Why the Founders Rejected Birthright Citizenship | Public Policy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 лют 2025
- Enroll in this free course today by clicking here: online.hillsda...
Discover constitutional solutions to today's most important public policy questions.
For more than a century, the people’s representatives have abdicated their constitutional legislative power to executive agencies, agencies which now exercise all three functions of government. Although this trend indicates America has moved away from the Founders’ understanding of constitutionally limited government, self-government can be restored through a revival of a constitutional understanding of public policy.
In this free, 12-lecture course, “Public Policy from a Constitutional Viewpoint,” you will learn how the American Founders wrote a Constitution that established a government limited in size and scope, whose central purpose was to secure the natural rights of all Americans, and, by contrast, how early Progressives rejected the notion of fixed limits on government. Taught by Hillsdale College faculty, topics in this online course include: freedom of speech and religion, immigration, regulation, marriage and family, foreign policy, health care, taxes, education, and more.
Join us today in this fundamental study of how a proper understanding of contemporary public policy issues may help to restore free and constitutional government in America.
Enroll in this free online course on public policy today!
My father, born to Fred (an American citizen) and Dorothy (a British citizen) and born in Caracas, Venezuela had his birth registered at the US Embassy explicitly to establish his United States citizenship.
This was an argument used by Britain to impress American sailors during the War of 1812; the British were arguing from Black's Laws; the Americans were arguing from Vatel's Law of Nations. The latter was used as the foundation of the Constitution for these united States; Benjamin Franklin had purchased several copies of Vatel's Law of Nation for the delegates at the Constitutional Convention.
This is not a mere disagreement on birthright citizenship; this is a conflict of two different governing principles of the laws of nations. The replacement of the original principles of national law, Vetal's, with Black means we are now operating contrary to the founding principle of this country; we have been severed from our very founding document; as long as we do not demand and achieve the return to Vatel's Law of Nations, we will forever be under a feudal system of government; a system, by the way, which suits our ruling oligarchs.
The person or committee behind this presentation should bring this issue up in further videos.
I have never heard this before. Aside from the book itself, is there a resource on this topic you can recommend?
Thank you! I will research further.
No more Anchor babies!!!!
The damage they’ve done is irreversible though.
Throwing your baby off the boat is murder!
@@rockstarofredondothat's the plan . Time and a critical mass .
For example : by the time a critical mass of persons had Obamacare YOU became an ogre if you argued against it . J. Roberts ( the coward ) , himself ,
mocked the voters ( after legislating from the bench ) that they should be careful who they vote for !
You missed the entire point.
Can we get an Amen to those that hold constitutional principles to a higher cause!
Amen
I’m not that evangelical nor Baptist, but I’ll play. Ahem.
Amen.
Amen and Amen
Amen 🙏🏼
These videos are so important. Thank you so much for uploading these lectures! Going to use them in my homeschooling lessons!
Thank you for home schooling. ♡
@@uteme of course!
I was surprised to see the case of United States vs Wong Kim Ark so misrepresented. In reality, the court ruled in Wong's favor because he met *both* conditions set by the 14th amendment. Yes, his parents were technically still citizens of China, but they were immigrants who had already established permanent residency in the US before he was born.
The equivalent today would be if his parents were living in the US not as tourists or temporary workers, much less as illegals, but were here as legal immigrants who, as legally recognized permanent residents, were already subject to the laws of the US.
BYW, the Wong case illustrates why Kamala Harris is not a US citizen. Her parents were both foreign nationals residing in the US with temporary work visas. Neither of them was a legal permanent resident at the time of her birth.
Finally, someone has said it. I don't know why this wasn't brought out during the campaigning. She was not eligible to hold the position of president!
And, she was raised in Canada!
Loved your stuff.. Subbed! Keep up the great work!! 👏👏👏👏
6:43 . If citizen is based on parentage , would be the status of a birth perceived if father and mother of a child are from two different countries, based on this argument of subjectivity?
The 13 amendment, 14 amendment, 15 amendment was for former black slaves. Just let all immigrants and 1 generation assist in
military . It will really help America and keep birthright citizenship
Slaughter house court case. 14th amendment created federal citizenship status. Different from a State Citizen. A US citizen is subject to federal jurisdiction wherever they reside. Pistol permit requirement and background check requirements are regarding US citizen not the State Citizen. Two classes of citizenship in this country.
US citizen does not have inalienable Rights. According to slaughter house Court case
We can thank the authoritarians after the civil war for that. 1874 was a bad year.
@@gridtac2911 there's nothing wrong with it. Gave citizenship to freed slaves. Granted them certain civil rights. Made sure the States couldn't waiver from that.
Unfortunately it's the State Citizen who has failed to comprehend the difference between a US citizen and a State Citizen. Subjecting themselves to laws not applicable.
Gun permit requirements and background check requirements are illegal in violation of the 14th amendment not just the 2nd amendment, they are illegal in violation of article 4 section 2 paragraph 1 of the constitution as well.
14th amendment section 1 NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES
Therefore background checks and permits/licenses are unconstitutional therefore illegal.
@@ME-jc7xiarticle 4 section 2 paragraph 1. And 14th amendment section 1.
The constitution rules all states what most Americans don't comprehend and realize is the constitution is national has nothing to do with federal. The constitution of the united states of America supreme law of the land overrides and overrules all other laws state and federal.
In America there is no sovereign,we are all our own sovereign. Hence the term sovereign citizens.
In light of Blackstone's Commentaries, what does natural born citizen mean in Art II? And can we discuss whether or not John McCain was and if Ted Cruz is eligible for presidential office?
Sir Edward Coke's surname is pronounced "Cook."
What has been a better argument for the person returning to America? That the Chinese exclusion act itself was un constitutional?
Give me a break! If the founders had experienced the Civil War the wording would have been different. The need for the 14th amendment after the Civil War is exactly why we have a "living document" in the constitution. Amendments respond to changing times and conditions. The original document reflected the distilled thought in the 18th Century. Following the Civil War and the Dred Scott Decision, new issues had to be taken into consideration (the freeing of the slaves). Spare me the Originalist doctrine.
You are correct sir
What most Americans don't comprehend and realize is they are the state not courts, judges, attorney's, politicians.
Amen
HE forgot and left out the next part.
NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES
This video is a lie@@troyhailey
Notice two words ur ignoring. ( Or ) &. ( And ) Born mean born or means here another way. & In that other way naturalized u gotta be under jurisdiction. Stop lieing sir
This man is saying that if you are born in the US to two people neither of which is a legal resident, you should not be able to claim to be a citizen.
BECAUSE....Your parents could take you back home where you might be mistreated and the US government would be under no compulsion to protect you.
Meaning that you are not under the jurisdiction of the US government.
The 14th amendment applies to former slaves so that they MIGHT be endowed with the rights of citizenship.
No it does not lol
@@robluv4592 LoL you'll find out , penjdejo
that is not my interpretation. I was born in the United States. I do recognize the laws here. But I don't plague Alliance to no states. That's my human right.
This should never have been adapted in America.
Kamaltoe was born here, but raised in Canada. She did not live here after she born, so how many days was she here. Was she born here on the way to Canada and leave after birth? How longer her parents here.
Canada?! That explains a lot!
I heard she was ineligible to be Pres. because she was not born here.
Like Tom Hanks maybe, a FAKE American?
@troyhailey Turns out the Constitution can be overriden by crying racism if you try to hold people to it.
@@troyhailey well Obama's dad was a Marxist Community Organizer, Frank Marshall Davis, the friend of Stanley's dad. He was also making porn, and Stanley became one of his actresses, and probable co star. Hence, she became pregnant. Ran overseas, married an already married man from Kenya and that's why no Republican would have permitted him a spot on the ticket. FMD says it all.
So, how is this corrected? Also, if corrected, how far in retro-activity would be possible or appropriate? Lastly, how would this effect people who were born here, in a family that had been born here for generations? I can see how this would eliminate anchor baby activities, as it would no longer exist. I think foreigners would still come here to have their children free of charge with superior health care, then just skip off to where ever, with the American tax payer footing the bill, like it is now. I am all for people being required to take a test and swearing an oath to become citizens, it would probably improve the quality of citizenry. Which would be required to occur at the age of adulthood. A child of a citizen would be an automatic citizen until the age of adulthood. But a child of a non-citizen would not. There could be laws built in that prohibit anti-American activities on American soil, with stiff penalties. Penalties like revocation of citizenship, deportation, and or jail and fines. Attempting to push or promote communist, socialist, fascist and or authoritarian forms of government or activities would obviously be criminal violations and subject to aforementioned penalties. This would also make it possible to be more selective of who becomes citizens. And being a citizen would be required to vote in any elections. I can certainly see why most other countries do not have birth right citizenship.
YOU SHOULD READ THE FRENCH LAWS VERY CLOSE TO WHAT YOU TALK ABOUT EXCEPT NOW WITH GEORGE SOROS AND OTHER ELITISTS PUSHING ON EUROPE THE SAME BULLSHi*T TO CREATE A KARL MASXIST WET DREAM
I'm not for anyone swearing allegiance to a corporation. Which the United States is... it's a corporate entity formed in 1874 after the civil war, not at our founding. The United States used to be a union of free states. It should go back to that as well. The federal government has zero authority over me
So if a citizen of the US at 17, takes this citizenship test and fails…they become a person without a country? Where would you deport them to? Would they still pay taxes to the state and IRS???
@@Skyking6976 Yeah, there are definitely more questions than answers, no matter how you brainstorm it. I was simply doing just that, throwing out ideas for possible solutions. I am no expert and do not have all the answers, but there definitely needs to be major revamping of the system we have now. I would think, to answer your question, that the 17 yr old and other non-citizens who live and work in the country would not be able to vote, or have any of the benefits of citizenship, but still pay taxes and so on, just to be able to work and live here. Too, the 17 yr old could always study and retake the test, or become a permanent non-citizen resident. Persons born here to citizens would be the only persons afforded that option. Or citizens children could be automatic citizens, but not be allowed to vote and so on until passing the civics test. All others would be deported back to the country of their parents, with the parents, if deported. Which would again depend on the status of the non-citizen parents. Also, I am not anti-immigration, I simply believe it should be done legally. I also don't believe you need to be citizen to be here, but you do need permission. You know, non-citizen workers, students, tourists, etc. And, abolish the irs, the states can handle their own taxes. Anyway, that's my two cents, for what it's worth.
@@Skyking6976 YET YOU UNDERSTAND KARL MARXIST USA ..THEY REMOVE YOUR FREEDOMS AND YOU HAVE TO PAY TQAXES WHERE WERE YOU LIVE IN THE WORLD FOREVER ... SO THE MAFIA IN WASHINGTON DC CAN POCKET YOUR TAXES AND GO ON WITH FOREVER WARS ... . AND IF YOU DO NOT PAY THEY WILL SEND THE NOVEL ROBCOPS OF IRS ...
You have to define what is the United States, the United States of America, state/country under a contract, called the United States of America. There are definitions that need to be defined when you refer to the United States. When the slaves were freed and they obtain citizenship in the United States, isn’t that different from state citizenship under the United States of America?
We are citizens of the earth not a country no human should rule over one another onder any circumstance get over this false cense of entitlement over our fellow man only good has that right
This thought would only create chaos like what we are seeing now with open borders!
How are you a citizen of the Earth? Citizen or subject is a political term and has no relation to the Earth. Also, the Declaration of Independence spoke of how all men are created equal but does have a right to create a governing body to protect our natural rights that is authorized by God which is found in the Holy Bible Romans 13:1.
People confuse natural born with native born.
Why does he sound the the South Park Teacher; keeps saying 'OK' but sounds like "M'k?"
You born here u American sorry 150 years of the Supreme Court ruling . Sometimes dumb people wanna say different but they are idiots .
HIllsdale College: "Children follow the status of their parents." It does not say that in the constitution. If you are born in the USA, or any other country for that matter, you are subject to their jurisdiction. To say otherwise is ridiculous. The only people who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the country which they inhabit are diplomats from other countries (and the USA does not even agree with that). So the "subject to jurisdiction" is automatic. Trying to equate "subject to jurisdiction" with feudal obligation is patently ridiculous. People are subject to the laws of the USA at the same time as they are described as "free" people. Obviously then, subject to jurisdiction means something different than feudal obligation. In any case, this issue was hashed out at the time, and all of the various aspects of the Fourteenth Amendment were discussed in full before it was adopted. This is just HIllsdale College doing what they do, trying to re-write history.
You're misguided and that's ok. Nazis, communists, and maoists, all thought they were right as well. The United States is a corporate entity that forces slave contracts on to every free person in this country, and that's directly against the constitution. You can thank the civil war and the authoritarians at the time for this in 1874 when the US was overturned. We no longer were a republic from then on and instead became an empire. Do you even know when birth certificates were invented and why? Likely not. Please go do some research instead of crying about things you don't know or care to look up.
Pretty much, this channel is horrible.
No .
citizenship is distinct from subjugation
Excellent lesson 👍
You realize if the current Court were to overrule the Ark case it would be seen as an attempt to curb immigration through a conservative court. Like has occurred on abortion. I found your points compelling but I haven’t reviewed the Congressional debate. In theory though, emancipated slaves could return to whatever African country in which they came and would they not be subject to the jurisdiction of that country?
Hm
No, at least not all. Many slaves were the offspring of their masters.
The US Supreme Court recently corrected Roe V. Wade.
Writing for the court majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that the 1973 Roe ruling and repeated subsequent high court decisions reaffirming Roe "must be overruled" because they were "egregiously wrong," the arguments "exceptionally weak" and so "damaging" that they amounted to "an abuse of judicial authority
@ I agree the Court can overrule their decision on 1898 but if Trump believes 2/3 of Americans agree with him, why not get 38 state legislatures to pass the amendment and show a “unified” America? Any idea why this is a thing…NOW? After reading about Trump’s intention with birthright citizenship and seeing the words, “Trump Pardons J6” superimposed in a video over a sea of white people pepper spraying police and smashing windows, I suddenly knew what this is ALL about. It’s restoration of white European culture. I should have snapped after Charlottesville. I’m mid-60’s, 3rd generation wealth, never wanted to deal with kids, just travel and enjoy life. So I’ll get nothing from this president in exchange for enduring Archie Bunker tweets and comments. Just FYI, birthright citizenship has zero affect on my life, just enjoy the legal\political discussion.
citizenship should be based on one thing, and one thing only;
if they agree with me they're a citizen and if not they're out!
AND that one thing?
@@Skyking6976Paying taxes. If you pay taxes you should be a citizen.
That's the problem this guy and others are caught up in English/British B.S. that should be irrelevant period in our country. We are the united states of America not England/Brittan their laws and rules mean nothing here.
This seems like something one might call "psychohistory," where some fact is discussed according to how we feel about it, which is often the wrong approach, as it is here. The Founders of the Union of the American states don't seem to have rejected birthright citizenship given the fact that even slaves were considered to have protection under the Constitution because, as they stated in court cases, those slaves were citizens of the states in which they were born, and that was pre-14th Am't.
Perhaps you're confused by the fact there intentionally was no national citizenship. The United States were not considered one country until after Lincoln's War of Northern Aggression. What the Founders rejected was the premise of your Pledge of Allegiance ("one nation, under god"), not birthright citizenship.
George Washingtons spinning in his grave 😢
the Fourteenth Amendment
Basing your argument on going back in time is well stupid, The 14th amendment say what it says no matter what happened in the past
take a citizen test and pass it before turning 18, its that simple
No it isn't
@@kat-75 if you cant pass a citizenship test, you dont deserve to be a citizen
You completely missed the point!
Our laws shouldn't be connected to England/Brittan in any way shape or form. English law should have no grounds in America.
But the laws of the USA was based on the magna carta.
@@mayac.1345well - VERY loosely . About all the Great Charter said was that the elite ( titled nobility ) of that time had a voice that the king must recognize .
Certainly wasn't a republic , let alone a democracy .
@@deanoverlie224 well, I am a big fan of David Starkey, British historian. In one of his videos, if you analyze England, it is royal Republic. He even mentioned an American figure that was able to figure that out. And with that analysis, I've realized that the history of ideas of America does not just stop from how and when the United States was created but you go back further: England, Roman Empire and the Greek civilization.
Natural Law, liberties and rights conferred by the Creator
Thank you....Trump 2024... he believes this...SEND THEM HOME!!!!
I'm not sure on this. The argument seems weak and his mannerisms seem to indicate that he isn't entirely sure of his argument either.
Don't get me wrong, I despise illegal immigration. I'm just saying his argument seems weak.
this is definitely a conservative republican channel.
It's not Republican, Democrat, Liberal or Conservative. It's an educational channel.
@@jeanpierrecastro4872 well it sure has republican points on a lot of things like economics and etecetra. I know what republicans think like and this is their view points.
@@jeanpierrecastro4872
“Hillsdale College is a private, conservative, Christian liberal arts college in Hillsdale, Michigan. It was founded in 1844 by members of the Free Will Baptists. Women were admitted to the college in 1844, making the college the second-oldest coeducational educational institution in the United States. Wikipedia”