Maybe simple. Maybe even makes sense. BUT WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION THAT SAYS OTHERWISE!!!! So. Just like I say to people who argue the 2nd amendment is out-dated and doesn’t make sense: pass another amendment. Until you do I’m keeping my firearms. And until they pass an amendment undoing the plain language of the 14th amendment, humans born here, are citizens.
The historical context of the 14th Amendment also includes Native Americans and the issue of Chinese immigration and exclusion. With that context in mind, if the writers of the 14th Amendment wanted to address a specific group or population, then they would have done so. And this exactly what they did with their language specifically addressing Native Americans in Section 2 of the Amendment. It stands to reason that the writers of the 14th Amendment would have clarified that they meant ONLY slaves, slave descendants, etc. But they did NOT clarify it, thus leaving the broad interpretation as the more viable one (as seen in Wong Kim Ark and affirmed by Plyler vs. Doe).
If the parents are here illegally, the baby born here is illegal too, therefore not eligible to become a U.S. citizen. However, if the parents migrated here legally, the baby born here should become a U.S. citizen when the parents become naturalized citizens.
@@fedbia2003 Congress passed legislation in the 1920’s that extended American citizenship to Native Americans who also have citizenship of their tribal land. Back then I believe the issue of jurisdiction was largely coming from tribes whereas now jurisdiction is shared between the Feds and the Tribal nations on recognised Indian lands.
@ But again the offer was made later. That was its original intent from the Founding Fathers. We changed our relationship with them like we did with the nature of all the future states added to the original 13. So why wouldn’t that meaning extend to foreign nations now when it clearly applied to foreign nations then(dignitaries, foreign nationals, etc)?
The phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction," can't mean nothing. If it must mean something that is a limit, that limit must be addressed in oppositional discourse by both sides. Also, it is far from a fact to believe that even the majority of the North's dead was fighting to "free the slaves." On the contrary, slaves were 'taken'(stolen) by the North as war contraband for the beginning and middle of the war. To prevent the slaves from being returned to their owners, this became paid contraband camps (around 1862 I believe), which lasted at least until 1867 in one case. The Emancipation only applied to southern states. As an example, New Jersey did not free its slaves until 1865. However, I will grant you that Lincoln has been quoted as choosing to run for the Senate bc of the Scott decision.
You're right! Lincoln changed the war motive to emancipating enslaved Black people ONLY after Europe recognized the Confederacy as a government after 2 major victories by Stone Wall Jackson and Robert Lee! Lincoln's personal sentiments are anti-Black.
In the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark case, Wong Kim Ark was only a citizen because he was born to legal immigrants who had permanent domicile. Therefore, the question of whether illegal immigrant children have birthright citizenship is still something which has not explicitly been legislated on.
That's true in regards to the decision of USA v Ark, but I don't think there is anything in the 14th that supports the notion of separating the two (legal vs illegal).
@@fishbone3333 it’s pretty clear and unambiguous in the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The reason why there’s two criteria involved and why one is about being subject to jurisdiction, is because the children of diplomats of another country born in the US are not considered citizens. This is because diplomats have diplomatic immunity being under the jurisdiction of their representative country and not being subject to US jurisdiction, which means they cannot be charged with a crime or face criminal or civil proceedings in a US court. They can be declared *persona non grata* and kicked out of the country though under the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic Missions and Ambassadors. The same jurisdiction principle also applies to children born to soldiers or citizens of an occupying nation during a war since the invading country’s jurisdiction would apply (at least de facto) in occupied territory. To argue that the jurisdiction clause doesn’t apply to illegal immigrants to infer that their US-born children aren’t citizens is fatuous since you’d be saying that they can’t be charged with a crime or have to follow the laws of the US when they clearly can be charged with a crime in the same way a legal visiting tourist or resident can be charged with a crime since they fall under jurisdiction being on US soil.
Tourists to this nation (or any nation) who give birth in the nation they are visiting should not have citizenship automatically granted to the child. If the parents of the child are citizens then so is the child. If one of the parents isn't than the child can have duel citizenship until an age at which they can choose. If they do not choose sole US citizenship they cannot vote or hold office. If you want to have an allegiance to another country you need to pay for it and voting/holding office seems a reasonable price.
Basically, children if illegal immigrants or those on non-immigrant visas (whether valid or expired) should not be citizens. If it is a child of a legal immigrant such as someone on a H1B visa, they should be granted citizenship at birth. If someone without legal status in America would not be eligible for any other citizenship at birth or if their parents cannot be determined, they could be a US citizen upon application. This clause would be so that no child is rendered stateless.
Make an amendment in constitution until then it won’t happen & I don’t think its good idea, born in soil, always citizen regardless of parents statuses
Yes, but ONLY for birth parent(s) under the legal jurisdiction of the United States. See Section I. Illegal entrants remain under the jurisdiction of their home country, as do tourists and emissaries of other nations.
Illegal entrants are fully subject to state and federal laws. They can be arrested for any crimes they commit. Taxes are deducted from their paychecks. If they are deported, their children should be put in foster care. Deporting elementary-school kids from the ony country they've ever known is unconscionable.
There is also the sense and case of the verb “ born “. Does it refer to all persons living at the moment the law was made. Or to persons already born and yet to be born?
If an unborn child is legally an ‘unborn person’ that person IS in the jurisdiction of some government cuz that government HAS to recognize that legality with some birthrights :U
Unlike the Privacy Act, the ACT OF 1974 reserves more rights under the law. Freemason Founders of the Constitution, knew not the day or hour the angel of the Lord would come, yet he trust in the Lord God, who is everlasting.
@@holycrapchris ha! How would an illegal immigrant possibly know how long or short their stay will be, isn't that up to the authority granting *permission* to remain in the country??
An invading army that is an occupying force or a diplomat with diplomatic immunity under the jurisdiction of their representative country is not considered to be under US jurisdiction. A migrant or visitor in the country whether there legally or illegally is subject to US jurisdiction since they can face a criminal prosecution or a civil suit in a US court.
@andrewburgemeister6684 I would submit they aren't, and that they should just be deported to the country that does have jurisdiction over them, the country of origin.
“The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, (1898) “To hold that the fourteenth amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, (1898) "Congress having no power to abridge the rights conferred by the Constitution upon those who have become naturalized citizens by virtue of acts of Congress, a fortiori no act or omission of Congress, as to providing for the naturalization of parents or children of a particular race, can affect citizenship acquired as a birthright, by virtue of the Constitution itself, without any aid of legislation. The Fourteenth Amendment, while it leaves the power, where it was before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization, *has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship* United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, (1898) “The Fourteenth Amendment declares that 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." Nishikawa was born in this country while subject to its jurisdiction; therefore, American citizenship is his constitutional birthright. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. *What the Constitution has conferred, neither the Congress, nor the Executive, nor the Judiciary, nor all three in concert* may strip away." Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129 (1958) “The term 'person,' used in the Fifth Amendment, is broad enough to include any and every human being within the jurisdiction of the republic. A resident, alien born, is entitled to the same protection under the laws that a citizen is entitled to. He owes obedience to the laws of the country in which he is domiciled, and, as a consequence, he is entitled to the equal protection of those laws. . . . The contention that persons within the territorial jurisdiction of this republic might be beyond the protection of the law was heard with pain on the argument at the bar -- in face of the great constitutional amendment which declares that no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. at 163 U. S. 242-243 “Justice Gray concluded that every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States." Id. at 169 U. S. 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, *no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful* Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) “This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. *Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.* Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) *Respondents, a married couple, are natives and citizens of Mexico. Respondent husband illegally entered the United States in 1972* Apprehended, he returned to Mexico in early 1974 under threat of deportation. Two months later, he and respondent wife paid a professional smuggler $450 to transport them into this country, entering the United States without inspection through the smuggler's efforts. Respondent husband was again apprehended by INS agents in 1978. At his request, he was granted permission to return voluntarily to Mexico in lieu of deportation. He was also granted two subsequent extensions of time to depart, but he ultimately declined to leave as promised. INS then instituted deportation proceedings against both respondents. *By that time, respondent wife had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country* INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985)
1. Wall Street Journal. (n.d.). Birthright citizenship is constitutional. Opinion Journal. 2. Smith, J. (2018, October). Trump's ideas about birthright citizenship can be traced to these two controversial legal scholars. Mother Jones. 3. Volokh, E. (2020, October 28). The original meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." 4. Calabresi, S. G., & Agudo, S. R. (1997). The original meaning of the 14th Amendment: Applying the Constitution with fidelity to its text and history. Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, 9(1), 73-120. 5. Shapiro, I. (n.d.). Birthright citizenship: A constitutional mandate. Cato Institute. 6. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982). Supreme Court of the United States. 7. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). Supreme Court of the United States. 8. Newsweek. (2022, September 29). Republicans Want to End Birthright Citizenship. They Can't - Opinion. 9. Ho, G. (2016). Defining American: Birthright Citizenship and the Original Understanding of the 14th Amendment. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 10. MyLawQuestions. (n.d.). What Does "Subject to the Jurisdiction" Mean? 11. Edsall, T. B. (2023, June 30). Opinion | Trump and DeSantis Take On Birthright Citizenship. The New York Times 12. Media Matters. (2022, September 30). Laura Ingraham advises GOP to dismantle 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship as "nonsense." 13. Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129 (1958). Supreme Court of the United States. 14. Illing, S. (2018, October 30). Can Trump end birthright citizenship? We asked 10 legal experts. Vox.
Domicile is a legal term . It means that you LEGALLY live in a place. It is your legal residence. YOU seem to forget that part. Intent is also important. The intent was to give slaves who were forcibly brought to this country and their descendants legal rights as citizens. The slaves owed no allegiance to any other country and were residents in this country through no fault of their own. Because slaves were brought to this country by force and made to remain here as well as their descendants the US took legal responsibility for them. We do not take legal responsibility for those that come here illegally . Tom Horn was once arrested for "invasion of Mexico" simply because he crossed over the border as a tracker and bounty hunter. He was not automatically a citizen of Mexico. An idiot such as yourself would have us believe that drug dealers and human smugglers are citizens because they cross an imaginary line and that nay children they drop on this side of the line are also citizens. That's horse shit. If you love illegals so much then YOU should take them into YOUR domicile.
ending birthright citizenship completely would be a modern grandfather's clause. even in this video it expresses that slaves were granted citizenship bc they owed no allegiance to another State. children born to illegal immigrants are de facto without allegiance and if they are raised here are clearly with allegiance to the US State. logic and reason are clearly there. there is an argument to be made for travelers who give birth on US soil not obtaining citizenship and that's why many nation states require them to renounce that citizenship and do not allow for dual citizenship.
and no illegal immigrants who've lived here for years are neither citizens or travelers, let's be honest with ourselves here. by its very nature, the conditions of illegal immigration has created this separate class where the child is much more akin to the slave in allegiance than to a traveler with a temporary stay in the nation.
@@stevewoo1423 make an actual counter rather than "that's some mental gymnastics". I founded my argument in the rational basis mentioned in this video that granted slaves in America the right to citizenship. yours is just "argument bad"
You're wrong. Children born to illegal immigrants aren't de facto no allegiance to another state, they're de facto allegiance lies with their parents nationalities. So illegal immigrants, from Mexico for example, do not owe or hold allegiance to the United States and therefore they should not receive US citizenship.
Here's a relevant quote I've been sharing from Senator Howard, "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."
Context matters. How can someone entering the area illegally now be subject tot he laws they're actively circumventing? And it's different if you're from the area and breaking laws because at some point you were fully under the jurisdiction. It's like the people who think "well regulated" means more laws. I feel like people don't understand the Constitution.
@@fedbia2003 That is some real double digit IQ babble. The fact that they're here illegally inescapably means they're subject to the laws they're violating. If the US had no jurisdiction over them, then they wouldn't be in violation of our laws.
Mexican: mass migrates to California Mexican: knows nothing of the founding fathers principles or the Federalist papers. Mexican: votes in California Also Mexican: why did the third world follow me here?
That's why California is a 3rd world state because they let too many people from 3rd world countries in there and they brought their 3rd world mentalities with them
@whom tf You also have a fifth of your state in poverty, have half the nations homeless, your tech giants are nearly three quarters foreign born (Asia), of those native, a good portion from other states come to make their ambitions dreams come true, half of the nations stem degrees are foreign born, and of those that aren't over half come from the heartland or other states. There's a video on UA-cam called the 10 dumbest states by Nick Johnson, if you pick on the highlighted comment from Nick by Nick, you'll find my synopsis of the California situation. Most big tech silences conservatives, without conservatives saying many things factually incorrect. They fear conservatives, not dupes. Head engineer of SpaceX; from Idaho, Head of Microsoft? Indian. Head of IBM: Born in Chicago, Head of Apple: Born in Alabama.
@@whomtf2737 the more colonists that come in the.more.polluted our rivers and oceans become and they killed my people with their diseases when they first arrived .. and California appears to be doing it again
Please don't make this about race. People don't have any issue with legal immigration from any country. The problem is with illegal immigration. Illegal aliens can be of any race, and be from any country. The problems California has are due in large part to illegal immigration, not any one racial group. Using a nationality as a pejorative means that most people won't bother to listen to your reasons.
"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." That text is quite clear. Two conditions must be met, born in the USA and being a subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The being a subject to the jurisdiction of the USA is not qualified in any way. If you are born a child to a diplomat of a foreign power, you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA, that is a specialized very distinct status, and therefore you are not a citizen of the USA. Everybody else, if you for example do a criminal act in the USA, are subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. Now there are right wingers that do not like the birthright citizenship and that includes The Federalist Society. They are usually strict textualist, keeping to what is written, but here they suddenly try to interpret a hidden meaning. I see it as muddying the waters. One should look at who have written this opinion. Professor John Yoo that wrote the opinion that the executive is allowed to torture prisoners, even if it is banned by Law. And Professor John Eastman who developed the alternative elector scheme and was at times the good friend of some notorious Jeffrey Epstein. Both this persons are know for rather weird interpretation of the constitution.
Why was the condition even included in the text if didn't intend to exclude anyone? They could of just left it out and you would have your interpretation. You say a child of a diplomat is an exception but I don't see that explicitly stated in the 14th either. What makes a tourist any different from a diplomat when it comes to the verbiage in the 14th amendment?
@@azbushrat Because you do not engage your brain. A child of a diplomat is an exception, because it is not a subject to USA jurisdiction, that is agreed upon before the diplomat arrives in the USA, so if it pees on the President, it can not be prosecuted for lèse majesté. Later when it takes the candy in a shop, without paying, it can be send home, but not prosecuted. That is the meaning of not being a subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.
@@RenatoRegalado They are wrong. The issue with Wong Kim Ark is that they only worried about the alien enemy concept but they ignored jus sanguinis, which is right of blood. Wong would’ve gained subject hood from the emperor of China by his parents, and fell under his jurisdiction. Therefore, he could not be a citizen since he was subject to a foreign power. Being subject to a governing power or sovereign is another way of saying being subject to the jurisdiction. It’s a rephrasing of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which states, if a person is born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, exempt Indians taxes, is a citizen of the United States. They focused on the Chinese Exclusion Act, not English common law, which states one cannot serve two masters. One cannot belong to two nations. The 14th amendment in its entirety is about allegiance to the United States. From birthright to rebellion and insurrection. It’s all written in the 14th amendment. Through birthright citizenship, one must have allegiance to the sovereign by default. If they’re born to parents who haven’t renounced their citizenship, subject hood, allegiance to the foreign power then their kids receive those same rights of the foreign power and cannot receive protection from U.S. due to lack of allegiance. If the person is born stateless, then jus soli can be applied. Plyer v Doe states regardless of immigrant status. The only way to get immigrant status is to become part of the immigration process, which only applies to those who are lawfully here. Per the definition of the Office of Homeland Security regarding immigrant. Just because the Supreme Court made a ruling doesn’t mean it can’t be overturned. Wong Kim Ark was not susceptible to the Chinese Exclusion Act. He shouldn’t had been defined as a citizen due to jus sanguinis. And the Supreme Court did not grant rights for the immigrant children to go to school because they had a right to. They did it because they didn’t want uneducated people growing up in the country and causing issues. The Equal protection clause doesn’t provide privileges, which is what education is. Education is not a natural right. It is a civil system created by the governing body, who regulates it. The equal protection clause protects you from having your life, liberty, and property taken without due process. You can’t be unalived, enslaved, or have your property taken without court proceedings that are promised to the citizens of the United States and the state where they reside.
@BT-hk2co but he was declared a citizen from jus soli, which again is what the 14th has declared the law of the land. Wong Kim Ark was also declared a citizen because the supreme Court was doing their job exactly how it's stated in the constitution and interpreted the explicit text of the 14th. Just sanguinis is a back up, for situations where your child may be born in another country, but jus soli is the primary law for citizenship. And frankly, living in, paying taxes in, and observing the laws of the sovereign mean you have declared your allegiance to that sovereign and are subject to its jurisdiction. Which, again, is what it says in the text of the 14th. And also frankly, even if someone were to claim an "originalist" interpretation, that argument falls flat too, as the architects of the 14th have said on record that birthright citizenship was the law of the land.
@Natural ConsequencesYou are so deluded in your conspiracy theory. I'll just keep enjoying the fruits of my investments. Happy to have retired at 50. Enjoy your conspiracies.
IF PARENTS CAME TO USA 🇺🇸 ILLEGALLY, THEN THE BABY SHOULD BE ILLEGAL TOO! SIMPLE AND MAKES SENSE!
Maybe simple. Maybe even makes sense. BUT WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION THAT SAYS OTHERWISE!!!! So. Just like I say to people who argue the 2nd amendment is out-dated and doesn’t make sense: pass another amendment. Until you do I’m keeping my firearms. And until they pass an amendment undoing the plain language of the 14th amendment, humans born here, are citizens.
@@dcj-bz4on the plain language of the 14th says -no .
You don't understand the plain language - that's all .
I would like to see this argument settled in the current Supreme Court.
The 14th was written, with regard to citizenship, so as to address the issue of freed slaves and their descendants. Amiright?
Wrong because why do US territories offer the citizenship by soil such as Guam since no AA slave has ever lived there?
@@NonyaBusiness-is3fc Guam had slavery during spanish rule. read Relación de la Perdida del Galeón San Felipe
Where does it say that in the constitution? The 14th amendment doesn’t even specify the context about who this supposedly applies to.
Yes you are.
@@streetsdisciple0014 "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" doesn't mean illegal aliens.
Of course not. It was written specifically to confer citizenship to Emancipated slaves only.
The historical context of the 14th Amendment also includes Native Americans and the issue of Chinese immigration and exclusion.
With that context in mind, if the writers of the 14th Amendment wanted to address a specific group or population, then they would have done so. And this exactly what they did with their language specifically addressing Native Americans in Section 2 of the Amendment.
It stands to reason that the writers of the 14th Amendment would have clarified that they meant ONLY slaves, slave descendants, etc. But they did NOT clarify it, thus leaving the broad interpretation as the more viable one (as seen in Wong Kim Ark and affirmed by Plyler vs. Doe).
That word “only”….if it was to ONLY apply to emancipated slaves, why to the words “emancipated slaves” not appear in the entirety of the amendment?
So does that mean that all descendants of Europeans are here illegally?
If the parents are here illegally, the baby born here is illegal too, therefore not eligible to become a U.S. citizen. However, if the parents migrated here legally, the baby born here should become a U.S. citizen when the parents become naturalized citizens.
Wasn't it also used to prevent Native Americans from becoming Americans and instead allowing them to be citizens of Indian Tribes?
@@fedbia2003 Congress passed legislation in the 1920’s that extended American citizenship to Native Americans who also have citizenship of their tribal land.
Back then I believe the issue of jurisdiction was largely coming from tribes whereas now jurisdiction is shared between the Feds and the Tribal nations on recognised Indian lands.
@ But again the offer was made later. That was its original intent from the Founding Fathers.
We changed our relationship with them like we did with the nature of all the future states added to the original 13.
So why wouldn’t that meaning extend to foreign nations now when it clearly applied to foreign nations then(dignitaries, foreign nationals, etc)?
The phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction," can't mean nothing. If it must mean something that is a limit, that limit must be addressed in oppositional discourse by both sides. Also, it is far from a fact to believe that even the majority of the North's dead was fighting to "free the slaves." On the contrary, slaves were 'taken'(stolen) by the North as war contraband for the beginning and middle of the war. To prevent the slaves from being returned to their owners, this became paid contraband camps (around 1862 I believe), which lasted at least until 1867 in one case. The Emancipation only applied to southern states. As an example, New Jersey did not free its slaves until 1865. However, I will grant you that Lincoln has been quoted as choosing to run for the Senate bc of the Scott decision.
And Delaware ratified the 13th Amendment in 1901.
lol New Jersey had "slaves" in 1865? you don't even know what the hell you're talking about
You're right! Lincoln changed the war motive to emancipating enslaved Black people ONLY after Europe recognized the Confederacy as a government after 2 major victories by Stone Wall Jackson and Robert Lee! Lincoln's personal sentiments are anti-Black.
You are forgetting the part where you explain that the north did not want slavery up north
What state was the last state to end slavery? New Jersey Jan 1866
In the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark case, Wong Kim Ark was only a citizen because he was born to legal immigrants who had permanent domicile. Therefore, the question of whether illegal immigrant children have birthright citizenship is still something which has not explicitly been legislated on.
That's true in regards to the decision of USA v Ark, but I don't think there is anything in the 14th that supports the notion of separating the two (legal vs illegal).
@@fishbone3333 it’s pretty clear and unambiguous in the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The reason why there’s two criteria involved and why one is about being subject to jurisdiction, is because the children of diplomats of another country born in the US are not considered citizens. This is because diplomats have diplomatic immunity being under the jurisdiction of their representative country and not being subject to US jurisdiction, which means they cannot be charged with a crime or face criminal or civil proceedings in a US court. They can be declared *persona non grata* and kicked out of the country though under the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic Missions and Ambassadors. The same jurisdiction principle also applies to children born to soldiers or citizens of an occupying nation during a war since the invading country’s jurisdiction would apply (at least de facto) in occupied territory.
To argue that the jurisdiction clause doesn’t apply to illegal immigrants to infer that their US-born children aren’t citizens is fatuous since you’d be saying that they can’t be charged with a crime or have to follow the laws of the US when they clearly can be charged with a crime in the same way a legal visiting tourist or resident can be charged with a crime since they fall under jurisdiction being on US soil.
@@fishbone3333 No need to seperate immigrants because one is an immigrant and one is a foreign invader.
@@andrewburgemeister6684clearly you didn’t watch the video
@@fishbone3333 yes there is idiot. "Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof". can you people read?
How does Brits actually interpret this common law? Do they accept uninvited invaders as
Tourists to this nation (or any nation) who give birth in the nation they are visiting should not have citizenship automatically granted to the child.
If the parents of the child are citizens then so is the child.
If one of the parents isn't than the child can have duel citizenship until an age at which they can choose. If they do not choose sole US citizenship they cannot vote or hold office. If you want to have an allegiance to another country you need to pay for it and voting/holding office seems a reasonable price.
Basically, children if illegal immigrants or those on non-immigrant visas (whether valid or expired) should not be citizens. If it is a child of a legal immigrant such as someone on a H1B visa, they should be granted citizenship at birth.
If someone without legal status in America would not be eligible for any other citizenship at birth or if their parents cannot be determined, they could be a US citizen upon application. This clause would be so that no child is rendered stateless.
According to the law, there is no birthright citizenship for non-citizens. It's a legal fiction, resting solely on a so-called judicial precedent
Make an amendment in constitution until then it won’t happen & I don’t think its good idea, born in soil, always citizen regardless of parents statuses
How about legal residents?
Wells stated!
How does one separate the Constitution from politics?
Yes, but ONLY for birth parent(s) under the legal jurisdiction of the United States. See Section I. Illegal entrants remain under the jurisdiction of their home country, as do tourists and emissaries of other nations.
Illegal entrants are fully subject to state and federal laws. They can be arrested for any crimes they commit. Taxes are deducted from their paychecks.
If they are deported, their children should be put in foster care. Deporting elementary-school kids from the ony country they've ever known is unconscionable.
There is also the sense and case of the verb “ born “. Does it refer to all persons living at the moment the law was made. Or to persons already born and yet to be born?
It was meant for the large black populace of slaves at that time, so that when freed they would be citizens.
If an unborn child is legally an ‘unborn person’ that person IS in the jurisdiction of some government cuz that government HAS to recognize that legality with some birthrights :U
Unlike the Privacy Act, the ACT OF 1974 reserves more rights under the law. Freemason Founders of the Constitution, knew not the day or hour the angel of the Lord would come, yet he trust in the Lord God, who is everlasting.
Sir its not how its seen its literal.
Politics is rhetoric, not logic. It’s all about what you can convince people it is, not what it is.
If Yoo is right, what distinguishes an invading army or diplomat from an [illegal immigrant]?
The immigrant does not intend their stay to be temporary.
@@holycrapchris I don't think an invading army intends to stay temporarily either. In any case that doesn't seem legally significant.
@@holycrapchris ha! How would an illegal immigrant possibly know how long or short their stay will be, isn't that up to the authority granting *permission* to remain in the country??
An invading army that is an occupying force or a diplomat with diplomatic immunity under the jurisdiction of their representative country is not considered to be under US jurisdiction.
A migrant or visitor in the country whether there legally or illegally is subject to US jurisdiction since they can face a criminal prosecution or a civil suit in a US court.
@andrewburgemeister6684 I would submit they aren't, and that they should just be deported to the country that does have jurisdiction over them, the country of origin.
No
“The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.”
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, (1898)
“To hold that the fourteenth amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States."
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, (1898)
"Congress having no power to abridge the rights conferred by the Constitution upon those who have become naturalized citizens by virtue of acts of Congress, a fortiori no act or omission of Congress, as to providing for the naturalization of parents or children of a particular race, can affect citizenship acquired as a birthright, by virtue of the Constitution itself, without any aid of legislation. The Fourteenth Amendment, while it leaves the power, where it was before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization, *has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship*
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, (1898)
“The Fourteenth Amendment declares that 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."
Nishikawa was born in this country while subject to its jurisdiction; therefore, American citizenship is his constitutional birthright. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. *What the Constitution has conferred, neither the Congress, nor the Executive, nor the Judiciary, nor all three in concert* may strip away."
Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129 (1958)
“The term 'person,' used in the Fifth Amendment, is broad enough to include any and every human being within the jurisdiction of the republic. A resident, alien born, is entitled to the same protection under the laws that a citizen is entitled to. He owes obedience to the laws of the country in which he is domiciled, and, as a consequence, he is entitled to the equal protection of those laws. . . . The contention that persons within the territorial jurisdiction of this republic might be beyond the protection of the law was heard with pain on the argument at the bar -- in face of the great constitutional amendment which declares that no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. at 163 U. S. 242-243
“Justice Gray concluded that every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."
Id. at 169 U. S. 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, *no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful* Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
“This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. *Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.*
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
*Respondents, a married couple, are natives and citizens of Mexico. Respondent husband illegally entered the United States in 1972* Apprehended, he returned to Mexico in early 1974 under threat of deportation. Two months later, he and respondent wife paid a professional smuggler $450 to transport them into this country, entering the United States without inspection through the smuggler's efforts. Respondent husband was again apprehended by INS agents in 1978. At his request, he was granted permission to return voluntarily to Mexico in lieu of deportation. He was also granted two subsequent extensions of time to depart, but he ultimately declined to leave as promised. INS then instituted deportation proceedings against both respondents. *By that time, respondent wife had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country*
INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985)
1. Wall Street Journal. (n.d.). Birthright citizenship is constitutional. Opinion Journal.
2. Smith, J. (2018, October). Trump's ideas about birthright citizenship can be traced to these two controversial legal scholars. Mother Jones.
3. Volokh, E. (2020, October 28). The original meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."
4. Calabresi, S. G., & Agudo, S. R. (1997). The original meaning of the 14th Amendment: Applying the Constitution with fidelity to its text and history. Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, 9(1), 73-120.
5. Shapiro, I. (n.d.). Birthright citizenship: A constitutional mandate. Cato Institute.
6. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982). Supreme Court of the United States.
7. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). Supreme Court of the United States.
8. Newsweek. (2022, September 29). Republicans Want to End Birthright Citizenship. They Can't - Opinion.
9. Ho, G. (2016). Defining American: Birthright Citizenship and the Original Understanding of the 14th Amendment. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
10. MyLawQuestions. (n.d.). What Does "Subject to the Jurisdiction" Mean?
11. Edsall, T. B. (2023, June 30). Opinion | Trump and DeSantis Take On Birthright Citizenship. The New York Times
12. Media Matters. (2022, September 30). Laura Ingraham advises GOP to dismantle 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship as "nonsense."
13. Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129 (1958). Supreme Court of the United States.
14. Illing, S. (2018, October 30). Can Trump end birthright citizenship? We asked 10 legal experts. Vox.
If you care about intent, then it would matter that the 14 Amendment was about slavery.
Domicile is a legal term . It means that you LEGALLY live in a place. It is your legal residence. YOU seem to forget that part. Intent is also important. The intent was to give slaves who were forcibly brought to this country and their descendants legal rights as citizens. The slaves owed no allegiance to any other country and were residents in this country through no fault of their own. Because slaves were brought to this country by force and made to remain here as well as their descendants the US took legal responsibility for them. We do not take legal responsibility for those that come here illegally . Tom Horn was once arrested for "invasion of Mexico" simply because he crossed over the border as a tracker and bounty hunter. He was not automatically a citizen of Mexico. An idiot such as yourself would have us believe that drug dealers and human smugglers are citizens because they cross an imaginary line and that nay children they drop on this side of the line are also citizens. That's horse shit. If you love illegals so much then YOU should take them into YOUR domicile.
@@iamthewizardwhoknocks2845if you care about intent, they also don’t want our citizenship to be determined by a president or congress
ending birthright citizenship completely would be a modern grandfather's clause. even in this video it expresses that slaves were granted citizenship bc they owed no allegiance to another State. children born to illegal immigrants are de facto without allegiance and if they are raised here are clearly with allegiance to the US State. logic and reason are clearly there. there is an argument to be made for travelers who give birth on US soil not obtaining citizenship and that's why many nation states require them to renounce that citizenship and do not allow for dual citizenship.
and no illegal immigrants who've lived here for years are neither citizens or travelers, let's be honest with ourselves here. by its very nature, the conditions of illegal immigration has created this separate class where the child is much more akin to the slave in allegiance than to a traveler with a temporary stay in the nation.
@@stevewoo1423 make an actual counter rather than "that's some mental gymnastics". I founded my argument in the rational basis mentioned in this video that granted slaves in America the right to citizenship. yours is just "argument bad"
@@aweshumandy but even ius soli countries grant citizenship via blood ( ius sanguinis) to their diaspora
Most countries don't have birthright citizenship in that you can't just go there and give birth and your child is an automatic citizen.
You're wrong. Children born to illegal immigrants aren't de facto no allegiance to another state, they're de facto allegiance lies with their parents nationalities. So illegal immigrants, from Mexico for example, do not owe or hold allegiance to the United States and therefore they should not receive US citizenship.
Birthmarks are from God and so are Witnesses
no mention of Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment
Levin did a show on this tonight ! The 14 th does not cover illegal aliens !
Here's a relevant quote I've been sharing from Senator Howard, "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."
John Eastmen? Wasn't he indicted? That's what you get with the Federalist Society.
John Eastman has been disbarred
Absolutely not !
No!
What happened to Strick reading of the C? ".... all persons born here..."
under the jurisdiction thereof. YOU seem to forget that part you commie liberal.
Context matters.
How can someone entering the area illegally now be subject tot he laws they're actively circumventing? And it's different if you're from the area and breaking laws because at some point you were fully under the jurisdiction.
It's like the people who think "well regulated" means more laws. I feel like people don't understand the Constitution.
@@fedbia2003 That is some real double digit IQ babble. The fact that they're here illegally inescapably means they're subject to the laws they're violating. If the US had no jurisdiction over them, then they wouldn't be in violation of our laws.
...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof... Don't forget the other condition!
@@azbushrat It's like the second amendment.
They don't understand "well regulated" and totally ignore "shall not be infringed."
Mexican: mass migrates to California
Mexican: knows nothing of the founding fathers principles or the Federalist papers.
Mexican: votes in California
Also Mexican: why did the third world follow me here?
That's why California is a 3rd world state because they let too many people from 3rd world countries in there and they brought their 3rd world mentalities with them
Jettabusy Jackson California is the top state in economy besides New York despite your dislike for certain people
@whom tf You also have a fifth of your state in poverty, have half the nations homeless, your tech giants are nearly three quarters foreign born (Asia), of those native, a good portion from other states come to make their ambitions dreams come true, half of the nations stem degrees are foreign born, and of those that aren't over half come from the heartland or other states. There's a video on UA-cam called the 10 dumbest states by Nick Johnson, if you pick on the highlighted comment from Nick by Nick, you'll find my synopsis of the California situation. Most big tech silences conservatives, without conservatives saying many things factually incorrect. They fear conservatives, not dupes. Head engineer of SpaceX; from Idaho, Head of Microsoft? Indian. Head of IBM: Born in Chicago, Head of Apple: Born in Alabama.
@@whomtf2737 the more colonists that come in the.more.polluted our rivers and oceans become and they killed my people with their diseases when they first arrived .. and California appears to be doing it again
Please don't make this about race. People don't have any issue with legal immigration from any country. The problem is with illegal immigration. Illegal aliens can be of any race, and be from any country. The problems California has are due in large part to illegal immigration, not any one racial group. Using a nationality as a pejorative means that most people won't bother to listen to your reasons.
"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."
That text is quite clear. Two conditions must be met, born in the USA and being a subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The being a subject to the jurisdiction of the USA is not qualified in any way.
If you are born a child to a diplomat of a foreign power, you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA, that is a specialized very distinct status, and therefore you are not a citizen of the USA. Everybody else, if you for example do a criminal act in the USA, are subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.
Now there are right wingers that do not like the birthright citizenship and that includes The Federalist Society. They are usually strict textualist, keeping to what is written, but here they suddenly try to interpret a hidden meaning. I see it as muddying the waters.
One should look at who have written this opinion. Professor John Yoo that wrote the opinion that the executive is allowed to torture prisoners, even if it is banned by Law. And Professor John Eastman who developed the alternative elector scheme and was at times the good friend of some notorious Jeffrey Epstein. Both this persons are know for rather weird interpretation of the constitution.
Why was the condition even included in the text if didn't intend to exclude anyone? They could of just left it out and you would have your interpretation. You say a child of a diplomat is an exception but I don't see that explicitly stated in the 14th either. What makes a tourist any different from a diplomat when it comes to the verbiage in the 14th amendment?
@@azbushrat Because you do not engage your brain. A child of a diplomat is an exception, because it is not a subject to USA jurisdiction, that is agreed upon before the diplomat arrives in the USA, so if it pees on the President, it can not be prosecuted for lèse majesté. Later when it takes the candy in a shop, without paying, it can be send home, but not prosecuted.
That is the meaning of not being a subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.
Rights entail obligations, service guarantees citizenship is a way better way.
No it does.not to two illegal criminals
I ain’t subject to nobody’s jurisdiction
John Fraser I would never steal anything from anyone. Always act in good faith. I would never want to be put in a debtors prison
Your born here your a citizen sorry
Sorry your wrong?
Sorry you’re wrong?
@@BT-hk2co They're not, already established precedent in US v. Wong Kim Ark, Wong Wing v. US, and plyser v. Doe. =
@@RenatoRegalado They are wrong. The issue with Wong Kim Ark is that they only worried about the alien enemy concept but they ignored jus sanguinis, which is right of blood. Wong would’ve gained subject hood from the emperor of China by his parents, and fell under his jurisdiction. Therefore, he could not be a citizen since he was subject to a foreign power. Being subject to a governing power or sovereign is another way of saying being subject to the jurisdiction. It’s a rephrasing of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which states, if a person is born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, exempt Indians taxes, is a citizen of the United States. They focused on the Chinese Exclusion Act, not English common law, which states one cannot serve two masters. One cannot belong to two nations. The 14th amendment in its entirety is about allegiance to the United States. From birthright to rebellion and insurrection. It’s all written in the 14th amendment. Through birthright citizenship, one must have allegiance to the sovereign by default. If they’re born to parents who haven’t renounced their citizenship, subject hood, allegiance to the foreign power then their kids receive those same rights of the foreign power and cannot receive protection from U.S. due to lack of allegiance. If the person is born stateless, then jus soli can be applied. Plyer v Doe states regardless of immigrant status. The only way to get immigrant status is to become part of the immigration process, which only applies to those who are lawfully here. Per the definition of the Office of Homeland Security regarding immigrant. Just because the Supreme Court made a ruling doesn’t mean it can’t be overturned. Wong Kim Ark was not susceptible to the Chinese Exclusion Act. He shouldn’t had been defined as a citizen due to jus sanguinis. And the Supreme Court did not grant rights for the immigrant children to go to school because they had a right to. They did it because they didn’t want uneducated people growing up in the country and causing issues. The Equal protection clause doesn’t provide privileges, which is what education is. Education is not a natural right. It is a civil system created by the governing body, who regulates it. The equal protection clause protects you from having your life, liberty, and property taken without due process. You can’t be unalived, enslaved, or have your property taken without court proceedings that are promised to the citizens of the United States and the state where they reside.
@BT-hk2co but he was declared a citizen from jus soli, which again is what the 14th has declared the law of the land. Wong Kim Ark was also declared a citizen because the supreme Court was doing their job exactly how it's stated in the constitution and interpreted the explicit text of the 14th. Just sanguinis is a back up, for situations where your child may be born in another country, but jus soli is the primary law for citizenship. And frankly, living in, paying taxes in, and observing the laws of the sovereign mean you have declared your allegiance to that sovereign and are subject to its jurisdiction. Which, again, is what it says in the text of the 14th. And also frankly, even if someone were to claim an "originalist" interpretation, that argument falls flat too, as the architects of the 14th have said on record that birthright citizenship was the law of the land.
This the same John Eastman who told Trump that Pence could throw the election? This the John Woo of the torture memos? Well allrighty then.
Wong Kim Ark's parents were still subjects to the chinese emperor at the time
Lol, keep on losing.
Trump "broke the land of the free "
There was no war fought to free the slaves. There was no Army of Emancipation. I am so sick of hearing this. Just stop it !
No slaves ever lived in alaska and yet offer citizenship by birth
slavery existed in alaska. Wealthy families could purchase Aleutian girls outright for life to do housework.
This video starts with a leftist view
Well the constitution is a leftist document, too leftist if you ask me.
It starts with a constitutional view
@@BillyOcean336 Too bad that's not what the Constitution says.
@@BillyOcean336not what the constitution says bud
The world belongs to all. These laws our the problem telling people who they our and where they can go .
Do all pay the same taxes to the whole world?
@Natural Consequences please educate me on the details of your theory.
@Natural ConsequencesYou are so deluded in your conspiracy theory. I'll just keep enjoying the fruits of my investments. Happy to have retired at 50. Enjoy your conspiracies.
@Natural Consequences Tis hard to accept enlightenment from someone beaming into the eyes; It isn't helpful to blind another.
@Natural Consequences He asked you to shine some light on the issue and you jumped him for how he asked.