The 1898 case USA v. Wong Kim Ark hinged almost entirely on the phrase " "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"/ The SCOTUS majority concluded that this meant being required to obey US law. On that basis they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to children born of foreigners You may disagree with the Ark decision, but you can't call it "wrong".
Go bitch about how ex u.s. presidents still get paid 400,000 a year.. Go bitch about how the u.s. tax dollars pays for all of trumps vacations Go bitch about how the u.s tax dollars paid for pence to go stay at one of trumps own fucking hotels
@@jakestate5483 I'll bitch about those too and a whole lot of other wasteful spending along with bitching about all the money we spend on a misinterpretation of the 14th amendment.
This makes complete sense. I always wondered why people from countries that are in tumultuous relationships with America would be citizens here. Made no sense, how could they ever feel bonded to the US against their home? They DON'T! And many times they go back "home" when the US is at war even though they've joined the US military.
Jonathan Sterling 8irthright ZitiZensip isn’t going anywhere, and there is nothing you or your racist dogs can do about it other than bark bark bark. So keep barking, it amuses me. Capeesh?
@User 57 The SOBs should be impeached, but... It's not "birthright citizenship" that's being challenged, it's a small easily and well defined subset. Trump might be waiting for another appointment to counter John Roberts. It makes absolutely no sense (again, not that that matters) to reward an illegal invader for dropping a baby on our soil. The fact foreign diplomats' children were not automatically granted citizenship might weigh heavily against the idea illegal invaders' children should be granted citizenship. But, again, Yes, they can easily ignore common sense and our Constitution. They have done it plenty of times, most obviously and recently in their (Gamble v United States) decision.
There are immigrant kids here "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". This is there home too. America does not belong to the selfish entitled people. But to those who have a greater purpose for it.
@@Hunter-op3dx It's a misinterpretation. Stop misinterpreting what that line mean's. Your subject to the jurisdiction of whatever country you came from. You don't become a citizen just because you have a passport.
This is incorrect i feel. Almost 30 countries offer BR citizenship and Us is one of them. For example, Canada & US both share the same Birthright citizenship principles which is called as English Law i.e based on the birth place rather than inheriting the parents citizenship. The subject to Jurisdiction thereof clause is meant to exclude - children of Diplomats, ambassadors of a foreign country working in the US, because they don't come under US jurisdiction (US laws dont apply to them, though there are exceptions to this) but includes everyone else (temporary workers..etc) who are residing in US legally. The illegal immigrants (alien invaders, birth tourists) were never anticipated when drafting the 14th amendment and hence the ones who come illegally dont come under US jurisdiction. This is the correct interpretation. If we want to add new words to make it clear going forward, it requires a constitutional amendment. If you google Canada Birthright citizenship, you will see the following text: Canada grants birthright citizenship to almost all people born in the country, including those born in Canadian airspace, territorial waters, and on Canadian-registered ships and aircraft. However, there are some exceptions: Children born to two foreign parents, where at least one parent is employed by a foreign government or an organization with diplomatic immunity Children who are abandoned before the age of seven, unless evidence to the contrary is found within seven years Children born outside of Canada can also be Canadian citizens by descent if one of their parents is a Canadian citizen by birth or naturalization. This is same as US law and Canada still respects this and follows this rule. This clearly shows that we deviating and misinterpreting now..
The USA doesn’t have jurisdiction over foreign workers here on temporary visas. These people CANNOT serve in Our military or serve in Our American Court/Jury Services. They also cannot serve in Federal Government employment positions for USA Citizens. These patents are Foreign citizens and are governed by their foreign countries laws. Therefore their children are NOT American citizens.
And 120 countries don’t offer birthright citizenship. Stop comparing the US to other countries. What they do is not my concern. I really don’t know why this is an issue.
At what point in time did the meaning become flipped and misapplied in large numbers? Who where these original flippers, and how was there flipping addressed?
If you break the law and enter ilegal then why should your children be citizens this needs to change. End birthrights to illegal entry parents. We follow the law they should too.
lol we follow the law, what was that about america having the highest prisoner count in the world. Trust me, i dont agree with birthright citizenship at all. Personally, im not stopping at just immigrants though, i believe every single person should earn it.
@@AHammockFIRST AMERICANS the Indigenous American-Indians (Aborigines) of North America or so-called “Black” Americans who were the ORIGINAL and FIRST PEOPLE of North America pre-Colombian and pre-Siberian Mongolians/Asians. They are NOT from Africa (98.8%). Millions of Our “Black” Indigenous American Indian families are the Virginia American-Indians of the Powhatan American Indian Nation-Pamunkey and The Chickahominy American Indian Tribes of Jamestown, Virginia. There are thousands of “Black” Indigenous American Indians Tribes throughout the USA (especially Southeastern, Northeastern and Mid-Western, Our ORIGINAL LAND) including the Algonquian Indians Tribes. Slavery taught in REVERSE!
Let's say for the sake of argument that the 14th doesn't grant birthright citizenship to children of people who are here illegally. What is a natural born citizen in Art II?
"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." *"All citizens born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States [...]."* If a requirement to obtaining citizenship is to not have allegiance "to any other country", then doesn't that mean that dual citizens, who were born or naturalized American, run afoul of the 14th Amendment? That would mean your interpretation doesn't make a lick of sense, since there are no laws in the United States that ban dual citizenship. So should dual citizens be forced to renounce their non-American citizenship if they want to be American? That would be insane, there are millions of dual citizens in the United States.
Dual citizenship is a more complicated issue. If another country decides to continue to recognize someone as a citizen despite them obtaining U.S. citizenship there's not much we can do about that. We can only tell other countries what to do to an extent and punishing the individual for another country recognizing them as a citizen when they have pledged their allegiance to the U.S. isn't really fair. The Philippines for example passed a law that they will always recognize anyone born in the Philippines to Filipino parents as citizens. So Filipinos are forever recognized as such regardless of where they go. We'd either have to deny citizenship to every Filipino or try to bully the Philippines into changing that law. Otherwise they become dual citizens whether they want to be or not.
That's an easy one. It is the United States that is breaking the law by interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to allow dual citizenship when in fact it does not allow dual citizenship at all.
6 років тому+7
All Asians and other foreigners who are birth tourist anchors and not the citizens of united states and will be deported.. you just need to wait and see...
@Keystone. That is why Trump is replacing Supreme court judges. The pieces are being placed. We must defeat these Demoncracks in this life game of Chess. #Trump2020
@1995 GetJiggyWitIt You are a liar and ignorant. I am a 80s baby, not a Boomer, you cretin. Obummer created DACA. Trump has been fighting to end it, but you Demoncrack Liberals have been fighting viciously to keep education free for immigrants. Trump coined the phrase Build The Wall before he became the President. Stopping the immigrant invasion is the main reason we true Americans supported Trump. He is the only President in the American history who has kept his promises, and is willing to risk impeachment to fulfill those promises. You are a foolish 1995 baby who supports same sex marriages. #Trump2020 #SendThemBack #AmericansComeFirst👆🏾
@@BillyOcean336. He lost due to corruption, and to this day you DemonKKKrats are trying ever illegal and dirty tactic to prevent Trump from running for President again. Trump has you snowflakes sharing bricks.
The amendment's first section includes the Citizenship Clause, Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. The Citizenship Clause broadly defines citizenship, superseding the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that Americans descended from African slaves could not be citizens of the United States. Since the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), the Privileges or Immunities Clause has been interpreted to do very little. The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without a fair procedure. The Supreme Court has ruled that this clause makes most of the Bill of Rights as applicable to the states as it is to the federal government, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural requirements that state laws must satisfy. The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people, including non-citizens, within its jurisdiction. This clause has been the basis for many decisions rejecting discrimination against people belonging to various groups.
FIRST AMERICANS the Indigenous American-Indians (Aborigines) of North America or so-called “Black” Americans who were the ORIGINAL and FIRST PEOPLE of North America pre-Colombian and pre-Siberian Mongolians/Asians. They are NOT from Africa (98.8%). Millions of Our “Black” Indigenous American Indian families are the Virginia American-Indians of the Powhatan American Indian Nation-Pamunkey and The Chickahominy American Indian Tribes of Jamestown, Virginia. There are thousands of “Black” Indigenous American Indians Tribes throughout the USA (especially Southeastern, Northeastern and Mid-Western, Our ORIGINAL LAND) including the Algonquian Indians Tribes. Slavery taught in REVERSE!
Not for illegal Immigrants, Temporary Workers, Vacationers, Students, etc. They are NOT under American jurisdiction. Therefore their children are NOT American citizens.
So, if the constitution can only apply to the context of when it was adopted, then you can argue none of the articles hold true today! For example, the Second amendment was adopted to give weapons to a well regulated militia - i.e. not to individuals. You guys need to be careful what you wish for.
Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, author of Citizenship Clause of 14th Amendment, expressly said: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”
@@jasonmadruga9028 Oh yeah, the intent that you're attributing to it that just so happens to coincidentally be same as your own opinion. Give me a break.
Doesn’t matter. The video’s interpretation of the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” runs afoul of the principal of textualism and the late Scalia’s principals of judicial interpretation. Laws should be interpreted based on their plain meaning at the time.
Wong Kim Ark’s Fight for Birthright Citizenship || this problem was already tried and judges ratify so hypothetically his parents were ilegal and he was born in the is the same case like today
I tried explaining the negative impacts of mass illegal immigration and giving birthright citzenship on the economy people really don't understand scarcity at all they think everything is limitless and then when they get impacted by over over priced houses and apartments and higher food prices they dont realize that you could drop the prices immensely if you did deportation got rid of birthright citzenship and closed stopped all immigration for 10 years.
In this promised land we do not punish babies for the crimes of their parents. We are created equal by God and no child will be limited or judged by circumstances of birth on this great soil. Righteous Americans should not stand for this
@@Chosen1510would you not break a petty law if it meant your children would have the chance to grow up in the greatest country ever to exist? I sure would!
I'm not even American and I think that birthright citizenship, the way it is practiced now is stupid. Citizenship should only be granted at birth to the children of citizens and children of foreigners who are here on immigrant visas and not non-immigrant visas (visitors, students etc.).
My wife’s god daughter found this out when she tried to get a job requiring a clearance which she thought she would be able to do because she was born here. However, she is the child of a Paraguayan diplomat and therefore was not a citizen by birth. She is currently studying here on a student visa but will need to get an immigration or work visa if she wants to get a job in this United States after graduation.
I was on the same thought process until I read that undocumented immigrants have to register with selective service. It's on the SSS.gov website and they can be drafted. I'm confused with how we have laws that prevent them from being in this country but they have to register with selective service.
The DoJ must place this argument before the Supreme Court and fix this error. AG Barr has talented attorneys who can win this argument. It's a huge political question in regards to timing. I'd like to hear the president explain this to the American people. The argument turns on the precise use of language that has a historic record of Congress' intent as to its meaning at the time the 14th Amendment was adopted. It should be one of his major political talking points. It's easy to understand if you explain it simply. Even RBG would have trouble disagreeing with the legal conclusion after reviewing the facts.
Why should any favors be given to people who break the law upon entry? You realize people are giving birth here just to gain citizenship, right? If you want to come here, do it legally. End of.
I agree with your arguments completely. But please, do not make The Heritage Foundation look stupid by using the word "persecuted" when you mean "prosecuted!" At 1:44 when you say and write: "So while a foreign tourist could be persecuted,...." you should have used "prosecuted." That's bad.
Before we change birthright citizenship, maybe we should look at dual ciizenships. That speaks more about loyalties. Why punish a child who is blameless in their birth?
1) Usa after civil war should have gone to ius sanguinis , and write that this birthright citizenship law apply only to former slaves. 2) It's immoral to be citizen of two countries ; as Polish conservative politician Janusz Korwin Mikke once said; You can not be servant of two masters. 3) Many countries abolished Ius soli to limit migration to their countries ( India and Ireland). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli#Abolition_of_jus_soli ; India Abolished jus soli on 3 December 2004 in reaction to illegal immigration from its neighbor Bangladesh. Jus soli had already been progressively weakened in India since 1987. but why cater someone with usa citizenship , while they are citizens of their parents country ? why there are no anchor babies in Latin american countries ? and how would latino governments react , if that would happend ( according to you) ? We in Europe don't have 14th Amendment-thing in European constintutions . We got separate citizenship laws ( primarily based on ius sanguinis). I'm Polish citizen who reside in Netherlands. In Netherlands , there is ius sanguinis rule . So it means , that my child would inherite my citizenship, not dutch one ( it will if mother of my child is Dutch citizen). Specifically Article 2, point 1 of Dutch Constitution says: Dutch nationality shall be regulated by Act of Parliament.
PrzemyslawKarol 1. Then former slaves would have to prove they were slaves. What about those born free or received or earned their freedom later. Contrary to popular belief there WERE free blacks during slavery. 2. That’s a dangerous concept: one can’t serve two masters is a biblical phase. So if I work and earn money means I’m anti God? Come on now. Many people are dual citizens for many reasons. In people of dual nationality, as in African Americans, we should not have to choose between being American or African. We and our ancestors built America & we invest today to keep it going however, we are just as much African and how dare anyone tell us to choose one part of ourselves over another. 3rd, that may work over there but here, ONLY the Native Americans are the true owners of this stolen land. We ARE a country of immigrants plain and simple.
Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term). The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified. Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.
@@q.t.gamingfamilyWe are NOT AFRICANS (>98%) of Black Americans. We are Indigenous American-Indians (Aborigines). There were millions (25+million) of “Black” American- Indians who were NEVER slaves and were finally granted citizenship under the American Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
@Alexandria.Washington I appreciate what you're trying to do, brother, but the fact is some of us were. That is just a fact. They're is documented proof that hundreds of years old. Now, you and I are strangers, so what might be true for you is not necessarily true for me. I haven't done your Genealogy project. I'd love to read your story, though. I happen to be ados and my origin of my mother and father side is the continent is the continent. I have living relatives on the continent today. There's so question for me and that's OK. My story doesn't take anything away from you, I promise. You know both scenarios can be simultaneously true, don't you? We were always traveling and trading with Turtle island centuries before Europe showed up.
Amendment 14 Annotations fn6 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.
The problem with your argument is that the Constitution is quite clear: "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States". It doesn't specify only a certain kind of jurisdiction. So if someone can be arrested for violating a law in the United States, then they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights "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." Folks, it is not ambiguous.
Subject to the Jurisdiction means that a US court can hear and decide a case on the person or situation. (Subject to the Jurisdiction of the state of birth) This video isn’t telling the truth. Google or yahoo what jurisdiction means y’all. How we feel about this doesn’t matter. We should make decisions about things with the truth.
I am no federal/14th amendment slave. I am a New Yorker, an American, and one of the people of the united states of America. A citizen of the State I was born in. Do you know who you are?
@@loualbino5536 My comment is in reference to the federal citizen class distinction. My mother and father were not illegal immigrants. That being said, if they were, I would still be a New Yorker or American national. That is just how it is.
@@vengeance2825 If the supreme court clarifies the 14th amndemt then millions of anchor babies should be stripped of citizenship or at the very least lose the right to vote. It is mind boggling that people like you see nothing wrong with granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.
There’s no use man we the Mexican people also fought in the us independence war and we still fighting for this country more than any other race and still people like the narrator in this video want us the Mexican Americans to stay out of this country wow
Wrong! It’s not a freebie to citizenship! Three things required! 1- pledge allegiance to the flag 2 - become a contributing member of society and assimilate 3- obey the laws of the Constitution
@@q.t.gamingfamily lmao nope. not all Americans are non descended and are not neutralized. and it should be only the 1st generation and 2nd generation of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, that would be really fair imo. holly shit, we came to a point where we don't even understand our own constitution and favor our FEELINGS over our CONSTITUTION AND LAW. Very fucking simple people READ. below is the full congress hearing in regards to the 14th amendment. www.loc.gov/law/help/citizenship/pdf/congressglobe_2890.pdf also, take a look I made it a bit easier to the libtards who don't wanna read - imgur.com/WTNndam so if you are born on us land and your parents are subject to foreign powers AKA HAVING ANOTHER NATIONALITY OR CITIZENSHIP, because that means they have allegiance to another country so they are not FULLY under the jurisdiction thereof. so basically one parent needs to be a US citizen either by birth or neutralized. we are not a Jus soli system, we are a jus sanguinis. - Jus sanguinis (Latin: the right of blood) is a principle of nationality law by which citizenship is determined or acquired by the nationality of one or both parents. - Jus soli is a Latin term that means the law of the soil. and before you call me fascist or racist which literally proves how stupid some people are let me remind you that, LAW KNOWS NO COLOR. LAW IS LAW PERIOD. and look at tucker video on this subject - ua-cam.com/video/GSnCoOk_c8I/v-deo.html and it's completely logical and makes absolute sense that trump would bring this up, I'm not a big fan of trump the guy is too bold and not the smartest out there. But people For the sake of the founding fathers who are probably rolling in their graves right now, stop all that division WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES are being used and our country as we USED to know it is disappearing, we just have to pray we get a political messiah that we stand with that can put all this back in place again
Dante Ibn Mohamed Maybe YOU should read. I made ONE statement. I stated “exactly “ meaning for starters the president should NOT be able to Unilaterally make such a decision, but all of our representatives and secondly our military children should not become stateless because they lose birthright citizenship because they don’t have the right from where their parents are stationed but not any longer having the right to America either despite being born in America. Did you see what I did there? I was able to give you MY stand directly responding to YOUR responses to ME. I didn’t even call you a name. Knowing how biased Americans are I trust applying citizenship on a “case-by-case” would be based on race, socioeconomic class, religion among other “phobic” ideas set up by the one percent that just might exclude YOU. How do you know YOU won’t be stripped of your American citizenship and maybe even your privilege you enjoy so much now? There are a lot of things happening 200-400 years ago that many Americans who are so-called “making the cut” now will not be if that one drop rule is to be used to decide who’s to be granted citizenship and who’s to be denied. I stand by my response. I’m no “libtard.” Is that even a word? What does it even mean? You’ll have to educate me on neckbonics.
@@q.t.gamingfamilyI know because my family came to the states LEGALLY and my dad got neutralized before I was born thats 1. second of all I'm also in favor of excluding those who did the military service. but LAW IS LAW, I know its ugly but its called political reality, you should take a look at everything I linked you, I know its RIDICULOUS that we misinterpreted our constitution for so long and had idiots who were in the SC. but LAW IS LAW. and btw I don't think you can get bias when it comes to the constitution. and it would be a "jus sanguinis" system which what it was intended to be, so no bias there if you are a Muslim, Jew, Christian or non-religious when you have a constitutional right to become an American citizen if either your mom or dad is American.
Regardless of the outcome, this does need to be addressed, it needs to be clearly stated what the rules and laws are. I would have to agree with this video but I am open to hear the other sides argument.
It won't stand. I'm sure President Trump knew his executive order would be challenged and I'm sure he expects it to be presented to the US Supreme Court. So there !
@ Right, they did not say that illegal immigrants are citizens but granted an injunction until Feb 6th to prevent the EO from being implemented So you can't cite a court that just declared illegal immigrant children citizens.
@@johnsciara9418 I misunderstood the question. Wong Kim Ark v US (1898), birthright citizenship is law of the land. Case of the postnati (aka Calvin’s case, 1608), Jus Solis is law of the land, as per common law. There are limited exceptions outlined in the former, such as if parents are diplomats, or were planning/advocating the overthrow of the government, or if born on a US vessel, but not within the jurisdiction of the incorporated US. I didn’t see anywhere in the case where an exception was the legal status of the parents, however.
If a person who originally is Native American (not a Europian or another nation immigrant) or birth from a Europian or anothere nation . Lose their Constitutional right ?
This totally idiotic. The 14th Amendment reads " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...." A baby born in the US does not have any allegiance to any other country (the other countries are not even aware of its birth) and US laws (jurisdiction) applies to the newborn. If this argument were valid then all the children born to the pilgrims would not be Americans. And that includes a lot of us.
Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term). The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified. Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment. During WW2 an agreement was made with Mexico to fill the labor shortage created by the war. The children of those Mexican workers were not recognized as U.S. citizens. The current misinterpretation of the 14th amendment didn't come about until 1965. Also the U.S. and Canada are the only countries that have birthright citizenship. Children born abroad to American parents are U.S. citizens not citizens of the host country because other countries don't have such a ridiculous policy. You don't see "birth tourism" to the UK, EU, Australia, New Zealand, Asia, Africa or anywhere else because it doesn't exist. An amendment meant to protect the rights of freed slaves has been twisted to allow the exploitation of our country by foreign nationals. That can't end soon enough!
Good luck, you need a constitutional amendment to change 14th amendment. And even if it's changed than birth certificates would be null and void you would need an ancestry book to prove you are lawful. It's opening a can of warms!!!
Charlie Thomas Exactly. The citizenship given to Black Americans would be able to be revoked as well despite not even knowing where in Africa our Multigreat ancestors had been kidnapped from.
@Maximus Rex I'm white and I agree. The current misinterpretation of the 14th amendment is a slap in the face of African Americans. Democrats used to pander for the black vote but have now found a faster growing demographic to pander to. Now brown is the new black. Shows you how much the "liberals" really cared as if conditions in predominantly black communities run by Democrats failing to improve wasn't enough evidence.
We are here illegally we were stolen... We were not the Christians on the merchant ships we were the cargo exile Judah. Yahshua was born in Bethlehem in Judea not Israel
Omg omg... If the written documents states something, it means it. Looking beyond the text for sources for negation does not make sense unless this would be an ecclesiastical interpretation.
Luckily Americans have the Congressional Globe to examine what the intent was when any law was debated and legislated even from the 1860's often in full verbiage. history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1851-1900/The-creation-of-the-Congressional-Record/
yeah, but in this current climate and with the way that the President of the United States is behaving, he would only be applying this to countries, as he describes, as "s-hole countries". There are definitely going to be exceptions for his caucasian counterparts in Europe, whereas in other parts of the country, it is already extremely difficult to enter (regarding immigration).
That's absurd because they were nomadic peoples with no land ownership, no government, and they were warring peoples who'd R, Pillage and Burn their vanquished enemy tribes. It's silly to think that American settlers would write a constitutional amendment that'd only allow their defeated enemy to stay on the lands we just settled.
Who's here in January 2025?
@@mrparkerdan nobody here but us rats. Trump stole our cheese. Yours is next.
On a prominent news source they changed the word "AND subject to..." to "ARE subject to..." Intentionally misinforming the viewers.
MSDNC?
The 1898 case USA v. Wong Kim Ark hinged almost entirely on the phrase " "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"/ The SCOTUS majority concluded that this meant being required to obey US law. On that basis they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to children born of foreigners
You may disagree with the Ark decision, but you can't call it "wrong".
2.37 billion dollars a year for a misinterpretation of the 14th!
Go bitch about how ex u.s. presidents still get paid 400,000 a year..
Go bitch about how the u.s. tax dollars pays for all of trumps vacations
Go bitch about how the u.s tax dollars paid for pence to go stay at one of trumps own fucking hotels
Blame 'the Tribe' that uses that misinterpretation against us.
@@jakestate5483 I'll bitch about those too and a whole lot of other wasteful spending along with bitching about all the money we spend on a misinterpretation of the 14th amendment.
Oh so Trump decided it's a missinterpretation and we all fall in line, I don't think so.
You should provide a transcript of this simple explanation as well so people could share it for further distribution.
www.cairco.org/book/export/html/267
This needed to be done 60 years ago.
And nine months later... Still needs to be done.
Not too late
@@teddycooke8145 Almost too late. I can't wait until 2025.
@@MelkorTolkien2050 white people will no longer be a majority
He finally got it done
This makes complete sense. I always wondered why people from countries that are in tumultuous relationships with America would be citizens here. Made no sense, how could they ever feel bonded to the US against their home? They DON'T! And many times they go back "home" when the US is at war even though they've joined the US military.
In what rock have you been hiding?
Source?
@@willamestrada1121
That would be "under" if you were a native English speaker. What third world cesspool are you from?
Jonathan Sterling 8irthright ZitiZensip isn’t going anywhere, and there is nothing you or your racist dogs can do about it other than bark bark bark.
So keep barking, it amuses me.
Capeesh?
@@jimmyjones9775
Whatever delusions get you spineless worm foreigners through the day...
Just shut the border down in 99% of this will become inmaterial
Parent must have established ; permanent residence and domicile. Niether of can established with out a permanent legal statue.
Where does it say that???
When would we expect the interpretation to corrected and recognized as law?
@User 57 why?
@User 57 This is far from that. Hitler killed citizens. Nice try.
@User 57
The SOBs should be impeached, but... It's not "birthright citizenship" that's being challenged, it's a small easily and well defined subset. Trump might be waiting for another appointment to counter John Roberts. It makes absolutely no sense (again, not that that matters) to reward an illegal invader for dropping a baby on our soil. The fact foreign diplomats' children were not automatically granted citizenship might weigh heavily against the idea illegal invaders' children should be granted citizenship. But, again, Yes, they can easily ignore common sense and our Constitution. They have done it plenty of times, most obviously and recently in their (Gamble v United States) decision.
There are immigrant kids here "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". This is there home too. America does not belong to the selfish entitled people. But to those who have a greater purpose for it.
@@Hunter-op3dx It's a misinterpretation. Stop misinterpreting what that line mean's. Your subject to the jurisdiction of whatever country you came from. You don't become a citizen just because you have a passport.
This is incorrect i feel. Almost 30 countries offer BR citizenship and Us is one of them. For example, Canada & US both share the same Birthright citizenship principles which is called as English Law i.e based on the birth place rather than inheriting the parents citizenship. The subject to Jurisdiction thereof clause is meant to exclude - children of Diplomats, ambassadors of a foreign country working in the US, because they don't come under US jurisdiction (US laws dont apply to them, though there are exceptions to this) but includes everyone else (temporary workers..etc) who are residing in US legally. The illegal immigrants (alien invaders, birth tourists) were never anticipated when drafting the 14th amendment and hence the ones who come illegally dont come under US jurisdiction. This is the correct interpretation. If we want to add new words to make it clear going forward, it requires a constitutional amendment.
If you google Canada Birthright citizenship, you will see the following text:
Canada grants birthright citizenship to almost all people born in the country, including those born in Canadian airspace, territorial waters, and on Canadian-registered ships and aircraft. However, there are some exceptions:
Children born to two foreign parents, where at least one parent is employed by a foreign government or an organization with diplomatic immunity
Children who are abandoned before the age of seven, unless evidence to the contrary is found within seven years
Children born outside of Canada can also be Canadian citizens by descent if one of their parents is a Canadian citizen by birth or naturalization.
This is same as US law and Canada still respects this and follows this rule. This clearly shows that we deviating and misinterpreting now..
The _intention_ of the writers of the law matters. It was about slavery
@@iamthewizardwhoknocks2845Then they should’ve been a have said that, oh well
The USA doesn’t have jurisdiction over foreign workers here on temporary visas. These people CANNOT serve in Our military or serve in Our American Court/Jury Services. They also cannot serve in Federal Government employment positions for USA Citizens. These patents are Foreign citizens and are governed by their foreign countries laws. Therefore their children are NOT American citizens.
IF YOU ARE BORN IN THE UNITED STATES YOU ARE A CITIZEN.
And 120 countries don’t offer birthright citizenship. Stop comparing the US to other countries. What they do is not my concern. I really don’t know why this is an issue.
PLEASE ADVISE ON HOW, WE CITIZENS, CAN HAVE THE 14TH AMENDMENTCORRECTLY INTERPERTATED?
If it was white europeNz it wouldn’t be a problem doeee
At what point in time did the meaning become flipped and misapplied in large numbers? Who where these original flippers, and how was there flipping addressed?
aljawisa DEMOCRATS!!!
If you break the law and enter ilegal then why should your children be citizens this needs to change. End birthrights to illegal entry parents. We follow the law they should too.
lol we follow the law, what was that about america having the highest prisoner count in the world.
Trust me, i dont agree with birthright citizenship at all. Personally, im not stopping at just immigrants though, i believe every single person should earn it.
What about the people who entered illegally and became permanent residents.
@@mynameisas2248 that should not be the case
@@Tholen3I think segregation would be a good thing.
Birthright citenship
Should end
So who is 💯 American ?
No one ✓
@@AHammockFIRST AMERICANS the Indigenous American-Indians (Aborigines) of North America or so-called “Black” Americans who were the ORIGINAL and FIRST PEOPLE of North America pre-Colombian and pre-Siberian Mongolians/Asians. They are NOT from Africa (98.8%).
Millions of Our “Black” Indigenous American Indian families are the Virginia American-Indians of the Powhatan American Indian Nation-Pamunkey and The Chickahominy American Indian Tribes of Jamestown, Virginia. There are thousands of “Black” Indigenous American Indians Tribes throughout the USA (especially Southeastern, Northeastern and Mid-Western, Our ORIGINAL LAND) including the Algonquian Indians Tribes.
Slavery taught in REVERSE!
The right to bear arms is also misinterpreted but you guys are so bias
Let's say for the sake of argument that the 14th doesn't grant birthright citizenship to children of people who are here illegally. What is a natural born citizen in Art II?
Thank you for educating people with the content of this video.
"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."
*"All citizens born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States [...]."* If a requirement to obtaining citizenship is to not have allegiance "to any other country", then doesn't that mean that dual citizens, who were born or naturalized American, run afoul of the 14th Amendment?
That would mean your interpretation doesn't make a lick of sense, since there are no laws in the United States that ban dual citizenship.
So should dual citizens be forced to renounce their non-American citizenship if they want to be American? That would be insane, there are millions of dual citizens in the United States.
Well, I can say I did that. Not sure how this would contribute to your argument, but there you go.
This does not apply to BLACK PPL
3/4 th human,🤷🏿♂️
Dual citizenship is a more complicated issue. If another country decides to continue to recognize someone as a citizen despite them obtaining U.S. citizenship there's not much we can do about that. We can only tell other countries what to do to an extent and punishing the individual for another country recognizing them as a citizen when they have pledged their allegiance to the U.S. isn't really fair. The Philippines for example passed a law that they will always recognize anyone born in the Philippines to Filipino parents as citizens. So Filipinos are forever recognized as such regardless of where they go. We'd either have to deny citizenship to every Filipino or try to bully the Philippines into changing that law. Otherwise they become dual citizens whether they want to be or not.
That's an easy one. It is the United States that is breaking the law by interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to allow dual citizenship when in fact it does not allow dual citizenship at all.
All Asians and other foreigners who are birth tourist anchors and not the citizens of united states and will be deported..
you just need to wait and see...
That's originalism. Most advocates of birthright citizenship aren't originalists.
So I shouldn’t be a citizen anymore.
Right lol I’m 25 and I was born and raised here, I get along with “Americans” pretty well but damn some peeps are just, idk
Look man it has to stop we can't continue this practice it's detrimental to the macro economy cant have cake and eat it too.
Yes ! I KNEW it was not constitutional !
This is completely accurate and true. It's pathetic that the news and supreme Court Justices don't know how to read how pathetic are they?
@Keystone. That is why Trump is replacing Supreme court judges. The pieces are being placed. We must defeat these Demoncracks in this life game of Chess.
#Trump2020
@1995 GetJiggyWitIt You are a liar and ignorant. I am a 80s baby, not a Boomer, you cretin. Obummer created DACA. Trump has been fighting to end it, but you Demoncrack Liberals have been fighting viciously to keep education free for immigrants.
Trump coined the phrase Build The Wall before he became the President. Stopping the immigrant invasion is the main reason we true Americans supported Trump. He is the only President in the American history who has kept his promises, and is willing to risk impeachment to fulfill those promises. You are a foolish 1995 baby who supports same sex marriages.
#Trump2020 #SendThemBack #AmericansComeFirst👆🏾
@@Keepskatin and he lost 😂
@@BillyOcean336. He lost due to corruption, and to this day you DemonKKKrats are trying ever illegal and dirty tactic to prevent Trump from running for President again. Trump has you snowflakes sharing bricks.
The amendment's first section includes the Citizenship Clause, Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. The Citizenship Clause broadly defines citizenship, superseding the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that Americans descended from African slaves could not be citizens of the United States. Since the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), the Privileges or Immunities Clause has been interpreted to do very little.
The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without a fair procedure. The Supreme Court has ruled that this clause makes most of the Bill of Rights as applicable to the states as it is to the federal government, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural requirements that state laws must satisfy. The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people, including non-citizens, within its jurisdiction. This clause has been the basis for many decisions rejecting discrimination against people belonging to various groups.
FIRST AMERICANS the Indigenous American-Indians (Aborigines) of North America or so-called “Black” Americans who were the ORIGINAL and FIRST PEOPLE of North America pre-Colombian and pre-Siberian Mongolians/Asians. They are NOT from Africa (98.8%).
Millions of Our “Black” Indigenous American Indian families are the Virginia American-Indians of the Powhatan American Indian Nation-Pamunkey and The Chickahominy American Indian Tribes of Jamestown, Virginia. There are thousands of “Black” Indigenous American Indians Tribes throughout the USA (especially Southeastern, Northeastern and Mid-Western, Our ORIGINAL LAND) including the Algonquian Indians Tribes.
Slavery taught in REVERSE!
Not for illegal Immigrants, Temporary Workers, Vacationers, Students, etc. They are NOT under American jurisdiction. Therefore their children are NOT American citizens.
So, if the constitution can only apply to the context of when it was adopted, then you can argue none of the articles hold true today! For example, the Second amendment was adopted to give weapons to a well regulated militia - i.e. not to individuals. You guys need to be careful what you wish for.
_shall not be infringed_
@ …to a well regulated militia
It’s a dangerous can of worms.
Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, author of Citizenship Clause of 14th Amendment, expressly said: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”
Then he should've explicitly included that in the amendment
@@yurigiron6802 You should accept the intent of the author as recorded in the congressional record and was passed.
@@jasonmadruga9028 Oh yeah, the intent that you're attributing to it that just so happens to coincidentally be same as your own opinion. Give me a break.
Did he write it or not?
Doesn’t matter. The video’s interpretation of the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” runs afoul of the principal of textualism and the late Scalia’s principals of judicial interpretation. Laws should be interpreted based on their plain meaning at the time.
YES!!!
Wong Kim Ark’s Fight for Birthright Citizenship || this problem was already tried and judges ratify so hypothetically his parents were ilegal and he was born in the is the same case like today
I tried explaining the negative impacts of mass illegal immigration and giving birthright citzenship on the economy people really don't understand scarcity at all they think everything is limitless and then when they get impacted by over over priced houses and apartments and higher food prices they dont realize that you could drop the prices immensely if you did deportation got rid of birthright citzenship and closed stopped all immigration for 10 years.
YES, and make it illegal for anyone other than US citizens to buy homes here. It's so obvious but I've never heard any politician mention it.
It's never mentioned because it's not true. Ending immigration will hurt the economy financially dramatically.
Actually birthright citizenship actuall WAS confirmed in the majority opinion of the supreme court case US vs Wong Kim Ark, but whatever I guess.
No it wasn't. The language used in the case was permanent resident not illegal immigrant or someone on a temporary visa
Suprem court decisions are not laws.
You undermine your own argument. No child has the mindset to 'owe allegiance' to any nation. They aren't adults.
In this promised land we do not punish babies for the crimes of their parents. We are created equal by God and no child will be limited or judged by circumstances of birth on this great soil. Righteous Americans should not stand for this
Anchor babies gotta go with the parents
@@Chosen1510would you not break a petty law if it meant your children would have the chance to grow up in the greatest country ever to exist? I sure would!
@@dagrk You might, but the maga crowd has no empathy. They'd be the ones who'd cheer the crucifixion of Jesus, if they could do it again.
@@dagrk the kids are criminals before they were born. They have to go!
I'm not even American and I think that birthright citizenship, the way it is practiced now is stupid.
Citizenship should only be granted at birth to the children of citizens and children of foreigners who are here on immigrant visas and not non-immigrant visas (visitors, students etc.).
My wife’s god daughter found this out when she tried to get a job requiring a clearance which she thought she would be able to do because she was born here. However, she is the child of a Paraguayan diplomat and therefore was not a citizen by birth. She is currently studying here on a student visa but will need to get an immigration or work visa if she wants to get a job in this United States after graduation.
Absolutely! And then let the retroactive deportations begin.
Ur All hyprocrates
@@yeemem4580
How do you figure?
I was on the same thought process until I read that undocumented immigrants have to register with selective service. It's on the SSS.gov website and they can be drafted. I'm confused with how we have laws that prevent them from being in this country but they have to register with selective service.
USA v Wong Kim Ark
The DoJ must place this argument before the Supreme Court and fix this error. AG Barr has talented attorneys who can win this argument. It's a huge political question in regards to timing. I'd like to hear the president explain this to the American people. The argument turns on the precise use of language that has a historic record of Congress' intent as to its meaning at the time the 14th Amendment was adopted. It should be one of his major political talking points. It's easy to understand if you explain it simply. Even RBG would have trouble disagreeing with the legal conclusion after reviewing the facts.
this video makes it so simple to understand. so how could the 14th amendment STILL be mis-interpreted???
This doesn’t make any sense. Why would we punish the children for their parents status?
Why should any favors be given to people who break the law upon entry? You realize people are giving birth here just to gain citizenship, right? If you want to come here, do it legally. End of.
So far the best explanation about the ' birthright citizenship'.
I agree with your arguments completely. But please, do not make The Heritage Foundation look stupid by using the word "persecuted" when you mean "prosecuted!" At 1:44 when you say and write: "So while a foreign tourist could be persecuted,...." you should have used "prosecuted." That's bad.
Before we change birthright citizenship, maybe we should look at dual ciizenships. That speaks more about loyalties. Why punish a child who is blameless in their birth?
1) Usa after civil war should have gone to ius sanguinis , and write that this birthright citizenship law apply only to former slaves.
2) It's immoral to be citizen of two countries ; as Polish conservative politician Janusz Korwin Mikke once said; You can not be servant of two masters.
3) Many countries abolished Ius soli to limit migration to their countries ( India and Ireland).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli#Abolition_of_jus_soli ; India Abolished jus soli on 3 December 2004 in reaction to illegal immigration from its neighbor Bangladesh.
Jus soli had already been progressively weakened in India since 1987.
but why cater someone with usa citizenship , while they are citizens of their parents country ? why there are no anchor babies in Latin american countries ?
and how would latino governments react , if that would happend ( according to you) ?
We in Europe don't have 14th Amendment-thing in European constintutions .
We got separate citizenship laws ( primarily based on ius sanguinis).
I'm Polish citizen who reside in Netherlands. In Netherlands , there is ius sanguinis rule .
So it means , that my child would inherite my citizenship, not dutch one ( it will if mother of my child is Dutch citizen).
Specifically Article 2, point 1 of Dutch Constitution says: Dutch nationality shall be regulated by Act of Parliament.
PrzemyslawKarol 1. Then former slaves would have to prove they were slaves. What about those born free or received or earned their freedom later. Contrary to popular belief there WERE free blacks during slavery. 2. That’s a dangerous concept: one can’t serve two masters is a biblical phase. So if I work and earn money means I’m anti God? Come on now. Many people are dual citizens for many reasons. In people of dual nationality, as in African Americans, we should not have to choose between being American or African. We and our ancestors built America & we invest today to keep it going however, we are just as much African and how dare anyone tell us to choose one part of ourselves over another. 3rd, that may work over there but here, ONLY the Native Americans are the true owners of this stolen land. We ARE a country of immigrants plain and simple.
Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).
The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.
Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.
I also highly doubt that it would be enforced retroactively.
@@q.t.gamingfamilyWe are NOT AFRICANS (>98%) of Black Americans. We are Indigenous American-Indians (Aborigines). There were millions (25+million) of “Black” American- Indians who were NEVER slaves and were finally granted citizenship under the American Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
@Alexandria.Washington I appreciate what you're trying to do, brother, but the fact is some of us were. That is just a fact. They're is documented proof that hundreds of years old. Now, you and I are strangers, so what might be true for you is not necessarily true for me. I haven't done your Genealogy project. I'd love to read your story, though. I happen to be ados and my origin of my mother and father side is the continent is the continent. I have living relatives on the continent today. There's so question for me and that's OK. My story doesn't take anything away from you, I promise. You know both scenarios can be simultaneously true, don't you? We were always traveling and trading with Turtle island centuries before Europe showed up.
End it. No more anchor babies!
if this ever happens mexico should get california back
They've already got it.
wil scott lol shit your racist ass up stupid bitch
Amendment 14 Annotations fn6
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.
The problem with your argument is that the Constitution is quite clear: "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States". It doesn't specify only a certain kind of jurisdiction. So if someone can be arrested for violating a law in the United States, then they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights
"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." Folks, it is not ambiguous.
I'm gonna move to America and have lots of babies and abuse your system haha
All my babies will be just as much of a citizen as you are lolz
@@ENGLISHMURPHY Better move soon... Things are changing rapidly in western nations.
And who is the daddy?? 🤨
An illegal? 😂
The ‘partial’ part is doing some HEAVY lifting in this argument- lol
Subject to the Jurisdiction means that a US court can hear and decide a case on the person or situation. (Subject to the Jurisdiction of the state of birth)
This video isn’t telling the truth.
Google or yahoo what jurisdiction means y’all.
How we feel about this doesn’t matter. We should make decisions about things with the truth.
I am no federal/14th amendment slave. I am a New Yorker, an American, and one of the people of the united states of America. A citizen of the State I was born in. Do you know who you are?
You shouldn't be if your parents are illegal aliens.
@@loualbino5536
My comment is in reference to the federal citizen class distinction. My mother and father were not illegal immigrants. That being said, if they were, I would still be a New Yorker or American national. That is just how it is.
@@vengeance2825 If they were illegal aliens you would be a citizen by default and should be stripped of citizenship in the very near future.
@@loualbino5536 Which particular citizenship are you referring to? Also, by what authority exactly can anyone strip a birthright? Please explain.
@@vengeance2825 If the supreme court clarifies the 14th amndemt then millions of anchor babies should be stripped of citizenship or at the very least lose the right to vote. It is mind boggling that people like you see nothing wrong with granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.
This is a good argument, but I DOUBT that this is Trump's motivation or that he could even explain it in his preschool grammar .
Agreed. It's a legal fiction
There’s no use man we the Mexican people also fought in the us independence war and we still fighting for this country more than any other race and still people like the narrator in this video want us the Mexican Americans to stay out of this country wow
Nah we have Mexico and us Mexican Americans could fix it.
It should never have heen misconstrued as being legal or right in the first place!
1:18 "But Senator SleepyEyesWhoGivesAFuck said..."
Wrong! It’s not a freebie to citizenship!
Three things required!
1- pledge allegiance to the flag
2 - become a contributing member of society and assimilate
3- obey the laws of the Constitution
Does this mean a 10th generational American child's citizenship is not guaranteed?
david freeburn Exactly
@@q.t.gamingfamily lmao nope. not all Americans are non descended and are not neutralized. and it should be only the 1st generation and 2nd generation of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, that would be really fair imo.
holly shit, we came to a point where we don't even understand our own constitution and favor our FEELINGS over our CONSTITUTION AND LAW.
Very fucking simple people READ.
below is the full congress hearing in regards to the 14th amendment.
www.loc.gov/law/help/citizenship/pdf/congressglobe_2890.pdf
also, take a look I made it a bit easier to the libtards who don't wanna read - imgur.com/WTNndam
so if you are born on us land and your parents are subject to foreign powers AKA HAVING ANOTHER NATIONALITY OR CITIZENSHIP, because that means they have allegiance to another country so they are not FULLY under the jurisdiction thereof. so basically one parent needs to be a US citizen either by birth or neutralized. we are not a Jus soli system, we are a jus sanguinis.
- Jus sanguinis (Latin: the right of blood) is a principle of nationality law by which citizenship is determined or acquired by the nationality of one or both parents.
- Jus soli is a Latin term that means the law of the soil.
and before you call me fascist or racist which literally proves how stupid some people are let me remind you that, LAW KNOWS NO COLOR. LAW IS LAW PERIOD.
and look at tucker video on this subject - ua-cam.com/video/GSnCoOk_c8I/v-deo.html
and it's completely logical and makes absolute sense that trump would bring this up, I'm not a big fan of trump the guy is too bold and not the smartest out there. But people For the sake of the founding fathers who are probably rolling in their graves right now, stop all that division WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES are being used and our country as we USED to know it is disappearing, we just have to pray we get a political messiah that we stand with that can put all this back in place again
Dante Ibn Mohamed Maybe YOU should read. I made ONE statement. I stated “exactly “ meaning for starters the president should NOT be able to Unilaterally make such a decision, but all of our representatives and secondly our military children should not become stateless because they lose birthright citizenship because they don’t have the right from where their parents are stationed but not any longer having the right to America either despite being born in America. Did you see what I did there? I was able to give you MY stand directly responding to YOUR responses to ME. I didn’t even call you a name. Knowing how biased Americans are I trust applying citizenship on a “case-by-case” would be based on race, socioeconomic class, religion among other “phobic” ideas set up by the one percent that just might exclude YOU. How do you know YOU won’t be stripped of your American citizenship and maybe even your privilege you enjoy so much now? There are a lot of things happening 200-400 years ago that many Americans who are so-called “making the cut” now will not be if that one drop rule is to be used to decide who’s to be granted citizenship and who’s to be denied. I stand by my response. I’m no “libtard.” Is that even a word? What does it even mean? You’ll have to educate me on neckbonics.
@@q.t.gamingfamilyI know because my family came to the states LEGALLY and my dad got neutralized before I was born thats 1. second of all I'm also in favor of excluding those who did the military service. but LAW IS LAW, I know its ugly but its called political reality, you should take a look at everything I linked you, I know its RIDICULOUS that we misinterpreted our constitution for so long and had idiots who were in the SC. but LAW IS LAW. and btw I don't think you can get bias when it comes to the constitution. and it would be a "jus sanguinis" system which what it was intended to be, so no bias there if you are a Muslim, Jew, Christian or non-religious when you have a constitutional right to become an American citizen if either your mom or dad is American.
Dante Ibn Mohamed You forgot to define “libtard.”
Well then, they should’ve been a lot clearer when writing the amendment, oh well
1492 Columbus came here😂 the indigenous people were here
Kids belong with the parents not a country.
Um ur factually incorrect 😂
Well said. Thank you.
This “interpretation” reads a lot of words into the text that aren’t there...
This video should be televised!!
Also, funny how they don’t show the text of the actual US v Kim Wong Ark decisions :D
Regardless of the outcome, this does need to be addressed, it needs to be clearly stated what the rules and laws are. I would have to agree with this video but I am open to hear the other sides argument.
retroactivity enforce the 14th amendment before it's too late
Well a court just ruled they are citizens. So there.😮
Where?
You should have no problem citing which court and perhaps the name of the case
It won't stand. I'm sure President Trump knew his executive order would be challenged and I'm sure he expects it to be presented to the US Supreme Court. So there !
@@johnsciara9418Washington v Trump, federal district court of Western Washington.
@ Right, they did not say that illegal immigrants are citizens but granted an injunction until Feb 6th to prevent the EO from being implemented
So you can't cite a court that just declared illegal immigrant children citizens.
@@johnsciara9418 I misunderstood the question. Wong Kim Ark v US (1898), birthright citizenship is law of the land. Case of the postnati (aka Calvin’s case, 1608), Jus Solis is law of the land, as per common law. There are limited exceptions outlined in the former, such as if parents are diplomats, or were planning/advocating the overthrow of the government, or if born on a US vessel, but not within the jurisdiction of the incorporated US. I didn’t see anywhere in the case where an exception was the legal status of the parents, however.
That fake news.
It needs to end, but don’t strip current citizens of their citizenship if there parents entered illegally
Don't strip them of citizenship but take away their right to vote.
No rights no debts hahaha. Goodbye student loans ha
@@angiecerpas5997 Ill gladly pay of your student debt.
I agree!!!
If a person who originally is Native American (not a Europian or another nation immigrant) or birth from a Europian or anothere nation . Lose their Constitutional right ?
You are contradicting yourself. The children of LPRs are the same in terms of their mother land citizenship status vs illegal aliens.
This totally idiotic. The 14th Amendment reads " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...." A baby born in the US does not have any allegiance to any other country (the other countries are not even aware of its birth) and US laws (jurisdiction) applies to the newborn. If this argument were valid then all the children born to the pilgrims would not be Americans. And that includes a lot of us.
Yep, and lot of idiots here are just blindly commenting.
Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).
The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.
Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.
During WW2 an agreement was made with Mexico to fill the labor shortage created by the war. The children of those Mexican workers were not recognized as U.S. citizens. The current misinterpretation of the 14th amendment didn't come about until 1965. Also the U.S. and Canada are the only countries that have birthright citizenship. Children born abroad to American parents are U.S. citizens not citizens of the host country because other countries don't have such a ridiculous policy. You don't see "birth tourism" to the UK, EU, Australia, New Zealand, Asia, Africa or anywhere else because it doesn't exist. An amendment meant to protect the rights of freed slaves has been twisted to allow the exploitation of our country by foreign nationals. That can't end soon enough!
@@bretroberts950 Exactly👍💯
👏 Thanks.
35 countries have birthright citizenship
USA is special
One of the kind
Nuthouse 😅😂
Good luck, you need a constitutional amendment to change 14th amendment. And even if it's changed than birth certificates would be null and void you would need an ancestry book to prove you are lawful. It's opening a can of warms!!!
Charlie Thomas Exactly. The citizenship given to Black Americans would be able to be revoked as well despite not even knowing where in Africa our Multigreat ancestors had been kidnapped from.
@Maximus Rex I'm white and I agree. The current misinterpretation of the 14th amendment is a slap in the face of African Americans. Democrats used to pander for the black vote but have now found a faster growing demographic to pander to. Now brown is the new black. Shows you how much the "liberals" really cared as if conditions in predominantly black communities run by Democrats failing to improve wasn't enough evidence.
We are here illegally we were stolen...
We were not the Christians on the merchant ships we were the cargo exile Judah.
Yahshua was born in Bethlehem in Judea not Israel
Interpretation that strips rights leads to war
If this isn't the correct interpretation there would be no reason for the use "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Omg omg... If the written documents states something, it means it. Looking beyond the text for sources for negation does not make sense unless this would be an ecclesiastical interpretation.
Marbury V. Madison
Luckily Americans have the Congressional Globe to examine what the intent was when any law was debated and legislated even from the 1860's often in full verbiage. history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1851-1900/The-creation-of-the-Congressional-Record/
yeah, but in this current climate and with the way that the President of the United States is behaving, he would only be applying this to countries, as he describes, as "s-hole countries". There are definitely going to be exceptions for his caucasian counterparts in Europe, whereas in other parts of the country, it is already extremely difficult to enter (regarding immigration).
I agree!
Everything that is happening now is on your head.
If your in American your in the jurisdiction of it expect embassy’s dumb argument
Amen
I Agree
all people = all persons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Newborns are persons.
Matthew 25:31-46
Then y'all should leave. The indios were here before your ancestors. By that yardstick, you can make no claim.
That's absurd because they were nomadic peoples with no land ownership, no government, and they were warring peoples who'd R, Pillage and Burn their vanquished enemy tribes. It's silly to think that American settlers would write a constitutional amendment that'd only allow their defeated enemy to stay on the lands we just settled.
Trump wrong he wants his interpretation . But it's just I'm white & i say so .lol
Nope. You are spectacularly misinformed.
Yes congress change this law
Supreme Court ruling. Sorry if it hurts your feelings 😂
I guess we'll see what Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and whoever Trump replaces Ginsuburg with think about it. Sorry if that hurts your feelings!
That face news by Republicains.
Born in a country, then you are its natural citizen, end of story ....
No 👎