I don't think babies born in the US should automatically be given citizenship. It makes no sense. The baby should be a citizen of wherever their parents are citizens.
@@aungkyawmoe8023 It says verbatim. There is no question mark, but, if, or maybe. It is total and final. It is as solid as the 1st, 2nd, 4th, or 19th. There's no hope in hell of ever getting 2/3 otherwise. Drop it and move on.
1:12 Trump did not say we should get rid of birthright citizenship. He merely said birthright citizenship is for people subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, meaning if one of your parents are a citizen, then you are a citizen by right of birth. Excluding children of foreigners, whether you agree with that meaning or not, is not "getting rid of birthright citizenship". If it was then that would mean that nobody would have birthright citizenship, even the children of citizens, and everybody would have to be naturalized. Think about it. The courts have been corrupted and made ruling to change the constitution, which it doesn't have the authority to do. You will notice that the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 brought American Indians under the jurisdiction of the USA and the 14th amendment did not include them since they were citizens of a foreign nation. Has such an act been made by the congress to apply to foreigners, or even more extreme, to those who have invaded the united states? Would such an act even be legal, or could any sane population ever pass such an act? I don't think so. Only an imperialist enemy of the United States of America would want to destroy the country by taking away its sovereignty and the sovereignty of its citizens by advocating such an act.
@@mcgabrielrockYou have to apply for it if your parents weren't citizens. That is perfectly normal and shouldn't be rocket science. But, the idea that you could be here illegally and your children become citizens is insane. So, that isn't birthright citizenship. Birthright citizenship means you get citizenship by right of birth from your parents. Do you lose birthright citizenship if your parents are citizens but your mom gives birth to you while outside the country? Of course not, because it has nothing to do with where you are born. Also, there is no such thing as "natural born" qualification for president. Anyone who is a citizen can become president. All this is nonsense and games people are playing that a little bit of logic can disprove. Also, let's say your parents aren't citizens and you want to be, great, nobody says you can't.
Oh Please. You think your special because you came out on this side of an imaginary line. I hope you are born in a third world country in your next life and denied the right to live and flourish on other land.
Ted Cruz Born in Canada not in USA but had an American Mother and Cuban born Father, still he was eligible to run for President for having American Blood, whatever that means lol.. When everyone here is an immigrant child, unless you are Native Indian.
The US Constitution literally says nothing about abortion. Stop misleading people. The power to make this decision has always resided with the states. The power to make decisions in reference to abortion resides with we the people, not the supreme court, and not the Federal government! That power resides solely with the voters and who they choose to vote into power within their state! The supreme Court did not make a ruling today about whether or not people can have abortions. The supreme Court merely stated that it was unconstitutional for the supreme Court to weigh in on this matter to begin with. The United States Constitution backs that decision 100%. Stop misleading people, all you're doing is causing division and hatred
Funny how all the people in favor of abortion are alive - loose Reagan quote. As an adopted person I’m glad my birth mom chose faith over an easy solution.
Human body is foreign soil. But the government can grant permissions or not grant permissions for doctors given permission to practice extra-ordinary medicine under government supervision.
@@johnthomson2377 They were, which is why we gave them citizen status, as borned persons living on American soil. The difference is they were in America, not within another country (or within another person). To protect human life constitutionally, the government would ask those doctors whose licenses are overseen by the government to take an oath to do no intentional harm, and to use their government overseen authority to try to heal people and save lives, not exploit them… that doesn’t mean that a doctor wouldn’t have to make a decision to remove a baby that isn’t viable when necessary to save the mother’s life. It doesn’t mean the government’s jurisdiction is extended to enslave women either. Women are free people with individual liberty, just as men are. The government must be ethical, and assure citizens that those practicing under government oversight are ethical; government’s role isn’t to ensure that no sin is ever committed by citizens; medical also doesn’t get to operate as a branch of government.
“Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” Its written pretty clearly right there. Comparing abortion to civil rights, lgbt rights, desegregation is a horrible false comparison. The difference being that abortion is incumbent upon the extinguishing of life.
@@matt1612 Right so by that standard, “liberty” gives me freedom to go commit homicide? Oh but homicide is bad to you. And its also bad in the eyes of the law. So I get punished. Now abortion is bad in the eyes of the law. And it doesnt matter if its good to you. In fact it just shows how little you regard human life.
The argument comes whether you ascribe personhood to a fetus. Also, the fetus is present inside an established person’s body and using their bodily resources without the person’s consent.
@@branman399 Youre right. I realize some people dont regard fetus’s as people, but thats a whole other debate in itself. As to your second point, you could not be more wrong. As soon as a woman willingly commits intercourse, she is effectively consenting to rolling the dice of pregnancy. If they are an adult and being honest, they know what the potential consequences of sex are, and to abandon that responsibility after the consequences have manifested is tantamount to child abandonment. If the woman in question does not consent to a living being feeding off of her resources, *she should not consent to the act upon which that living being’s existence is predicated.* Also, youre mentioning of that argument actually answers the question of whether a fetus ought to be considered a person. If the organism has the capacity to absord nutrients and grow from them, *it is life.*
which means they follow the law like everyone else. Not that they automatically get kicked out. Trumpanzees love to drop this while ironically misunderstanding it.
Okay, I realize that this theory of invoking the 14th amendment is a long and difficult shot. First, I’m thankful that at least a Republican has grown a moral compass and has taken this action. And for those who say that technically Trump himself has not been legally charged with inciting an insurrection, I would advise them to look at and honor the letter of this amendment. ‘having engaged in an insurrection or REBELLION against the same (meaning the government)’. And yes, several instigating participants have been directly charged with insurrection, and claimed Trump as the instigator, there is seriously NO DOUBT that Trump actively incited, inspired, abetted, and allowed this direct rebellion to occur. There should literally be no doubt here. I say this as a wholehearted former Republican. 😳
I'm not a fan of Trump but I recognize the severe consequences of Trump being taken off the ballet. This will be unprecedented and not in a good way. Without a conviction of insurrection, you are denying Trump the constitutionally guaranteed right of due process and you're disenfranchising tens of millions of Americans that will vote for him. The House of Representatives is the only body of government that has the ability to disqualify a person for president. The courts do NOT have this authority and neither does state executive branches because it violated the separation of powers clause. If the courts or state executive branches could throw someone off of the ballet, the judicial branch and the executive branch would get to pick and choose who becomes president and, again, those branches are not supposed to have that power over the other. Also, if Trump is removed off of the ballet, how long before Biden or others are taken off state ballets? If Trump is removed without being convicted of insurrection, what's to stop states from removing Democrats because there can be arguments made for their parts in insurrection, especially if no conviction is needed. There's a video of about 30 Democrats saying "fight" over and over again. That's sounds like insurrection to me, especially when Trump specifically said he wanted them to peacefully protest. You may think you want Trump off the ballet because you don't like him, but this does not end well for anyone if he is taken off that ballet and not allowed to run. I don't just mean the possibility of violence, but also the possibility of a political system of tit-for-tat and federal elections in states with only one party available to vote for.
See: United States v. Powell, 27 F. Cas. 605 (No. 16079) (C.C.D.N.C. 1871). That cite explains the true meaning of Section 3 of the 14th r Amendment, which refers to the insurrection now known as the Civil War!
The more deeply I delve into the history of the Fourteenth Amendment, I begin to believe, in the words of Inigo Montoya: "I do not think it means what you think it means". The first draft of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment read simple "all persons born in the United States are citizens". But Constitutionally, this did apply to Indians (and indeed would not until the 1920s). Indians were certainly born here, but, legally, they were not citizens of the Untied States; they conducted their own affairs on tribal lands. So the change to include the phrase "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." was added- because Indians were NOT "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Further, it is clear from records of the debate over the Fourteenth Amendment that the target of the birthright citizenship clause were the children of recently freed slaves. Slaves were, up until the Civil War, considered property rather than people (Dred Scott SCOTUS decision) and thus were not citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment changed that so the slaves were indeed citizens and it further stipulated that the children of the slaves-made-citizens were themselves citizens. The famous Wong Kim Ark case of the late 19th century is believed to have confirmed birthright citizenship. But did it? SCOTUS did rule that Ark was a citizen because his parents were here legally. But SCOTUS has never ruled over the status of an individual born here to two parents who are not citizens and are not here legally. I'm not sure that birthright citizenship can be changed via an Executive Order or even a law duly passed by Congress- I tend to think it should require a new Amendment- but I think Trump is entirely right to challenge it.
Attorney rights preliminary hearing rights speedy trial rights violated. A right to appeal and A Writ of habeas corpus should have never been suspended.
Narrator forgot to include the jurisdiction phrase along with birth. Birth alone doesn't grant citizenship. Point of the Amendment is that the freed slaves are citizens as are their children, as they are subject to the jurisdiction. They can join the military, have all the rights as citizens. Illegal migrants were not included, that is, are not subject to the jurisdiction because they have no legal status. The Roe v Wade was correctly overturned because the federal government doesn't have the power to regulate abortion. States can pass any laws they want on abortion. Whole point of privacy is that the federal government has no business here. People want abortion laws, no problem! Pass as many as you want in your state.
Wow. We are literally one of the only countries that allows you to be a citizen just for being born here. I think it’s crazy that people look wrong at trump for wanting to protect citizenship when most countries are a million times more strict.
That's not the point of this video specifically, the point being made here is that Trump never mentioned needing to repeal The 14th Amendment if we want to get rid of automatic birthright citizenship. That would be an extremely dangerous precedent regardless of the merits or demerits of the particular policy at issue
first things first, you can't support a sexx offender and Jesus and the same time, second: you are right, a ton of countries don't allow any foreigner to just come, have the baby and the baby automatically is a citizen BUT the video explains WHY. Had the Supreme Court accepted that slaves born here and their descendants WERE citizens, THEN Congress (1860s) wouldn't have had to pass something so broad that protected ALL persons born on U.S soil. (They couldn't afford to make a distinction back then because their recent past included humans brought by force by slave traders, unlike the rich Russians and Asians who now have come for decades to USA to give birth here just to have an American kid).
"We are literally one of the only countries that allows you to be a citizen just for being born here" You are literally NOT. There are 35 countries that offer "birthright citizenship". That's ≈18% of today's countries. Interestingly, most of those counties are from North America and South America (the continents, not the regions containing Minnesota and Louisiana). It's thought that this is a legacy of the colonial period, since Europeans were migrating to the "New World" en-mass and used this as a way to secure citizenship for their children. I mean, Trump's own grandfather ("Frederich Trumpf", as noted on US immigration records) ultimately immigrated into the US from Bavaria (now-Germany) just to escape conscription. Evading conscription was illegal, so the Bavarian Government landed up stripping him of his citizenship because of that. Lucky for him, the US eventually allowed him to gain citizenship in 1892 (after having first illegally immigrated into the US in 1885).
George Floyd didn't get due process. Sandra Bland didn't get due process. Black people didn't get due process in the American journey. Some did if they did personal favors for example. Clarence Thomas.
I think money should be spent on Black children and the community as a whole. Instead, a lot of that money has to be allocated toward undocumented immigrants. If you are African American, then you are a citizen. Tons of undocumented immigrants don't help your cause. I am not talking about all, but as a whole, they think about themselves and don't care about the struggles of your community. They don't care how much African Americans have contributed to this country's success. Whenever you hear that undocumented immigrants take jobs that no one wants, that is the rich talking. They make this assumption, and it isn't backed up by evidence that people don't want these jobs. A friend of mine who lives in Baltimore pointed something out to me: he can't get a job landscaping the neighborhood he grew up in because a company owned by the name of Patrick O'Reilly has a landscaping company and hires all immigrants. Not a single African American, Latino (naturalized), or White person is working. Patrick O'Reilly, a greedy white guy, gets rich by hiring immigrants to pay them less or under the table. This company is real and can be looked up. They have several offices in Maryland and Virginia. So it's safe to say someone wants one of the jobs that no one wants. Cities have to budget differently to cater to immigrants. The mayor of Chicago is an example. You won't hear how much is spent on immigrants in left-wing newspapers. You have to dig a little, but then you will see it's obvious he is spending money on immigrants and their housing. Their children and future children will outnumber African Americans in some cities, like in some parts of California, where the Latino politicians in some areas will prioritize their causes. So birthright citizenship in 2025 doesn't benefit the growing African-American community. The Latin(x) is growing more. Some of them vote Republican and for Trump. I have a latino co-worker that voted for Trump. I asked him why. Kamala Harris would of one had the latino population voted more blue in several key states.
The flagrant violation of Article 4 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution is an inexcusable affront which must be addressed without delay. The unchecked desecration of one of the fundamental legal tenets of our country must be roundly condemned and remedied to ensure the preservation of our constitutional democracy.
How can an unborn baby be subject to the jurisdiction thereof? If the babies first action is being born in the US to illegal parents, how can you can charge the baby with violating a law the parents broke before the baby was even born or even concieved in some cases At birth a baby shouldnt be held accountable for any other persons actions All it did was be born
Attorney rights preliminary hearing rights speedy trial rights violated. A right to hire and fire a Attorney. A Writ of habeas corpus should have never been suspended.
Change My Mine.,,,,,, "And Subject To.",,, The word "And" is used to show like words or to express consequences, in this case the word "Subject" is either a like word to Persons or Citizens, or it is the Consequence of being Born or Naturalized in the USA. Here is how one would use the word Subject with the word Freedom attached in a sentence. 1, The man gained his freedom and is no longer Subject to. 2, The Subject has Privileges and Immunities not Freedoms or Rights.
Some intellectual integrity would have been nice at the ending.. Saying "some fear voting rights will be next" is just plain silly. Voting rights are enshrined as essential and sown into the very fabric of the term "CivilRights" ... and being a citizen within and under the lawful jurisdiction of such... you are BORN with certain inalienable RIGHTS... Voting being chief among them. There is no such thing as Democracy without free citizens capable of casting a free and honest vote.
Shouldn’t the baby be what ever the dad is Whatever country their from ‘ The 14th Amendment should be rewritten in 21 century times that work for modern day Americans
@@randybonner9870 LOL.. still gonna happen. Your theocratic feelings won't change that.. Maybe yoy should move to Saudi Arabia, I am sure they would treat you the same as you want to treat others
America has been getting worse and worse and nope I haven't been shown otherwise, and also in regards to assholes particularly definitely the New Jersey Area and other places that did know and didn't help, when was EMINENT DOMAIN ever invoked in regards of me Edward Victor Martin whom again ain't plural? I definitely don't remember that and haven't been shown otherwise yet. What're lawsuits about again?
I don't think babies born in the US should automatically be given citizenship. It makes no sense. The baby should be a citizen of wherever their parents are citizens.
So you want to bring back a form of patrus sequitur ventrem? That's a slippery slope and I think you should think that through.
@@Eldritch_O66 It's how most countries operate.
It is how the amendment is written in first place, just the leftists interpret it differently. So WP argues leftists are the truth
@@aungkyawmoe8023 It says verbatim. There is no question mark, but, if, or maybe. It is total and final. It is as solid as the 1st, 2nd, 4th, or 19th. There's no hope in hell of ever getting 2/3 otherwise. Drop it and move on.
Well you having a 1st or 4th makes no sense to me.
1:12 Trump did not say we should get rid of birthright citizenship. He merely said birthright citizenship is for people subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, meaning if one of your parents are a citizen, then you are a citizen by right of birth. Excluding children of foreigners, whether you agree with that meaning or not, is not "getting rid of birthright citizenship". If it was then that would mean that nobody would have birthright citizenship, even the children of citizens, and everybody would have to be naturalized. Think about it. The courts have been corrupted and made ruling to change the constitution, which it doesn't have the authority to do. You will notice that the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 brought American Indians under the jurisdiction of the USA and the 14th amendment did not include them since they were citizens of a foreign nation. Has such an act been made by the congress to apply to foreigners, or even more extreme, to those who have invaded the united states? Would such an act even be legal, or could any sane population ever pass such an act? I don't think so. Only an imperialist enemy of the United States of America would want to destroy the country by taking away its sovereignty and the sovereignty of its citizens by advocating such an act.
He indirecly said that you cant be Citizen If were parents wernt citizens
@@mcgabrielrockYou have to apply for it if your parents weren't citizens. That is perfectly normal and shouldn't be rocket science. But, the idea that you could be here illegally and your children become citizens is insane. So, that isn't birthright citizenship. Birthright citizenship means you get citizenship by right of birth from your parents. Do you lose birthright citizenship if your parents are citizens but your mom gives birth to you while outside the country? Of course not, because it has nothing to do with where you are born. Also, there is no such thing as "natural born" qualification for president. Anyone who is a citizen can become president. All this is nonsense and games people are playing that a little bit of logic can disprove. Also, let's say your parents aren't citizens and you want to be, great, nobody says you can't.
@@MrApplewine its the current law.all mexicans are doing it
Oh Please. You think your special because you came out on this side of an imaginary line. I hope you are born in a third world country in your next life and denied the right to live and flourish on other land.
Ted Cruz Born in Canada not in USA but had an American Mother and Cuban born Father, still he was eligible to run for President for having American Blood, whatever that means lol.. When everyone here is an immigrant child, unless you are Native Indian.
The US Constitution literally says nothing about abortion. Stop misleading people. The power to make this decision has always resided with the states. The power to make decisions in reference to abortion resides with we the people, not the supreme court, and not the Federal government! That power resides solely with the voters and who they choose to vote into power within their state! The supreme Court did not make a ruling today about whether or not people can have abortions. The supreme Court merely stated that it was unconstitutional for the supreme Court to weigh in on this matter to begin with. The United States Constitution backs that decision 100%. Stop misleading people, all you're doing is causing division and hatred
WP: misleading the people is why we was established.
Funny how all the people in favor of abortion are alive - loose Reagan quote. As an adopted person I’m glad my birth mom chose faith over an easy solution.
If anything the 14th amendment should PROTECT the unborn
It did
Human body is foreign soil. But the government can grant permissions or not grant permissions for doctors given permission to practice extra-ordinary medicine under government supervision.
@ in that case the bodies of slaves are foreign soil
@@johnthomson2377 They were, which is why we gave them citizen status, as borned persons living on American soil. The difference is they were in America, not within another country (or within another person). To protect human life constitutionally, the government would ask those doctors whose licenses are overseen by the government to take an oath to do no intentional harm, and to use their government overseen authority to try to heal people and save lives, not exploit them… that doesn’t mean that a doctor wouldn’t have to make a decision to remove a baby that isn’t viable when necessary to save the mother’s life. It doesn’t mean the government’s jurisdiction is extended to enslave women either. Women are free people with individual liberty, just as men are. The government must be ethical, and assure citizens that those practicing under government oversight are ethical; government’s role isn’t to ensure that no sin is ever committed by citizens; medical also doesn’t get to operate as a branch of government.
“Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” Its written pretty clearly right there. Comparing abortion to civil rights, lgbt rights, desegregation is a horrible false comparison. The difference being that abortion is incumbent upon the extinguishing of life.
Except liberty is the freedom to do that?
@@matt1612 Right so by that standard, “liberty” gives me freedom to go commit homicide? Oh but homicide is bad to you. And its also bad in the eyes of the law. So I get punished. Now abortion is bad in the eyes of the law. And it doesnt matter if its good to you. In fact it just shows how little you regard human life.
The argument comes whether you ascribe personhood to a fetus. Also, the fetus is present inside an established person’s body and using their bodily resources without the person’s consent.
@@branman399 Youre right. I realize some people dont regard fetus’s as people, but thats a whole other debate in itself. As to your second point, you could not be more wrong. As soon as a woman willingly commits intercourse, she is effectively consenting to rolling the dice of pregnancy. If they are an adult and being honest, they know what the potential consequences of sex are, and to abandon that responsibility after the consequences have manifested is tantamount to child abandonment. If the woman in question does not consent to a living being feeding off of her resources, *she should not consent to the act upon which that living being’s existence is predicated.*
Also, youre mentioning of that argument actually answers the question of whether a fetus ought to be considered a person. If the organism has the capacity to absord nutrients and grow from them, *it is life.*
@@branman399 Funny how the fetus has DNA that will never happen again. So how is that not a person ?
She left out in the citizenship clause “Subject To The Jurisdiction Thereof”.
Yes, noticed it too.
They all do.
which means they follow the law like everyone else. Not that they automatically get kicked out.
Trumpanzees love to drop this while ironically misunderstanding it.
Okay, I realize that this theory of invoking the 14th amendment is a long and difficult shot. First, I’m thankful that at least a Republican has grown a moral compass and has taken this action. And for those who say that technically Trump himself has not been legally charged with inciting an insurrection, I would advise them to look at and honor the letter of this amendment. ‘having engaged in an insurrection or REBELLION against the same (meaning the government)’. And yes, several instigating participants have been directly charged with insurrection, and claimed Trump as the instigator, there is seriously NO DOUBT that Trump actively incited, inspired, abetted, and allowed this direct rebellion to occur. There should literally be no doubt here. I say this as a wholehearted former Republican. 😳
No J6 case includes a charge of insurrection.
YOU saying former republican, makes me believe you stand with these gay child molester POLITICIANS
Lol. No he didn't.
Someone doesn't understand what peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard means.
I'm not a fan of Trump but I recognize the severe consequences of Trump being taken off the ballet. This will be unprecedented and not in a good way. Without a conviction of insurrection, you are denying Trump the constitutionally guaranteed right of due process and you're disenfranchising tens of millions of Americans that will vote for him.
The House of Representatives is the only body of government that has the ability to disqualify a person for president. The courts do NOT have this authority and neither does state executive branches because it violated the separation of powers clause. If the courts or state executive branches could throw someone off of the ballet, the judicial branch and the executive branch would get to pick and choose who becomes president and, again, those branches are not supposed to have that power over the other.
Also, if Trump is removed off of the ballet, how long before Biden or others are taken off state ballets? If Trump is removed without being convicted of insurrection, what's to stop states from removing Democrats because there can be arguments made for their parts in insurrection, especially if no conviction is needed. There's a video of about 30 Democrats saying "fight" over and over again. That's sounds like insurrection to me, especially when Trump specifically said he wanted them to peacefully protest.
You may think you want Trump off the ballet because you don't like him, but this does not end well for anyone if he is taken off that ballet and not allowed to run. I don't just mean the possibility of violence, but also the possibility of a political system of tit-for-tat and federal elections in states with only one party available to vote for.
14th is not even remotely related to abortion. This is a good call regardless of your position on this problem.
So you don't believe in the right to privacy?
See:
United States v. Powell, 27 F. Cas. 605 (No. 16079) (C.C.D.N.C. 1871).
That cite explains the true meaning of Section 3 of the 14th r Amendment, which refers to the insurrection now known as the Civil War!
but ofc the 1st and 2nd amendment don't matter
edit: oMG tHanKs foR aLl thHe liKEs
Life Liberty and Property and yet for another 100 years it was necessary to pass a civil right act bill.
Property? Do you mean life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? That’s in the declaration of independence.
@@aldebaranredstarLife, Liberty, and Property is in the 14th Amendment. It was in the video.
@@BT-hk2co thanks 🙏
The problem is precedence! The constitution needs no interpretation, period
Exactly the right to bear arms shall not be infringed so when do I get my full auto ak
@@mr.america5293 exactly
@@mr.america5293 as soon as you buy one and pay the government tax for permission.
@@DoSe420 should never have to ask for permission.
The more deeply I delve into the history of the Fourteenth Amendment, I begin to believe, in the words of Inigo Montoya: "I do not think it means what you think it means".
The first draft of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment read simple "all persons born in the United States are citizens". But Constitutionally, this did apply to Indians (and indeed would not until the 1920s). Indians were certainly born here, but, legally, they were not citizens of the Untied States; they conducted their own affairs on tribal lands. So the change to include the phrase "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." was added- because Indians were NOT "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Further, it is clear from records of the debate over the Fourteenth Amendment that the target of the birthright citizenship clause were the children of recently freed slaves. Slaves were, up until the Civil War, considered property rather than people (Dred Scott SCOTUS decision) and thus were not citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment changed that so the slaves were indeed citizens and it further stipulated that the children of the slaves-made-citizens were themselves citizens. The famous Wong Kim Ark case of the late 19th century is believed to have confirmed birthright citizenship. But did it? SCOTUS did rule that Ark was a citizen because his parents were here legally. But SCOTUS has never ruled over the status of an individual born here to two parents who are not citizens and are not here legally. I'm not sure that birthright citizenship can be changed via an Executive Order or even a law duly passed by Congress- I tend to think it should require a new Amendment- but I think Trump is entirely right to challenge it.
We were not slaves we are not black, we are Indians not taxed in the constitution !!
Attorney rights preliminary hearing rights speedy trial rights violated. A right to appeal and A Writ of habeas corpus should have never been suspended.
Who has more freedom/rights, U.S. citizens or U.S. non-citizen nationals? The truth shall set you free.
Have any of you had all of your rights respected since 2020? Which ones did you noticeably lose?
Fun story, 14th amendment was never legally ratified.
So Roe v Wade was more of legal jurisprudence than a constitutional right?
That's right
Narrator forgot to include the jurisdiction phrase along with birth. Birth alone doesn't grant citizenship. Point of the Amendment is that the freed slaves are citizens as are their children, as they are subject to the jurisdiction. They can join the military, have all the rights as citizens. Illegal migrants were not included, that is, are not subject to the jurisdiction because they have no legal status. The Roe v Wade was correctly overturned because the federal government doesn't have the power to regulate abortion. States can pass any laws they want on abortion. Whole point of privacy is that the federal government has no business here. People want abortion laws, no problem! Pass as many as you want in your state.
How does the 14th ammendment affect acess to contraceptives
It doesn’t anymore lol
Fake news
Incomplete and poor review of the 14th amendment
Wow. We are literally one of the only countries that allows you to be a citizen just for being born here. I think it’s crazy that people look wrong at trump for wanting to protect citizenship when most countries are a million times more strict.
That's not the point of this video specifically, the point being made here is that Trump never mentioned needing to repeal The 14th Amendment if we want to get rid of automatic birthright citizenship. That would be an extremely dangerous precedent regardless of the merits or demerits of the particular policy at issue
And besides how’s that a bad thing?
first things first, you can't support a sexx offender and Jesus and the same time, second: you are right, a ton of countries don't allow any foreigner to just come, have the baby and the baby automatically is a citizen BUT the video explains WHY. Had the Supreme Court accepted that slaves born here and their descendants WERE citizens, THEN Congress (1860s) wouldn't have had to pass something so broad that protected ALL persons born on U.S soil. (They couldn't afford to make a distinction back then because their recent past included humans brought by force by slave traders, unlike the rich Russians and Asians who now have come for decades to USA to give birth here just to have an American kid).
"We are literally one of the only countries that allows you to be a citizen just for being born here"
You are literally NOT. There are 35 countries that offer "birthright citizenship". That's ≈18% of today's countries.
Interestingly, most of those counties are from North America and South America (the continents, not the regions containing Minnesota and Louisiana). It's thought that this is a legacy of the colonial period, since Europeans were migrating to the "New World" en-mass and used this as a way to secure citizenship for their children.
I mean, Trump's own grandfather ("Frederich Trumpf", as noted on US immigration records) ultimately immigrated into the US from Bavaria (now-Germany) just to escape conscription. Evading conscription was illegal, so the Bavarian Government landed up stripping him of his citizenship because of that. Lucky for him, the US eventually allowed him to gain citizenship in 1892 (after having first illegally immigrated into the US in 1885).
George Floyd didn't get due process. Sandra Bland didn't get due process. Black people didn't get due process in the American journey. Some did if they did personal favors for example. Clarence Thomas.
You're a clown and a criminal sympathizer.
Neither did Ashlee
It's not 1850 anymore
I think money should be spent on Black children and the community as a whole. Instead, a lot of that money has to be allocated toward undocumented immigrants. If you are African American, then you are a citizen. Tons of undocumented immigrants don't help your cause. I am not talking about all, but as a whole, they think about themselves and don't care about the struggles of your community. They don't care how much African Americans have contributed to this country's success. Whenever you hear that undocumented immigrants take jobs that no one wants, that is the rich talking. They make this assumption, and it isn't backed up by evidence that people don't want these jobs. A friend of mine who lives in Baltimore pointed something out to me: he can't get a job landscaping the neighborhood he grew up in because a company owned by the name of Patrick O'Reilly has a landscaping company and hires all immigrants. Not a single African American, Latino (naturalized), or White person is working. Patrick O'Reilly, a greedy white guy, gets rich by hiring immigrants to pay them less or under the table. This company is real and can be looked up. They have several offices in Maryland and Virginia. So it's safe to say someone wants one of the jobs that no one wants. Cities have to budget differently to cater to immigrants. The mayor of Chicago is an example. You won't hear how much is spent on immigrants in left-wing newspapers. You have to dig a little, but then you will see it's obvious he is spending money on immigrants and their housing. Their children and future children will outnumber African Americans in some cities, like in some parts of California, where the Latino politicians in some areas will prioritize their causes. So birthright citizenship in 2025 doesn't benefit the growing African-American community. The Latin(x) is growing more. Some of them vote Republican and for Trump. I have a latino co-worker that voted for Trump. I asked him why. Kamala Harris would of one had the latino population voted more blue in several key states.
The flagrant violation of Article 4 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution is an inexcusable affront which must be addressed without delay. The unchecked desecration of one of the fundamental legal tenets of our country must be roundly condemned and remedied to ensure the preservation of our constitutional democracy.
January 6th was all about taking away people's votes and installing Trump.
Mr. Alito must not know that an abortion recipe was brought back to the colonies from France by Benjamin Franklin in the 18th century.
1:40 that literally goes against the 9th amendment. Just cuz no one talks about it doesn’t mean you get to forget about it
How can an unborn baby be subject to the jurisdiction thereof?
If the babies first action is being born in the US to illegal parents, how can you can charge the baby with violating a law the parents broke before the baby was even born or even concieved in some cases
At birth a baby shouldnt be held accountable for any other persons actions
All it did was be born
Audio is bad
We need the 14th amendment, but it has to abide the premise of what our best free society would desire.
Only if you’re here legal.
"Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
We the People> Congress>US citizen
Who created what?
Women opted to delete period tracking
JK.
So what does Bidenut mean when he spoke of applying the 14th to the debt ceiling?
Basically the authors of the 14th amendment wasted their time writing it. I doubt the SC will let it apply to you know who.
Hypospadias/spaced out?
Attorney rights preliminary hearing rights speedy trial rights violated. A right to hire and fire a Attorney. A Writ of habeas corpus should have never been suspended.
How does it apply to raise the debt ceiling 😅
Change My Mine.,,,,,, "And Subject To.",,, The word "And" is used to show like words or to express consequences, in this case the word "Subject" is either a like word to Persons or Citizens, or it is the Consequence of being Born or Naturalized in the USA. Here is how one would use the word Subject with the word Freedom attached in a sentence. 1, The man gained his freedom and is no longer Subject to. 2, The Subject has Privileges and Immunities not Freedoms or Rights.
Isn't the difference, the life's rights under the 14th.
NIH duty to protect and warn
14th was not lawfully ratified with a lawful quorum
You are a liar.
Yes it was
Some intellectual integrity would have been nice at the ending.. Saying "some fear voting rights will be next" is just plain silly. Voting rights are enshrined as essential and sown into the very fabric of the term "CivilRights" ... and being a citizen within and under the lawful jurisdiction of such... you are BORN with certain inalienable RIGHTS... Voting being chief among them. There is no such thing as Democracy without free citizens capable of casting a free and honest vote.
Nice ad for Trump!
Shouldn’t the baby be what ever the dad is Whatever country their from ‘ The 14th Amendment should be rewritten in 21 century times that work for modern day Americans
It waa nice while it lasted.
Right, 30 million dead sure sounds nice
Adopt them
@@randybonner9870 LOL.. still gonna happen. Your theocratic feelings won't change that.. Maybe yoy should move to Saudi Arabia, I am sure they would treat you the same as you want to treat others
Our religion
SCOTUS should read the 14th. amendment and stay the out of our lives.
You need to read the constitution in article 3 as well as amendments 4-6 to realize they will always be in our lives. Wtf dude
Wow, purring a political spin on the 14th hey?
...why publish something so garbled...is that a robot voice...?...thumbs down...
America has been getting worse and worse and nope I haven't been shown otherwise, and also in regards to assholes particularly definitely the New Jersey Area and other places that did know and didn't help, when was EMINENT DOMAIN ever invoked in regards of me Edward Victor Martin whom again ain't plural? I definitely don't remember that and haven't been shown otherwise yet. What're lawsuits about again?
Well your first problem is the ratification of the constitution itself which never was by the people…
14 th amendment was for salves only
I guess we should really ask the WaPo expert, Taylor Lorenz to weigh in on this topic. Where is she now? Probably surfing job listings as always.
... More woke 🐎💩
Just say no to vocal fry.... her voice is irritating
Don't like women who are smarter than you?? You must even hate the mentally disabled ones then
First!....comment unrelated to video.
Sure don't have to date the alcoholics
happy day for life
i can’t imagine how many people will have the opportunity of life thanks to this
I can imagine how many women will die from this. It's not a happy day for life and you're delusional
Some of them will wish they were never born
@@ORANGERAPIST but you will not decide for them in advance :)
@@sir_crab2080 so you want more children to have broken childhoods?
@@matt1612 noo I prefer to be as nice as you are and deny them the chance of ever exist
Faaaakkkkkkeeeee newwsssss