away!! You essentially make people stateless!
You’re talking about whether or not the law change will apply retroactively or not?
@
The way the executive order is written, trump is saying that the law was misinterpreted and therefore should NEVER have allowed the child of illegals to claim citizenship.
I don’t think that anyone should be stripped of citizenship because they disagree with interpretation of the constitution that has already been challenged in court.
If he wants to try and prevent future illegal immigrants from having citizenship granted to their children, then go ahead and try to do that.
We are not the only country to do allow it btw. I don’t care one way or another, but I truly loathe the idea that my fellow countrymen would be stripped of part of their identity and their home.
2:55 That’s sad! Considering that mother’s circumstances and environment from where they’re from.
The only reason I don't want to support this is that I don't want this to set a precedence to overturn / alternatively interpret the constitution in the future. Both democrats & republicans could abuse this tactic. Originalist all the way, the US constitution comes first. Just stick to deportation, end the green card lottery program, and create more stringent immigration laws. The rest will ratify itself.
This article is extremely miss-leading. A person in the US on a temporary visa is not an immigrant but a non-immigrant. Because they are here TEMPORARILY. If you are here temporarily, why would it make sense to give a newborn child citizenship. What happens when the parents visa expires and they can’t renew it? They go back to their home country but what happens to the child? He goes with them and them has to pay taxes to a country he is not living in when he turns 18. It just doesn’t make sense. If you are a permanent resident though, which only means being here under a green card, you are considered an immigrant and then yes, it makes sense for kids to get it. Because you are not there temporarily anymore. The order does not ban immigrants (permanent residents under the US code), to not have citizenship at birth. But temporary or illigals aliens are not immigrants under the law.
So can we also remove other Constitutional Amendments, such as the 2A, or maybe the Right to Free Speech. You cannot just cherry pick which ones you like and which ones you don't. The Constitution is a document in whole, not just the ones you may agree with.
Trump would gladly remove the first amendment for people he considers disloyal. I imagine we will see an executive order for that also. Slowly he will erode the Constitution.
Many trump supporters also want to get rid of separation of church and state. Which state religion shall we have? How about we choose the national religion to be "Pastafarians," who believe the universe is controlled by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Because if we have a national religion, it can only be one. No Christians, Baptists, no Catholics, no Jews, no Hindus no Muslims, just Pastafarians. Roger Williams founded RI and Providence plantations to accept all religions. Which is why Newport RI has the first Synagogue in the country. The pilgrims came to America to escape religious persecution. Because they did not want to be members of the Church of England. So we have a king, a state religion, a state-run media headed y Bezos (WAPO) and Musk (Twitter). Let's just do away with the entire constitution. It is what trump and his supporters want.
You can´t just make laws after you betray your king, duh.
who is cherry picking? The left is/trying to implement their reading of the law. 14th - "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (is being ignored) and 2nd "shall not be infringed" (is being ignored)
3:24 Most countries recognize citizenship based on parents citizenship, not where you're standing when the birth happens. If their parents are from another country, they have ties by birth to that country through their parents. I had a kid in Germany - he's American by Birthright. My German wife had a daughter in the USA - she's German by Birthright!
(yes both mine)
That's why at 2:00 Supreme Court ruled in 1890s : at the time of birth, the PARENTS must have PERMANENT DOMICILE or RESIDENCE in the US" to gain the birthright citizenship.
@@alma09876 That is NOT what they ruled. The majority opinion was that all persons born on US soil and subject to the jurisdiction of thereof are US citizens. In their ruling, jurisdiction applied at the time of birth regardless of the immigration status of the parents; exceptions applied only to those "who were born to foreign rulers or diplomats, born on foreign public ships, or born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory." An exception also applied to Native Americans who were considered sovereign and under the jurisdiction of their tribal lands, but the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 granted citizenship to them afterwards.
@@ThingsRemainUnassigned there's a "BUT" Clause in the ruling. The parents were [LEGAL] PERMANENT RESIDENTS at the time of birth.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a landmark decision[4] of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, BUT HAVE A PERMANENT DOMICILE AND RESIDENCE in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.
@ThingsRemainUnassigned I just don't buy a scenario that gave more rights to people here illegally than the native Americans. The people here illegally are subject to the jurisdiction of wherever they came from. Think of jurisdiction as a synonym for nation or kingdom... subjects of the kingdom, meaning citizens.
The comments the senators made when writing the amendment support that interpretation.
@alma09876 The court had remarked during the proceeding that Wong Kim Ark’s parents had at the time “a permanent domicil and residence in the United States,” but SCOTUS did not CONDITION their ruling on this fact in their interpretation of the 14th amendment, they did not make any distinction between legal or non-legal residence. Even so, undocumented immigrants that reside in the US are under the jurisdiction of the US and any child born on US soil would therefore be a US citizen.
There's so much case law on this already dating back to the 1800s and it always upholds
There are in fact two previous cases prior to the 1898 case. And yes, they do not agree with the 1898 ruling which was made in direct conflict of what the framers of the 14th intended. Check the writings on the subject it is very clear.
Nah it doesn’t and will be overturned
@davidnealy6459 . . . What "case law"? Can you cite it? And what DID the "framers of the 14th" intend? Can you tell us? Of course you can't because you haven't read the case law, nor do you know what the framers intended. If you do, please share your superior knowledge.
Sure thing
Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.
@ Also to the intent
"Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country."
There is more if you like national archives and general google search
The people who are one H1B or student visas are here legally, why wouldn't their children born here be citizens? Granted they didn't over stayed their visas
If Trump puts at least $200,000 in Qardun, I am going all in
Trump hasn't GOT $200,000 . . . That's why he had so much trouble posting bail.
A Constitutional amendment is desperately needed. One that forbids a convicted felon from taking any public office.
If someone is here on a H1B or other visa doesn’t mean that they’ll be here permanently. Therefore any children born while here should leave with their parents to the country of their parents, since their parents aren’t citizens. Any argument otherwise makes no sense. Just as is the case for children of foreign diplomats, born in the USA.
Us gov refuses to refund the social security and Medicare taxes when H1b leaves the country... .
H1b as per USCIS id dual Intent visa its both immigrant and non-Immigrant visa category. If they are not under jurisdiction then people on H1b don’t have to pay Social Security taxes and many other taxes to US govt.
You are salty because you know H1B folks work harder and smarter.
Trump: sniffs
WSJ: "Experts debate if Article II permits this."
What it all comes down to is the interpretation of what ".... and subject to the jurisdiction ..." means. The US Supreme court will need to answer that question.
No need. SCOTUS has already ruled, twice, in the past on that exact definition. It means you must have allegiance i.e. be a citizen. Illegals crossing the border illegally by default DO NOT have allegiance.
It means an American can get a girl pregnant in Puerto Rico and that child is American.
@@RobinDale50 . . . Whether or not illegals crossing the border "have allegiance" or not is not the issue. The 14th Amendment says NOTHING about "allegiance".
The issue is whether or not children of parents who have entered the country illegally and who were born on US soil are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States as that phrase was intended when the 14th Amendment was originally drafted.
And the US Supreme Court has NOT ruled on the interpretation of "... and subject to the jurisdiction...", but it soon will.
You really should let the lawyers give the legal advice Robin; it will save you from future embarrassment on TH-cam.
You are misinformed. We have three preceding interpretations from the Supreme Cort.
@@P.90.603 Any citizen born in Puerto Rico has US cituzen children no matter where those kids are born. Puerto Ricans are citizens. You're wasting time trying to disinform this audience. 😆
This law has never really been that controversial till recently. And even now I don't think people really are that hardcore about changing it.
There have been instances where children Russian oligarchs were born in the U.S. and thereby became U.S. citizens through birthright citizenship.
Miami has become a hotspot for Russian birth tourism, where wealthy Russians including those connected to oligarchs or political elites, travel to the U.S. to have their children born there. Companies specialize in helping these individuals navigate the process, including securing tourist visas and arranging for medical care and accommodations.
Even if Russian oligarchs who support Putin, and have kids in the U.S, the kids will get U.S citizenship, because of political views of the parents are not a determining factor.
But they were here legally. Not illegally.
@CHAD-RYAN they were still able to fake travel reasons, and utilize elite medical services to avoid detection.
This is also practiced by some Chinese Communist Party linked figures have also been suspected of engaging in birth tourism to circumvent U.S. immigration laws.
Federal investigations have uncovered criminal networks facilitating birth tourism, particularly in Los Angeles and Miami, where maternity tourism companies have engaged in visa fraud, tax evasion, and money laundering.
It’s almost as if you have enough money, you can get around certain laws. Nah, that’s crazy talk on my part 🤡
@CHAD-RYAN but they're still committing visa fraud. Especially when applying for B1/B2 tourist visa then give birth in the U.S
@@CHAD-RYAN Being here legally is not the same as being a legal US citizen. That's why birthright needs to stop...and I am a democrat. If one of the parents is not a US citizen, neither is their child born here. Period
I've been an attorney for decades. I never thought an issue like this would seriously arise in my lifetime. Of course, a constitutional amendment could change this rule. But absent that, the rule is clear. If we have the US Supreme Court uphold the Trump adminstration on this, then we are lost as a country.
lost as a country? do you think all other countries are lost as no one else besides a couple outliers grant citizenship through simply being born on the land. The laws current interpretation is open to be challenged especially with "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" If a child is a dependent would their subject to jurisdiction not coincide with the adult? also why would the framers even put that in there? If it is not meant to be exclusionary then you don't even need it to enforce the law as it currently being enforced.
@burgetttl a country that does not follow it's most fundamental laws is lost. Yes, lost.
@ So then we are currently lost and trying to fix that by declaring the correct reading via SCOTUS. got it!
@@burgetttl You fundamentally do not understand what "jurisdiction" means and it shows!
@ Is the parent not subject to the jurisdiction of another country via through draft, prosecution, ect.. even if they are temporally working/residing in another country? What sense does it make for the dependent to have separate citizenship of the parent? Especially when the child does not have agency while an adolescent.
Qardun has two of the largest Tesla shareholders already; most likely something is coming
@SardarJi-nz1wg . . . Yes Sardar, something IS coming . . . Losses.
My child was born in the uk, she didn’t get uk citizenship. Very few countries allow birthright citizenship for obvious reasons.
Interesting points, I'm curious to see how this unfolds 🧐
All five eyes countries need this law!
If it is in The United States Constitution, The President can not abolish it through an Executive Order. Furthermore, ending birthright citizenship would apply to everyone born in The United States (not just the children of migrants).
Yeah, sorry that is not what the authors of the amendment stated in their writings on the subject. Nor does the 2 cases prior to the 1898 case where the SCOTUS ignored previous case law and the intent of the people who created the 14th after the civil war.
Also, the words birth right citizenship is not listed in the 14th nor in any of the case law. It is inferred but never stated.
NOT EXACTLY: They specified that birthright WILL STILL APPLY to anyone who has at least 1 parent who is a permanent US resident or a US Citizens. Only those who have no parent who has resident or citizen status, will not be able to claim US citizenship.
@@davidnealy6459
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
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.
Good thing none of that is what is being discussed here then
What happens after he's gone??
All of the back and forth with policy?
😮
Wasn't trumps parents immigrants. So he would exclude himself if he could. Self hate is real.
He only likes the ones that look like him. Two of his three wives emigrated from Eastern Europe.
Only Mom and 2 of 3 wives are foreign born. Please stop spreading falsehoods.
Maybe this whole thing he's doing is low key trying to make it legal to deport Melania
His grandmother was from Scotland and his grandfather from Germany.
Laws for thee not for me. Trump will have this or any law apply to him. That’s why he must be stopped from enacting something like this.
If a French ambassador commits murder in the United States he cannot be arrested or prosecuted without the permission of his government. He is not subject to our judicial system. If his son commits murder he can be prosecuted no matter where he was born, even though being born in the United States does not confer citizenship to him.
Secondly, hundreds of thousands of children born in the United States after the 14th Amendment was passed did not qualify for citizenship because their parents were American Indians and were deemed subjects of a foreign sovereignty (their tribe). It took two acts of congress to confer citizenship on all American Indians. Clearly the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not mean what this reporter claims it does.
They could argue that illegal weren't meant to be included in that statement
I would just be like all other countries and state the parent needs to be a citizen but this amendment was created for slaves at the time as the parents where not and needed that statement. With the American progressive ideal we have ran off with the most extreme interpretation.
His son Baron was born when his mother was not a citizen yet.
So his own son needs to leave the country
Use your common sense Trump is absolutely right on this!
Whatever happens we'll be better off than we would be under Democrat control. 😂
$Qardun put in everything and sell after launch
That guy is wrong that native Americans were not subject to US law in 1868. I mean you're telling me that no Native American was ever prosecuted and jailed by a US or state government until they got citizenship in 1924? Come on. Even when native Americans lived among the rest of American society their kids still didn't get birthright citizenship. There are several court cases that establish this. And what this means is that congress (or the president) have some discretion over who gets birthright citizenship. It's not an unconditional right for anyone born within US territory. If you haven't been permanently and lawfully admitted to American society then your kids don't get birthright citizenship. That's how it worked with native Americans prior to the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 and that's how it should work with illegal immigrants and temporary residents today.
Rules can be changed even 'the rule of law'.
Who needs that old document? You can barely even see it. Just let the president pass an executive order on stuff and that is law.
He doesn’t care about the constitution.
That is not true. There is a lawyer that calls this out and explains the law exactly as it is.
Court has to take back it's decision
The right to gun possession is in the constitution but it doesn’t include ailens. -- Birthrate citizenship by soil was done to give all slaves citizenship. That’s it. If children of Ambassadors who are born in US are not citizens, then same logic applies to illegal ailens.
Calling it ending “Birthright” is a misnomer. Citizenship will continue to be bestowed to anyone at the moment of birth, so long they have one parent who is a citizen (which is what happens in every country in the world) but citizenship for birth on soil will be restricted to lawful permanent ailens (who they are on official pipeline to be naturalized).
I am in Qardun with everything
If the rule of law existed like that NJ AG mentioned. He shouldn't be president.
The people that make laws also create the loopholes to those laws.
I know many friends coming over to the U.S. for birth tourism. They have birth tourism companies partnering up with hospitals and immigration lawyers. It costs about $20~30K cash. They bring back baby, and that baby gets to pay no tax in America but still gets all the benefit when they come back to the U.S. when they need to go to college with federal aid (well over $30K). And then they will most likely go back to their country afterward. I say we need to fix this.
If you think about it that the entire history of America with the colonist going to Texas today but in the past belong to Mexico sending their people and clamming as their own land 😊😊😊😊
Shouldn't this go straight to the Supreme Court and not go through the lower courts?
Supreme Court has very little 'original' jurisdiction, instead cases have to come up from the original court through appeals to reach them.
@@Toramt But immigration is Federal only. States are not involved. This should bypass the lower courts.
@@paulwilson8672 That would mean starting at the federal US District Court, not starting at the SC.
Musk's Qardun announcement is coming soon. Easyest money if you get in on the ICO
As was to be expected by the WSJ, you distort the legal background. The 14th amendment was indeed very clear, it did NOT include children of foreigners. This is what the part „subject to the jurisdiction thereof“ is for. The constitution does not need to be altered - the US simply has to apply it properly.
Do TH-cam comments need moderators now? What is up with all these bots?
It's the only way these new channels get any views. Just sad to see people so delusional that they're commenting to bots.
Rich billionaires telling poor people that it’s other poor people that are hurting their quality of life and not them
Luars, when they wrote it they knew what it meant and Patriotic American people know that they wrote it only for the black people.
We need y'all to get it into Court once and for ever answer the question.
3:25. Not true. They have citizenship of their parents country.
Not necessarily, it depends on the parents' countries' citizenship laws
I hope those parents are able to figure out their countries laws and not leave their children stateless then. 😢
I'm just grateful there is a Supreme Court that can interpret the 14th Amendment and the President's executive order.
illegals who entered without notice to Govt, you are not subject to US Govt jurisdiction.
Then the government has no right to arrest or deport them.
You know nothing about law
😂
Sorry this is 100% false. Illegals are fully subject to US laws regardless of how they entered. This is why they can be arrested for breaking laws, like illegally entering the country. Illegals are not exempt from any laws, so they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
If this was true, they could not be arrested, like diplomats
@@tesladrew2608 Foreign diplomats have been arrested and charged in the United States for crimes committed in US and sent to jail in US.
Both sides of this argument will be taken up in supreme court soon.
Remember Obama, "I have a pen and a phone"? This is what happens when you cede power to the executive, it applys to all executives that come after.
$Qardun is going to be the real trump coin
@$Qardun is going to be the ultimate Trump grift.
I think that he has what he needs- a lack of respect for law, an ineffective opposition party, a stacked Supreme Court and an ignorant majority vote.
Then why in 1917 Congress had to pass the “Jones-Shafroth Act” to grant American citizenship to Puerto Ricans born after 1899. If the 14th Amendment granted citizenship to people born on U.S. Territories, why was the Act needed.
Ok I understand the confusion, but there is no conspiracy here. PR is an unincorporated territory of the US and has been since its annexation from Spain. The US constitution does not automatically fully apply to unincorporated territories, meaning PR citizens were not entitled to birthright citizenship since they were not fully subject to US laws. Therefore, Congress passed the Jones-Shafroth Act to grant all PR citizens US citizenship in 1917. This argument does not apply to states, where the constitution fully applies and therefore the 14th amendment applies.
@@rabbits2345Puerto Ricans who were Born in The United States like the State New York before 1917 were not considered “American Citizens”, but “American/Puerto Rican Nationals” and required a Passport to travel between Puerto Rico and The United States “The Jones-Shafroth act of 1917, gave those who where born in Puerto Rico or The States Citizenship. The 1927 Act extended citizenship to Puerto Ricans born to Non- American citizen parents, as well as Puerto Ricans who had previously refused citizenship. And The 1934 Nationality Act allowed Puerto Rican women who were denationalized due to marriage before 1917 to repatriate
Why do you collect social security tax from legal temporary workers? When you not ready to provide for children of same worker.
Several clips surfacing about Bezos and Trump talking about $Qardun at the inaguration even with mike tyson 😂
@sudhirmohite7021 . . . . Oooooo, Mike Tyson . . . Well, it MUST be good if old Iron Mike endorses it --after all, he has a PhD in economics, doesn't he?
Investing in Wexxo feels like being ahead of the curve.
Why was this okay in 2014 ? But bad now ? Please explain.
It was never ok. Not sure what you been listening too but you should look for other sources
@@los7187
From 2014-2017, it was very Okay , according to all the people who are crying today.
@@avibhagan This has been a topic of discussion for a long time. Especially as almost no country grants citizenship through birth on soil and its not written that way either but could be left up to interpretation thus we have the debate.
@@burgetttl There's no debate. Only gaslighting and lying.
If Barrack Obama did this, the people crying would support it.
There is no if, because Barack Obama actually already did it. 😐.
@@burgetttl , Well no. You're wrong and/or lying. Every single country in the world grants citizenship via birthright. Either location, or parentage (at least one parent).
Location is usually automatic, and and via parentage requires an application.
Guyana grants citizenship via parentage automatically, because of the large portion of citizens living abroad.
Isn't this what most OECD and European countries do?
Insane giving citizenship by birth. Utterly crazy.