The difference is that the people who came over in the 1800's came through a port of entry and went through the LEGAL process. They worked, contributed to society, assimilated to our culture and appreciated being in America. Many of the people today are NOT going through the legal process, are coming with their hands out, demanding entitlement, refusing to work, not making any contribution to our society, show a complete hatred for our country, demand that Americans conform to their culture and think that as long as they pop out a few kids to gain more handouts, they're golden.
@@locn The United States Supreme Court ruled in a 6-2 decision that Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. citizen by birth under the 14th Amendment. The ruling emphasized that the phrase “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment applied to children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' nationality or immigration status. The ruling did not distinguish between children of legal residents or illegal immigrants. Instead, it reaffirmed the broad principle of _jus soli_ (right of the soil), meaning citizenship is granted to nearly anyone born in the U.S. The Court explicitly rejected the idea that the status of the parents (e.g., being non-citizens) could negate the child’s right to citizenship if born on U.S. soil. It emphasized that: Birth in the U.S. automatically grants citizenship, provided the person is not excluded by one of the exceptions (foreign diplomats, etc.). Citizenship is a constitutional right and cannot be limited by immigration laws passed by Congress. Although _Wong Kim Ark_ dealt with the child of legal residents, its principles are widely interpreted to apply to children of undocumented immigrants as well. The 14th Amendment does not distinguish between parents based on immigration status. Subsequent case law has upheld this broad interpretation of the Citizenship Clause. Courts have consistently ruled that children born in the U.S. are citizens, even if their parents are in the country unlawfully. In _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982), the Supreme Court confirmed that undocumented immigrants are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., meaning their children born here are entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment. No court has successfully limited birthright citizenship in cases involving children of undocumented immigrants since _Wong Kim Ark._ In recent years, there have been political debates over whether birthright citizenship should apply to children of undocumented immigrants. Some argue for reinterpretation or amendment of the 14th Amendment to exclude such cases. However, any change would require either a Supreme Court ruling overturning _Wong Kim Ark_ (highly unlikely due to its strong precedent) or a constitutional amendment, which is politically and procedurally challenging.
The amendment doesn't say that tho?! 😂 Neither did the Supreme Court decision this video is talking about. The amendment or the Supreme Court decision doesn't state ANYWHERE about the parents being here legally or applying for citizenship.
@@RaymondHng why is it that you didn't mention that in that ruling, they said that Wong was a citizen because his parents had a permanent domcile in the U.S.? Why leave that out? The justices very clearly said that because his family was permanently domiciled in the U.S. and also engaged in business in the U.S. that Wong was a citizen. Those two things are very important part of their interpretation. That does not mean someone who has been in the U.S. for 24 hours, who goes to an ER and has a baby should also be granted the same privilege.
Did you know that trump’s grandfather came here illegally from Germany? You know why he came here in the first place? Because he escaped the mandatory military drifting. So that makes all trumps illegal here
@bbtodd Courts have consistently ruled that children born in the U.S. are citizens, even if their parents are in the country unlawfully. In _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982), the Supreme Court confirmed that undocumented immigrants are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., meaning their children born here are entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment. No court has successfully limited birthright citizenship in cases involving children of undocumented immigrants since _Wong Kim Ark._
Remember folks: most people who are in the US without citizenship don’t WANT to be here without citizenship and are actively working towards being legal citizens. They work hard, and they contribute to their communities. We have more in common with them than any millionaire. We can easily take for granted how difficult it is and how long it takes to become a citizen.
Birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment was originally authored by Republicans specifically to grant citizenship to slaves after the abolishment of slavery in the 1860's. The writer of the citizenship clause, Senator Jacob Howard, stated that "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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." This additional detail on the original intent wasn't included in the wording of the clause and we have been misinterpreting it ever since, which helps explain why the current understanding of birthright citizenship is logically nonsensical.
The United States Supreme Court ruled in a 6-2 decision that Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. citizen by birth under the 14th Amendment. The ruling emphasized that the phrase “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment applied to children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' nationality or immigration status. The ruling did not distinguish between children of legal residents or illegal immigrants. Instead, it reaffirmed the broad principle of _jus soli_ (right of the soil), meaning citizenship is granted to nearly anyone born in the U.S. The Court explicitly rejected the idea that the status of the parents (e.g., being non-citizens) could negate the child’s right to citizenship if born on U.S. soil. It emphasized that: Birth in the U.S. automatically grants citizenship, provided the person is not excluded by one of the exceptions (foreign diplomats, etc.). Citizenship is a constitutional right and cannot be limited by immigration laws passed by Congress. Although _Wong Kim Ark_ dealt with the child of legal residents, its principles are widely interpreted to apply to children of undocumented immigrants as well. The 14th Amendment does not distinguish between parents based on immigration status. Subsequent case law has upheld this broad interpretation of the Citizenship Clause. Courts have consistently ruled that children born in the U.S. are citizens, even if their parents are in the country unlawfully. In _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982), the Supreme Court confirmed that undocumented immigrants are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., meaning their children born here are entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment. No court has successfully limited birthright citizenship in cases involving children of undocumented immigrants since _Wong Kim Ark._ In recent years, there have been political debates over whether birthright citizenship should apply to children of undocumented immigrants. Some argue for reinterpretation or amendment of the 14th Amendment to exclude such cases. However, any change would require either a Supreme Court ruling overturning _Wong Kim Ark_ (highly unlikely due to its strong precedent) or a constitutional amendment, which is politically and procedurally challenging.
The additional detail wasn't included in the wording of the law... SO IT ISNT LAW. ITS JUST ONE SENATORS OPINION. HELLO. The states didn't ratify HIS opinion they ratified the WRITTEN LAW. and the Supreme Court backed it up.
@@RaymondHng I'll have to correct this again. In the case the U.S. vs Wong the Supreme Court ruled very clearly that he was a citizen only because his parents had a permanent domicile in the US and were also engaged in business in the US. And that's fine. What is ludicrous is when someone flies to the U.S. while 40 weeks pregnant explicitly to try and exploit this loophole. The S.C. justices were very clear about the permanent domicile aspect.
How when that constitution was written way before that guy lived... he just tested it. He was not arguing birth right citizenship it was racism, and they were not companies they were gangs.. tao's. How can you spin the historical narritive so bad.
Birthright citizenship is an _amendment_ to the constitution and was ratified in 1868... If you vote you should understand your govt. IMHO... What's amusing to me is that the same folks who pretend to adore the constitution and love the 2nd amendment are the same folks who want to re-write it.
They are not "gangs". The Chinese Six Companies were: Sam Yup (三邑), Yeong Wo (陽和), Kong Chow (岡州), Ning Yung (寧陽), Hop Wo (合和), Yan Wo (人和). With the addition of Sue Hing (肇慶), they became the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association (中華會館 or 中華公所). The CCBA was set up to help Chinese people relocate and travel to and from the US, including returning bodies of the deceased to China. With many families fragmented between China and across the US, the association also allowed for communal care of the sick or poor. When the association became more prominent and anti-Chinese sentiment increased, the organization also offered legal and physical protection. The CCBA also exerted political power, becoming authorized to speak on behalf of Chinatown throughout the US. Its board of directors became increasingly powerful, consisting of wealthy merchants and business people. The board had many dealings with local and federal governments, exerting influence in various methods. The 1898 landmark case of Wong Kim Ark, which established US citizenship for American-born children of Chinese parents, was successfully argued in the US Supreme Court with the assistance of legal representation from the CCBA. _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ ruled in a 6-2 decision that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment must be interpreted in light of English common law, and thus it grants U.S. citizenship to almost all children born to alien parents on American soil, with only a limited set of exceptions.
@@RaymondHng They can call themself what they want.. but they were started was tongs to "protect" chinese people. But even as the adapted they were know for having illegal gamblin in such within them. And since you wanna cut and past pages Any of the associations are essentially criminal enterprises with a gloss of respectability. From the start, as evidenced by the testimony of T****Tong R. Achick at the trial in 1854, many of the members of the district associations opposed the criminal gangs. But it was also evident from the start there was much common membership in the Triads. ****** Cant coat things if there is historical record of it now
His parents were legal permanent residents so that US Supreme Court decision on birthright citizenship applies to children of permanent residents. It doesn't necessarily apply to children of people who are here on temporary visas much less children of undocumented immigrants. So this issue will eventually end up at the US Supreme Court.
His parents were in the country legally; they arrived via a port of entry. You can still get birthright if you enter legally, even if it's on a temporary visa or "just visiting" etc. You can be a legal alien or an illegal alien. They just want to suspend birthright for illegal aliens.
The Court ruled in a 6-2 decision that Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. citizen by birth under the 14th Amendment. The ruling emphasized that the phrase “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment applied to children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' nationality or immigration status. The ruling did not distinguish between children of legal residents or illegal immigrants. Instead, it reaffirmed the broad principle of _jus soli_ (right of the soil), meaning citizenship is granted to nearly anyone born in the U.S. The Court explicitly rejected the idea that the status of the parents (e.g., being non-citizens) could negate the child’s right to citizenship if born on U.S. soil. It emphasized that: Birth in the U.S. automatically grants citizenship, provided the person is not excluded by one of the exceptions (foreign diplomats, etc.). Citizenship is a constitutional right and cannot be limited by immigration laws passed by Congress. Although _Wong Kim Ark_ dealt with the child of legal residents, its principles are widely interpreted to apply to children of undocumented immigrants as well. The 14th Amendment does not distinguish between parents based on immigration status. Subsequent case law has upheld this broad interpretation of the Citizenship Clause. Courts have consistently ruled that children born in the U.S. are citizens, even if their parents are in the country unlawfully. In _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982), the Supreme Court confirmed that undocumented immigrants are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., meaning their children born here are entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment. No court has successfully limited birthright citizenship in cases involving children of undocumented immigrants since _Wong Kim Ark._ In recent years, there have been political debates over whether birthright citizenship should apply to children of undocumented immigrants. Some argue for reinterpretation or amendment of the 14th Amendment to exclude such cases. However, any change would require either a Supreme Court ruling overturning _Wong Kim Ark_ (highly unlikely due to its strong precedent) or a constitutional amendment, which is politically and procedurally challenging.
@@RaymondHngThe 14th amendment proceeds the 13th amendment which deals with the slaves on US soil. Not every person jumping illegally across our borders.
@@LAQ642 And _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ is the case law that interprets the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment does not distinguish between parents based on immigration status. Courts have consistently ruled that children born in the U.S. are citizens, even if their parents are in the country unlawfully. In _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982), the Supreme Court confirmed that undocumented immigrants are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., meaning their children born here are entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment. No court has successfully limited birthright citizenship in cases involving children of undocumented immigrants since _Wong Kim Ark._ The Federal Court and the state courts of 49 states are common law courts, not civil law courts.
@@RaymondHng once again, WOng was a citizen only because his parents had a permanent domicile in the US and were engaged in business in the US. The justices never said anyone birthed on US soil to just anyone who crossed the border is a citizen
@bbtodd Once again in _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982), the Supreme Court confirmed that undocumented immigrants are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., meaning their children born here are entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment. No court has successfully limited birthright citizenship in cases involving children of undocumented immigrants since _Wong Kim Ark._ If _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ does not specify children of undocumented immigrants, _Plyler v. Doe_ does. The U.S. Federal Court and the state courts of 49 states are Common Law courts, not Civil Law courts.
The United States Supreme Court ruled in a 6-2 decision that Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. citizen by birth under the 14th Amendment. The ruling emphasized that the phrase “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment applied to children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' nationality or immigration status. The ruling did not distinguish between children of legal residents or illegal immigrants. Instead, it reaffirmed the broad principle of _jus soli_ (right of the soil), meaning citizenship is granted to nearly anyone born in the U.S. The Court explicitly rejected the idea that the status of the parents (e.g., being non-citizens) could negate the child’s right to citizenship if born on U.S. soil. It emphasized that: Birth in the U.S. automatically grants citizenship, provided the person is not excluded by one of the exceptions (foreign diplomats, etc.). Citizenship is a constitutional right and cannot be limited by immigration laws passed by Congress. Although _Wong Kim Ark_ dealt with the child of legal residents, its principles are widely interpreted to apply to children of undocumented immigrants as well. The 14th Amendment does not distinguish between parents based on immigration status. Subsequent case law has upheld this broad interpretation of the Citizenship Clause. Courts have consistently ruled that children born in the U.S. are citizens, even if their parents are in the country unlawfully. In _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982), the Supreme Court confirmed that undocumented immigrants are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., meaning their children born here are entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment. No court has successfully limited birthright citizenship in cases involving children of undocumented immigrants since _Wong Kim Ark._ In recent years, there have been political debates over whether birthright citizenship should apply to children of undocumented immigrants. Some argue for reinterpretation or amendment of the 14th Amendment to exclude such cases. However, any change would require either a Supreme Court ruling overturning _Wong Kim Ark_ (highly unlikely due to its strong precedent) or a constitutional amendment, which is politically and procedurally challenging.
Doesnt matter. The amendment does not state anywhere about the LEGAL STATUS of a person. It states ANYONE born under US JURISDICTION is a US citizen. An illegal immigrant is still under US JURISDICTION and held to the same laws and protection of the constitution. Don't argue with me, argue with the constitution.
@@PikachuTDP That doesn't make any sense. This was already ruled on by the Supreme Court in 1898 and they quite often rule on things multiple times, such as abortion for example. And BTW in 1898 they didn't declare that just anybody born on US soil is a citizen. They explicitly stated that in that case, because the parent had a permanent residence in the U.S. and were engaged in business in the U.S. that their child was a citizen. That's very different than what is happening now. Currently anyone and everyone is a citizen even if the parent have been in the U.S. only a matter of minutes. The justices never said that.
@@toddduchesne1749 guess we'll leave that decision to the states and the constitution not TRUMP huh Just because Trump wants to do something doesn't mean he gets to do it.
@Latino_nerd97 Trump is doing what's right. Illegally crossing our border, then having a child to gain citizenship is not what the law is for. I believe you know this.
@@Latino_nerd97 it will go back to the supreme court, and thank the Lord. It's hard to understand why anyone would argue for this except if they had ulterior motives.
@@RaymondHngit absolutely does not require an amendment. Birthright citizenship has been in front of the S.C. before and it will finally come in front of them again. And BTW the first time they ruled on it. They granted citizenship to the boy only because his parents had a permanent home in the US and were also engaged in business in the US.
no, you are very wrong. most countries do not apply the principle of jus soli which the US does. that needs to change to align US citizenship rules with the rest of the world.
The difference is that the people who came over in the 1800's came through a port of entry and went through the LEGAL process. They worked, contributed to society, assimilated to our culture and appreciated being in America.
Many of the people today are NOT going through the legal process, are coming with their hands out, demanding entitlement, refusing to work, not making any contribution to our society, show a complete hatred for our country, demand that Americans conform to their culture and think that as long as they pop out a few kids to gain more handouts, they're golden.
It was meant to be for people awaiting their applied for citizenship. Not popping out a kid to get free stuff.
@@locn The United States Supreme Court ruled in a 6-2 decision that Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. citizen by birth under the 14th Amendment. The ruling emphasized that the phrase “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment applied to children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' nationality or immigration status. The ruling did not distinguish between children of legal residents or illegal immigrants. Instead, it reaffirmed the broad principle of _jus soli_ (right of the soil), meaning citizenship is granted to nearly anyone born in the U.S. The Court explicitly rejected the idea that the status of the parents (e.g., being non-citizens) could negate the child’s right to citizenship if born on U.S. soil. It emphasized that:
Birth in the U.S. automatically grants citizenship, provided the person is not excluded by one of the exceptions (foreign diplomats, etc.).
Citizenship is a constitutional right and cannot be limited by immigration laws passed by Congress.
Although _Wong Kim Ark_ dealt with the child of legal residents, its principles are widely interpreted to apply to children of undocumented immigrants as well. The 14th Amendment does not distinguish between parents based on immigration status. Subsequent case law has upheld this broad interpretation of the Citizenship Clause.
Courts have consistently ruled that children born in the U.S. are citizens, even if their parents are in the country unlawfully. In _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982), the Supreme Court confirmed that undocumented immigrants are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., meaning their children born here are entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment. No court has successfully limited birthright citizenship in cases involving children of undocumented immigrants since _Wong Kim Ark._
In recent years, there have been political debates over whether birthright citizenship should apply to children of undocumented immigrants. Some argue for reinterpretation or amendment of the 14th Amendment to exclude such cases. However, any change would require either a Supreme Court ruling overturning _Wong Kim Ark_ (highly unlikely due to its strong precedent) or a constitutional amendment, which is politically and procedurally challenging.
The amendment doesn't say that tho?! 😂 Neither did the Supreme Court decision this video is talking about.
The amendment or the Supreme Court decision doesn't state ANYWHERE about the parents being here legally or applying for citizenship.
@@RaymondHng why is it that you didn't mention that in that ruling, they said that Wong was a citizen because his parents had a permanent domcile in the U.S.? Why leave that out? The justices very clearly said that because his family was permanently domiciled in the U.S. and also engaged in business in the U.S. that Wong was a citizen. Those two things are very important part of their interpretation. That does not mean someone who has been in the U.S. for 24 hours, who goes to an ER and has a baby should also be granted the same privilege.
Did you know that trump’s grandfather came here illegally from Germany? You know why he came here in the first place? Because he escaped the mandatory military drifting. So that makes all trumps illegal here
@bbtodd Courts have consistently ruled that children born in the U.S. are citizens, even if their parents are in the country unlawfully. In _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982), the Supreme Court confirmed that undocumented immigrants are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., meaning their children born here are entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment. No court has successfully limited birthright citizenship in cases involving children of undocumented immigrants since _Wong Kim Ark._
Remember folks: most people who are in the US without citizenship don’t WANT to be here without citizenship and are actively working towards being legal citizens. They work hard, and they contribute to their communities. We have more in common with them than any millionaire. We can easily take for granted how difficult it is and how long it takes to become a citizen.
Birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment was originally authored by Republicans specifically to grant citizenship to slaves after the abolishment of slavery in the 1860's. The writer of the citizenship clause, Senator Jacob Howard, stated that "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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." This additional detail on the original intent wasn't included in the wording of the clause and we have been misinterpreting it ever since, which helps explain why the current understanding of birthright citizenship is logically nonsensical.
The United States Supreme Court ruled in a 6-2 decision that Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. citizen by birth under the 14th Amendment. The ruling emphasized that the phrase “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment applied to children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' nationality or immigration status. The ruling did not distinguish between children of legal residents or illegal immigrants. Instead, it reaffirmed the broad principle of _jus soli_ (right of the soil), meaning citizenship is granted to nearly anyone born in the U.S. The Court explicitly rejected the idea that the status of the parents (e.g., being non-citizens) could negate the child’s right to citizenship if born on U.S. soil. It emphasized that:
Birth in the U.S. automatically grants citizenship, provided the person is not excluded by one of the exceptions (foreign diplomats, etc.).
Citizenship is a constitutional right and cannot be limited by immigration laws passed by Congress.
Although _Wong Kim Ark_ dealt with the child of legal residents, its principles are widely interpreted to apply to children of undocumented immigrants as well. The 14th Amendment does not distinguish between parents based on immigration status. Subsequent case law has upheld this broad interpretation of the Citizenship Clause.
Courts have consistently ruled that children born in the U.S. are citizens, even if their parents are in the country unlawfully. In _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982), the Supreme Court confirmed that undocumented immigrants are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., meaning their children born here are entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment. No court has successfully limited birthright citizenship in cases involving children of undocumented immigrants since _Wong Kim Ark._
In recent years, there have been political debates over whether birthright citizenship should apply to children of undocumented immigrants. Some argue for reinterpretation or amendment of the 14th Amendment to exclude such cases. However, any change would require either a Supreme Court ruling overturning _Wong Kim Ark_ (highly unlikely due to its strong precedent) or a constitutional amendment, which is politically and procedurally challenging.
The additional detail wasn't included in the wording of the law... SO IT ISNT LAW. ITS JUST ONE SENATORS OPINION. HELLO.
The states didn't ratify HIS opinion they ratified the WRITTEN LAW. and the Supreme Court backed it up.
@ yes exactly. That explains the misunderstanding as I said.
@@RaymondHng I'll have to correct this again. In the case the U.S. vs Wong the Supreme Court ruled very clearly that he was a citizen only because his parents had a permanent domicile in the US and were also engaged in business in the US. And that's fine. What is ludicrous is when someone flies to the U.S. while 40 weeks pregnant explicitly to try and exploit this loophole. The S.C. justices were very clear about the permanent domicile aspect.
AMERICA GOING BACKWARD AND THE WORLD IS LAUGHING AT US.
It was .. not anymore
How can one not laugh at a clown like Trump?
Interesting comment.
America is becoming the envy of the world again. Most countries wish their leaders would get it together.
Your making a fool out of your
Self
How when that constitution was written way before that guy lived... he just tested it. He was not arguing birth right citizenship it was racism, and they were not companies they were gangs.. tao's. How can you spin the historical narritive so bad.
Birthright citizenship is an _amendment_ to the constitution and was ratified in 1868... If you vote you should understand your govt. IMHO...
What's amusing to me is that the same folks who pretend to adore the constitution and love the 2nd amendment are the same folks who want to re-write it.
Its the media, they’ve been captured by the left for decades
It was first created for slaves in the south . Not Asians . This news station is wrong.
They are not "gangs". The Chinese Six Companies were: Sam Yup (三邑), Yeong Wo (陽和), Kong Chow (岡州), Ning Yung (寧陽), Hop Wo (合和), Yan Wo (人和). With the addition of Sue Hing (肇慶), they became the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association (中華會館 or 中華公所). The CCBA was set up to help Chinese people relocate and travel to and from the US, including returning bodies of the deceased to China. With many families fragmented between China and across the US, the association also allowed for communal care of the sick or poor. When the association became more prominent and anti-Chinese sentiment increased, the organization also offered legal and physical protection. The CCBA also exerted political power, becoming authorized to speak on behalf of Chinatown throughout the US. Its board of directors became increasingly powerful, consisting of wealthy merchants and business people. The board had many dealings with local and federal governments, exerting influence in various methods.
The 1898 landmark case of Wong Kim Ark, which established US citizenship for American-born children of Chinese parents, was successfully argued in the US Supreme Court with the assistance of legal representation from the CCBA. _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ ruled in a 6-2 decision that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment must be interpreted in light of English common law, and thus it grants U.S. citizenship to almost all children born to alien parents on American soil, with only a limited set of exceptions.
@@RaymondHng They can call themself what they want.. but they were started was tongs to "protect" chinese people.
But even as the adapted they were know for having illegal gamblin in such within them.
And since you wanna cut and past pages
Any of the associations are essentially criminal enterprises with a gloss of respectability. From the start, as evidenced by the testimony of T****Tong R. Achick at the trial in 1854, many of the members of the district associations opposed the criminal gangs. But it was also evident from the start there was much common membership in the Triads. ******
Cant coat things if there is historical record of it now
His parents were legal permanent residents so that US Supreme Court decision on birthright citizenship applies to children of permanent residents. It doesn't necessarily apply to children of people who are here on temporary visas much less children of undocumented immigrants. So this issue will eventually end up at the US Supreme Court.
Yes the child came USA citizen because his parents were permanent residents card holders big difference from when people are illegal in this country.
His parents were in the country legally; they arrived via a port of entry. You can still get birthright if you enter legally, even if it's on a temporary visa or "just visiting" etc. You can be a legal alien or an illegal alien. They just want to suspend birthright for illegal aliens.
The Court ruled in a 6-2 decision that Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. citizen by birth under the 14th Amendment. The ruling emphasized that the phrase “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment applied to children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' nationality or immigration status. The ruling did not distinguish between children of legal residents or illegal immigrants. Instead, it reaffirmed the broad principle of _jus soli_ (right of the soil), meaning citizenship is granted to nearly anyone born in the U.S. The Court explicitly rejected the idea that the status of the parents (e.g., being non-citizens) could negate the child’s right to citizenship if born on U.S. soil. It emphasized that:
Birth in the U.S. automatically grants citizenship, provided the person is not excluded by one of the exceptions (foreign diplomats, etc.).
Citizenship is a constitutional right and cannot be limited by immigration laws passed by Congress.
Although _Wong Kim Ark_ dealt with the child of legal residents, its principles are widely interpreted to apply to children of undocumented immigrants as well. The 14th Amendment does not distinguish between parents based on immigration status. Subsequent case law has upheld this broad interpretation of the Citizenship Clause.
Courts have consistently ruled that children born in the U.S. are citizens, even if their parents are in the country unlawfully. In _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982), the Supreme Court confirmed that undocumented immigrants are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., meaning their children born here are entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment. No court has successfully limited birthright citizenship in cases involving children of undocumented immigrants since _Wong Kim Ark._
In recent years, there have been political debates over whether birthright citizenship should apply to children of undocumented immigrants. Some argue for reinterpretation or amendment of the 14th Amendment to exclude such cases. However, any change would require either a Supreme Court ruling overturning _Wong Kim Ark_ (highly unlikely due to its strong precedent) or a constitutional amendment, which is politically and procedurally challenging.
@@RaymondHngThe 14th amendment proceeds the 13th amendment which deals with the slaves on US soil. Not every person jumping illegally across our borders.
@@LAQ642 And _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ is the case law that interprets the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment does not distinguish between parents based on immigration status. Courts have consistently ruled that children born in the U.S. are citizens, even if their parents are in the country unlawfully. In _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982), the Supreme Court confirmed that undocumented immigrants are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., meaning their children born here are entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment. No court has successfully limited birthright citizenship in cases involving children of undocumented immigrants since _Wong Kim Ark._
The Federal Court and the state courts of 49 states are common law courts, not civil law courts.
@@RaymondHng once again, WOng was a citizen only because his parents had a permanent domicile in the US and were engaged in business in the US. The justices never said anyone birthed on US soil to just anyone who crossed the border is a citizen
@bbtodd Once again in _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982), the Supreme Court confirmed that undocumented immigrants are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., meaning their children born here are entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment. No court has successfully limited birthright citizenship in cases involving children of undocumented immigrants since _Wong Kim Ark._ If _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ does not specify children of undocumented immigrants, _Plyler v. Doe_ does. The U.S. Federal Court and the state courts of 49 states are Common Law courts, not Civil Law courts.
They tried the same thing with Mexican Americans in the 1940s.
This is my birthome but 90 year's after him. ⚓
His parents were legal immigrants, not illegal.
The United States Supreme Court ruled in a 6-2 decision that Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. citizen by birth under the 14th Amendment. The ruling emphasized that the phrase “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment applied to children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' nationality or immigration status. The ruling did not distinguish between children of legal residents or illegal immigrants. Instead, it reaffirmed the broad principle of _jus soli_ (right of the soil), meaning citizenship is granted to nearly anyone born in the U.S. The Court explicitly rejected the idea that the status of the parents (e.g., being non-citizens) could negate the child’s right to citizenship if born on U.S. soil. It emphasized that:
Birth in the U.S. automatically grants citizenship, provided the person is not excluded by one of the exceptions (foreign diplomats, etc.).
Citizenship is a constitutional right and cannot be limited by immigration laws passed by Congress.
Although _Wong Kim Ark_ dealt with the child of legal residents, its principles are widely interpreted to apply to children of undocumented immigrants as well. The 14th Amendment does not distinguish between parents based on immigration status. Subsequent case law has upheld this broad interpretation of the Citizenship Clause.
Courts have consistently ruled that children born in the U.S. are citizens, even if their parents are in the country unlawfully. In _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982), the Supreme Court confirmed that undocumented immigrants are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., meaning their children born here are entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment. No court has successfully limited birthright citizenship in cases involving children of undocumented immigrants since _Wong Kim Ark._
In recent years, there have been political debates over whether birthright citizenship should apply to children of undocumented immigrants. Some argue for reinterpretation or amendment of the 14th Amendment to exclude such cases. However, any change would require either a Supreme Court ruling overturning _Wong Kim Ark_ (highly unlikely due to its strong precedent) or a constitutional amendment, which is politically and procedurally challenging.
Doesnt matter.
The amendment does not state anywhere about the LEGAL STATUS of a person.
It states ANYONE born under US JURISDICTION is a US citizen. An illegal immigrant is still under US JURISDICTION and held to the same laws and protection of the constitution. Don't argue with me, argue with the constitution.
😮Are we now entering an era of mock democracy ?
I’m ASEAN American approved Trump message stopping “anchor babies” .Go Trump 2024!
Law is a law no one can change it period
But trump is an anchor baby..
@@PikachuTDP That doesn't make any sense. This was already ruled on by the Supreme Court in 1898 and they quite often rule on things multiple times, such as abortion for example. And BTW in 1898 they didn't declare that just anybody born on US soil is a citizen. They explicitly stated that in that case, because the parent had a permanent residence in the U.S. and were engaged in business in the U.S. that their child was a citizen. That's very different than what is happening now. Currently anyone and everyone is a citizen even if the parent have been in the U.S. only a matter of minutes. The justices never said that.
Please stop the drama. Everyone knows Trump is correct on this issue.
@@toddduchesne1749 he isn't tho.
Not by what the law states.
@Latino_nerd97 He wants to change it, and it needs to be changed.
@@toddduchesne1749 guess we'll leave that decision to the states and the constitution not TRUMP huh
Just because Trump wants to do something doesn't mean he gets to do it.
@Latino_nerd97 Trump is doing what's right. Illegally crossing our border, then having a child to gain citizenship is not what the law is for. I believe you know this.
@@Latino_nerd97 it will go back to the supreme court, and thank the Lord. It's hard to understand why anyone would argue for this except if they had ulterior motives.
Après cette vidéo, mon copain est convaincu que nous pouvons faire notre propre émission. J'espère qu'elle sera drôle 💋
Didn't realize the choinese were juice.
They are.
So sad...only a fooled like Trump could and would stern into this issue
Sad to say Trump could win at the US Supreme Court
Changing a constitutional rights? Nah
NOT POSSIBLE.
UNLESS CONGRESS RATIFIES THE CONSTITUTION.
@@Latino_nerd97 Congress passes constitutional amendments. State legislatures must ratify them.
@@RaymondHngit absolutely does not require an amendment. Birthright citizenship has been in front of the S.C. before and it will finally come in front of them again. And BTW the first time they ruled on it. They granted citizenship to the boy only because his parents had a permanent home in the US and were also engaged in business in the US.
The surpreme court could ether follow what the constitution says or could be like "Yeah, but I like Trump, F*ck the constitution"
Its not just the unite states every where in the world its like that in every country you born in you are a citizen of that country 😂😂😂😂
no, you are very wrong. most countries do not apply the principle of jus soli which the US does. that needs to change to align US citizenship rules with the rest of the world.
They stated the parents were illegal in this they were likely smuggled as railway workers. Child should go to state parents should be deported
Wasn’t Trump’s grandfather a nazi?
I've never seen a Chinese homeless in San Francisco 🎉
Yup. Because they are hardworking people. America is fucked if they mess the immigrants. 😂😂😂
It's good that this is finally on the table. You unwashed will finally learn the significance of the 14th Amendment.