I hope we all know that it doesn't matter who is in the 'top job' because this is a systemic problem -- greed. We have allowed many of our economic sectors, to take advantage of the American people. It's disgusting and frightening for the future of our country. My husband and I will be retiring in the next two years n another country. We are absolutely worried that SSI will no longer be funded. we'll have to rely on his pension, a 403 (b) and a very prolific lnvestment account with my Abby Joseph Cohen my FA. Our national debt is bloating and expanding every month. Our government needs to get spending under control and cut the federal budget.
I went from no money to lnvest with to busting my A** off on Uber eats for four months to raise about $20k to start trading with Abby Joseph Cohen. I am at $128k right now and LOVING that you have to bring this up here
Abby Joseph Cohen Services has really set the standard for others to follow, we love her here in Canada 🇨🇦 as she has been really helpful and changed lots of life's
Its being misused , it was made to make former African slaves into American citizens ,in the 1860s , its technically being misused and if the judges are honest they'll stop it.
Look what the European immigrants an there descendants did, invent air travel, vehicles, electricity, Internet, the majority of medicine, the first antibiotics witch made the worlds population go 5x with Africa and everyone else stealing from white American culture
@eatingyoshi4403 Looks like he was. He immigrated legally. Granted it wasn’t a bureaucratic bloated mess to get citizenship back then like it is now, but all reports are that he was a legal citizen.
@@GotoHerelike you are? Or your ancestors were? Come on! Have some sense to differentiate between the folks who come here lawfully to build a life and contribute to the nations growth vs the ones who just cross the border and cause nuisance
@@GotoHere i do agree with tour sentiment here leagl immigration needs to be more restricted as well we have too many poor unskilled people coming here
@@staceysharee9387the 14th amendment doesn’t exclude immigrants from having children who are US citizens. It only pertains to non-citizens. What’s your point?
I actually support this. The Forefathers aren’t around to see how it’s being abused. Illegal immigrants take advantage of this. It’s about we take a big step towards ending illegal immigration.
Not true. The so called forefathers were the cause. They enslaved people. The 14th amendment was explicitly meant to give legal status to newly emancipated enslaved people whose families were in the US for generations before getting their freedom. It was a court case in 1898 that interpreted it to include the children of illegal aliens. Court decisions can be overturned.
The Supreme Court better uphold the Constitution!!!! ITS YOUR JOB!!!! Congress DO YOUR JOB…NONE OF YOU WILL BE BACK IN OFFICE IN TWO YEARS UNLESS YOU START DOING YOUR JOB AND UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!!
Trump has a point. The 14th amendment was written for former slaves over 150 years ago. We have an immigration system for the world, including their babies. If based on interpretation, Trump should win because the 14th amendment was not written for them. Immigration laws were. Why should immigrants enjoy the benefits of black American oppression. But those same immigrants will vote against black Americans getting reparations based off the same oppression of their ancestors. Black Americans should pull for Trump. It’s in their best interests.
Most nations in the Western Hemisphere, which share a common history of having population growth through immigration from other parts of the world, do have it though.
@@IncoherentCentristwe should impose restrictions like Europe has done. One of the parents must be a resident or citizen in order to receive citizenship
Yes, the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was intended to grant citizenship to formerly enslaved people and define them as equal citizens under the law. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, three years after the 13th Amendment abolished slavery. bros right
hahaha. he thinks he can change the constitution by executive order. Then the second amendment is one executive order from being history. let's see what the courts say because two can play this game
IF YOU GET RID OF THIS, IT WILL STOP ALOT IMMIGRANTS FROM COMING HERE. NO OTHER COUNTRY DOES THIS.. PAST PRACTICE DOES NOT MEAN ITS RIGHT, CAN CHANGE / FIX GOING FORWARD
You can have open boarders OR a welfare state. You cant have both. Illegals take far more in social services than they give back. Let's not even talk about the crime they bring.
Birthright citizenship doesn’t apply to children of diplomats or children of a hostile invasive force on US territory. They just need to declare the migrants as a hostile invasive force and then birthright citizenship would not apply!
@ doesn’t have to be a military invasion. It says a hostile force on US territory, but it doesn’t say anything about it being an actual military of another country.
@@russiantroubleyakutsk1612 : No. It says if you're born anywhere in the U.S. (including the territories) you are a citizen. Period. There are no cited exceptions. The part that says "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a clarification that the location of birth has to be owned by the government at the time of the birth.
Your argument makes no sense!! Invasive force... Lol. US CITIZENS commit far more damage than immigrants. White collar crimes are in the trillions of dollars in damages, schemes and corporations are the real problem not immigrants. Get educated!
They wanna talk about interpretation of the constitution? Let's start with the 2nd Amendment: the right to bear arms. We've been saying this as Democrats for years, but now when it fits their racist immigration ban, they want to start saying we've been misinterpreting the BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP?! Make it make sense. If they get to pull that line of reasoning on us, we should be able to do it to them.
@@GotoHere1st amendment? The Republicans support banning books, banning the right to burn a flag. 2nd amendment? In Republican states you can still lose gun rights over weed. Black men get shot by the police if they open carry a gun. Republicans are known for supporting cruel punishment. I could go on and on, quit pretending like they care about the Constitution.
How does this prevent families being separated? If one parent is a legal citizen and the other is not does the illegal spouse get to stay as mother of the US citizen? Or how would that work?
What if both are from two different countries, my wife is from Canada, I am from Nicaragua, she is under student visa and me work visa, I can't enter to Canada because they (Canada) has been making my process very difficult, Nicaragua is no doing well and I have a job here and now she is pregnant in 4.5 months! So...what should we do? This must have some options for people who are legally working here.
Reading some of these comments people saying America first are gonna be in for a shock when they find out they’re not safe either. People need to do some research and everyone family tree goes back to an immigrant coming here illegally especially in the early 1800’s and 1900’s hundreds.
Trump is going for birthright citizenship because the supreme court is very much in his favor…im an independent leaning democrat who voted for harris but trump is spot on about all the immigration stuff and I agree birth should not automatically give someone citizenship it should be dependent on on the parents status and if one of the parents has no legal status then the baby takes on the status of that parent
You agree on the immigration stuff but you voted for Kamala that campaigned on a crap bipartisan crap amnesty bill that allowed 5,000 a day and the Democrats have been screaming Mass amnesty for 4 years please don't vote ever again talk politics or do anything cuz you think you understand but you don't
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) is the Supreme Court ruling that determined the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granted birthright citizenship to all persons born in the United States regardless of race or nationality. This case was central in defending Nisei against efforts to take away their citizenship during World War II.
Give the full history. It was intended, rightfully so, to give legal status to the emancipated formerly enslaved and their descendants. It was not intended to cover EVERYONE born in the US. The Supreme Court ruling can be overturned just like the ruling on Roe v. Wade as it should be. We should get rid of dual citizenship too.
Hi, I disagree with you, and here is why. The 1898 case you cited as establishing birth right citizenship parents were permanent residents, second if that case established citizenship than why were Native American not U.S. citizens until 1924 when Congress passed a law to make it so, lastly illegal immigrants even though the men have to sign up for the draft are not actually subject to it, none we're drafted dearing Vietnam war for example. Now I could be wrong and would like to know your opinion.
Hi, I disagree with you, and here is why. The 1898 case that is often cited as establishing birth right citizenship parents were permanent residents, second if that case established citizenship than why were Native American not U.S. citizens until 1924 when Congress passed a law to make it so, lastly illegal immigrants even though the men have to sign up for the draft are not actually subject to it, none we're drafted dearing Vietnam war for example. Now I could be wrong and I would like to know your opinion.
True! I am always frustrated when these media pundits revise history. My grandparents were born in the late 1860s in the Arizona when it was a territory. They were not given US citizenship but Mexico recognized the native people. My father was born in 1924 with US citizenship.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." isn't applicable to undocumented (illegal) or temporary status immigrants; they are subjected to the jurisdiction of their country of origin. The original intent of the 14th amendment of the United States was to establish birthright citizenship to the former African American slaves post Civil War; it was never intended to be utilized as a pathway for undocumented (illegal) or temporary status immigrants to establish legal permanent status and/or birthright citizenship (anchor baby loophole. The original intent of the law has been corrupted. US v Wong Kim Ark 1898 decision was successful because his parents had legal permanent status, although his parents were still subjected to the jurisdiction of their country of origin(CCP). Trump has been game planning this since his first term and will stack the deck even more by the time this reaches the SCOTUS. He is going to replace 2 retiring Justices who will vote in favor of ending birthright citizenship/anchor baby loophole, then using the arguments posted to end birthright citizenship.
This is a great analysis and I agree with you 100%. My parents were LEGAL immigrants from China and went through a very long process to gain legal residency in the USA. I am sure they would have loved to cut in line and cheat the system and come here illegally, but they did not and respected and followed the laws of the USA to get here. I think legal immigration is great for our country, but illegal immigration (and birthright citizenship to illegal immigrants) needs to be stopped.
Melania came into USA legally through a Port of Entry. He wants to end an illegal having a child in USA then claiming citizenship. Do you agree or disagree?
That’s not how it’s going to work. Any child born to at least one illegal parent, will not be given citizenship. It’s actually a very good idea. Ruins the incentive to cross the border.
One parent only needs to be Greencard or citizen... she's fine.. marriage still allows you to obtain citizenship.. why else would someone specifically give birth in the US? if not on a qualifying visa or for marriage/ love then why should that be allowed
If you're being born in the U.S. or any of it's territories, you're under U.S. jurisdiction. It does not matter how the parents entered the country. The only thing that would imply is that the parents are subject to criminal penalties. The child is still a citizen.
@@LovelyDilly630 It will still be the law of the land until it runs through all of the court systems and gets to the SCOTUS which is just what they want. So the corrupt SCOTUS will rule in their favor. If they are smart they will just leave it alone and when the next democratic president gains the office he can merely reverse it with his own executive order.
the comments are disturbing to read Please Guys pay attention let me clear this up the things which was said NOT for Legal Immigrant Its for illegal Legal Immigrant if your wife give birth your child receive citizenship Illegal Migrant if your wife give birth your child shouldn't receive citizenship
No. You got it wrong. If your parents are illegal. You don’t get birthright citizenship. If your parents are LEGAL you don’t get birthright citizenship as well. The only people who will get birthright citizenship are people in specific roles in the US government. Thats what birthright citizenship was originally meant for. You got it wrong. Trump is arguing that birthright citizenship should not have been extended the way it has been and was meant for a specific purpose. Birthright citizenship doesn’t apply to people who are born in the US to parents who are permanent green card holders. Anyone that delivers a baby on a tourist visa, student visa etc will not get birthright citizenship even though the parent is legal in the US. Its more complicated than you think.
@@byefelicia8632 Part of what you said is right " Anyone that delivers a baby on a tourist visa, student visa etc will not get birthright citizenship even though the parent is legal in the US" Legal visit or study that doesn't mean they are Legal Immigrant let me repeat if someone visit your house IS a LEGAL VISITOR IF SOMEONE is part of the FAMILY OF the HOUSE that are CITIZENs LEGAL VISITOR is a VISITOR doesn't get CITIZEN for their kids
But ambassadors are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I'm fairly sure immigrants, regardless of status, are. But I guess we'll find out
This will likely go to the Supreme Court who are the primary interpreters of our Constitution but the text is not the sole criteria. They will determine what the MEANING was at the time the Amendment was enacted which in this case was to prevent the repatriation of slaves and their decendents. The argument seems to boil down to Text vs Purpose then there's the part of 'subject to the jurisdication thereof' that legal experts have a mixed opinion on. Guess we'll find out at some point but wouldn't make any wager either way.
@@hugovargas7411 The constitution is for american citixens , the argument is the consitution doesnt apply to someone who broke the law and is here illegally
They really do. Now they play the victim. No families shouldn't be separated they should go "home " together. Than come back legally. It's that simple.
If the child was born here but the parents are here illegally then the child can stay but the parents must be deported. Or the parents and child can all leave together. And when the child becomes 18 should have the right to return and claim their citizenship. But make no mistake Mommy & Daddy gotta go
Tough one, but if a pregnant mother from elsewhere comes into the country specifically just to have their baby declared an American citizen it seems a bit sneaky. If living here and then having a child, ok. Courts are going to be busy with this one.
The term "naturalized citizen" is bogus to begin with. If you are smart, capable, and is a US citizen by passing a citizenship test, you should not have to be born in the US to run for president. This is why we keep ending up with electing scrub candidates every four years because some of the very talented ones were left out because they're not naturalized citizens.
There are obviously several groups who are excluded from birthright citizenship. If the Chinese army ever invaded American soil as an example. All other invaders must therefore also be excluded.
If you enter the US illegally and commit a crime on US soil you are put on trial in a US cort because you are subject to the jurisdiction of the US, anyone on US soil is subject to the justification of the US. You can't have it both ways where you enforce US laws on US soil and not give birthright citizenship under this amendment
Ok so my primary care doctor, orthodontist & rheumatologist are about to be stripped of their citizenship because they’re all first generation Americans? That sounds ridiculous.
Children born to an American citizen (can be either or both parents) anywhere in the world (you don't need to be born in the US) are citizens. My son is. It's very straightforward.
You might end up biting more than you can chew. We have a saying here which says, if you are praised for running very fast, you should out run the finishing line. You might end up receiving as much hated against the love people showed you
Anyone upset about the executive order needs to read the Slaughterhouse case opinions and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The co-author of the 14th amendment explicitly said “the child cannot be subject to any foreign power”
If the parents are here LEGALLY, the baby is a US citizen. If the parents are here illegally, they are not automatically a US citizen. They are citizens of the country the parents are from.
That is not how the Constitution has been interpreted nor was that President Lincoln's intention. I do agree birthright citizenship is no longer needed. The times are very different now vs when President Lincoln was in the White House.
“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.” Seems pretty clear to me
Anyone who is physically present in the United States is under its jurisdiction, even if there are not here legally, Not under us jurisdiction is someone like a diplomat or their child even thought they are here. They live in essentially a walking bubble of another country. They are here but the are not subject to our laws no matter what they do
Goes to Federal Courts and will end up at Supreme Court. Illegals, undocumented and no residents should not participate to this privilege. Maybe courts will transfer over to Congress. IT IS POSSIBLE TO be ruled. It’s not ending birthright citizenship but changing the interpretation of the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof.". What this means is that it does not revoke or does not need any amendment it just needs to say what this means. If Supreme court says this means only American parents, then that it. So, this is totally possible considering supreme court is controlled by Republicans.
They didn't have airplanes or cars when the 14th amendment was passed. So it's time to update it. Many nations including the UK have updated similar laws.
Dur. We knew it would be challenged. But now we can finally get an answer. What did the writers mean when they said, "Under the jurisdiction thereof". We ALL know exactly what they meant. They meant "If the parents are citizens". Because that's what they said they meant. SCOTUS has never answered this. Lower courts have misinterpreted it. But not SCOTUS.
@BateseAnderson That's what "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means. How do I know? Because the people who wrote the 14th said that is what they meant. It's similar to the 2A. Democrats twist it into knots. But we only need to look at what the writers said they meant. This is the meaning of 14A. You can deny it. You might even get the court to agree with you. But this is 100% what they meant when they wrote it.
As a legal immigrant, now a citizen. I 100% agree to end birth right citizenship. It's bigger than what you think. It took us 15 years to get here. But a lot of tourist goes to US territories just to give birth so their child can get citizenship.
what about people like me who have been living here legally for 10 years? Don't my kids deserve to be US citizens? Should they have to wait for 10-20 years more and apply for work visa after they turn 18? Are you understanding how deep this goes? You want to punish everybody working hard to legally make it hear because of some rich tourists?
Wait, so you are here legally for 10 years, then you had kids prior to the executive order. So what's the problem? Additionally, why you did not apply for citizenship when you could've once you proved that you live here for 5 consecutive years. Ignorance of the Law excuses no one. You had your chance, American dream is not just about coming over here and get jobs, living the life and enjoying the freedom. It's more than that, it's about taking the owning this Great Country, voting, productive citizen so someday our Kids and their kids can continue to live and enjoy the freedom and prosperity that we had.
@tinaareddy aight let me address you, 1. You legally living here for 10 years. - What happen? You can apply for citizenship once you live here for 5 consecutive years. So that's no excuse of why you are not a citizen, clearly, you have your reasons and now it backfired. 2. You kids are not citizen. - the Executive order just came out. Do you have kids now or planning to have kids. You kids now are grandfathered and still a citizen. Now, if you plan to have kids, they can still get citizenship through naturalization, as long as you are here legally. Make sure you pay attention, the order is to stop illegal immigrants and other tourist from using the 14th amendment in acquiring citizenship through birthright.
It’s not explained very clearly. Is this going to be like future kids born after his executive order or people that have already been born to illegal immigrants? Say that child was born to an illegal immigrant, and the child has since grown into an adult and now that adult has their own family
2:25 - Well, we, the People, are going to STOP interpreting it -- that way! And start interpreting it the CORRECT way; the way the founders intended it. And we will NOW require and INSIST that our lawmakers do LIKEWISE; and stop being so LAZY and passive about doing so!
It will be struck down, but it should open avenues for debate and conversation. I don’t support the amendment completely yet I don’t want the law gone. We need to revamp it. 1 legal parent can claim the child , but there should also be mandatory paternity tests in case of fraud. This is an opportunity to have a middle ground and actually work together. Both sides can win, yet both will have to compromise
The only way I see this holding up is if the Supreme Court decides to interpret "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as already being a citizen or LPR.
@@user-tz5uq2bt1s : Well, I imagine the Supreme Court justices can read. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means "our laws apply to you". If U.S. law didn't apply to illegal immigrants, we wouldn't be able to deport them. They would just be able to stay here and hang out forever.
@@davidbertrand7069 : The term "jurisdiction" refers to any place that the U.S. can enforce its laws. They added that part to the 14th amendment to make it clear that it doesn't necessarily have to be a specific state.
Citizens by birth should be ended both on America and Canada. Many people come with different status and the first thing people do is to give birth. This should be given only if the parents are citizens or at least legal residencian status.
Australia does not have this birth right stuff. Not even for permanent residency. For a new born child in Australia to be eligible for permanent residency of Australia, both parents must be permanent residency of Australia
A child born in Australia is automatically an Australian citizen if at least one parent is an Australian citizen or permanent resident. This also applies to children born outside of Australia to an Australian citizen parent. No requirement on 'both'
If a married American couple were working, on holiday in another country, would that country grant their baby citizenship for their county? The answer for the overwhelming majority of countries is NO. So, why should Americans have to give citizenship then???
That is so stupid! these people are idiots! Someone born IS NOT SUBJECT TO ANY JURISDICTION. When there is birth certificate made for such baby, that is when it enters the jurisdiction of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, thus by entering the Jurisdiction of the USA and having been born in the USA = NEW AMERICAN CITIZEN! DUH! Likewise when a birth certificate (by birth or naturalization) is issued ANYWERE = NEW CITIZEN !
Previously, we possessed considerable strength. The distinction lies in the motivation behind the votes. Initially, people supported Trump to effect change in Washington, D.C. Subsequently, their support reflected a deeper alignment with his ideology.
You are misquoting the 14th Amendment. If a pregnant illegal alien gives birth in the United States should that baby become a U.S. citizen at birth? If that issue comes up in a case before The U.S. Supreme Court, it may rule on that Constitutional issue by interpreting the citizenship clause contained in the 14th Amendment. Here is that clause: "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 court may reason that a baby cannot be arrested or jailed or charged with or convicted of a crime. A baby cannot be sued and taken to court for a civil matter. A judge cannot enter judgment against a baby. A baby cannot be ordered to pay a fine or restitution to an injured party. The government cannot even spank a baby or order that it must miss a feeding or a diaper change. And if these things are true, how can that baby be "...subject to the jurisdiction thereof...? And if persons such as that baby do not meet that Constitutional requirement, it follows that they do not become citizens at birth. The illegal alien mother should be deported along with her baby. When the baby grows to a suitable age he or she may decide to legally apply for U.S. citizenship. The U.S. might then award citizenship to that person.
This is going to especially be highly doscriminatory against indians on h1b because of how long they have to wait for green cards. Indiwans wait close to 20 years or more for a green card. By this logic a child would basically study in the usa and then would have to apply for a h1b of thier own to work here. Or basically cannot work until the father or mother get a green card
Neither Congress nor the President can end birthright citizenship because it is guaranteed by the Constitution. The only way to end birthright citizenship would be to amend the Constitution. The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.
There isn’t a good argument for birthright citizenship in 2025. Children of immigrants get the citizenship of their parents. Then when the parents get citizenship, their kids can get it at the same time. All of the sticky situations that come up with stem from birthright citizenship. Separation of DACA families, trafficking of poor pregnant women, etc. This isn’t even a humane policy. I have personally seen birth tourism billboards in China ($10k in 2015) and while living in an offshore financial hub had a coworker who openly had her baby in Miami for the citizenship. It is so grossly abused…
I have been living in the country for 10+ years here legally in a high skilled job and my child will not be a US citizen under the new executive order. So trust me, he is coming after all immigrants. It takes a long time to legally even get a green card and it is not easy for women to give birth after they have attained that status. This is a messed up executive order.
@tinaareddy I lived as an expat for 10 years in 3 different countries. My son was born abroad and he didn’t local citizenship as that is the norm around the world. My sister has lived abroad 20 years in more countries than me and she can’t get citizenship elsewhere. My wife and I thought Singapore could be our forever home but in order to even get PR, we had to commit our son to their mandatory military duties without any promise he would ever be a citizen. Ultimately, we moved home. All of my immigration considerations were for the whole family. As someone who has been in the States for a long time, you are an example of what is wrong with the immigration system as it should be easier. That said, unless the intention is family citizenship via a child, why would you even want to your family members to have different citizenships? Even geopolitical chaos happened, at least your family is together.
They’re called American. Does it make you feel better than them when you through that language around? maybe it dehumanizes them a little so you can sleep sound at night when the day comes where Americans are deported because of the what their parents did?
I’m curious I always wondered why do you dislike anchor babies? What is baby doing to you? Do you think the parents receive aid from the government cause of that baby or guarantee path to citizenship?
A US President CANNOT make an executive order to end a guaranteed Constitutional right.
The US Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship, stating 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.”
@@GotoHeretoo stupid to keep up. I think it is time to strip away voting rights from Americans whom support this kind of nonsense. If u are in USA illegally ( born here or not), u do not have any rights.
The Constitution is a living document. Instead of detention centers. The U.S. could categorize people and groups. Then act as an employment agent for emergency labor. Skilled and unskilled. Then deal with the rest that don’t generate profit. A long term project for both sides of the border. You could use current government and military contractors. Put together bid packages. Like LOGCAP projects.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
I hope we all know that it doesn't matter who is in the 'top job' because this is a systemic problem -- greed. We have allowed many of our economic sectors, to take advantage of the American people. It's disgusting and frightening for the future of our country. My husband and I will be retiring in the next two years n another country. We are absolutely worried that SSI will no longer be funded. we'll have to rely on his pension, a 403 (b) and a very prolific lnvestment account with my Abby Joseph Cohen my FA. Our national debt is bloating and expanding every month. Our government needs to get spending under control and cut the federal budget.
I went from no money to lnvest with to busting my A** off on Uber eats for four months to raise about $20k to start trading with Abby Joseph Cohen. I am at $128k right now and LOVING that you have to bring this up here
How can i reach this Abby Joseph Cohen, if you don't mind me asking? I've known her by her reputation at Goldman Sachs
Well her name is 'ABBY JOSEPH COHEN SERVICES'. Just research the name. You'd find her details to set up an appointment.
Abby Joseph Cohen Services has really set the standard for others to follow, we love her here in Canada 🇨🇦 as she has been really helpful and changed lots of life's
The very first time we tried, we invested $7000 and after a week, we received $9500. That really helped us a lot to pay up our bills.
Expected? No. It will challenged in court. If you’re born in America, you’re a citizen of the United States of America. END OF STORY.
Thank you about time someone has common sense unlike these delusional azz trumpalumpas 🤡
BARRON BELONGS TO Justin Trudeau.😂😂😂
Don’t you want to be more like Europe?
only dumb people end sentence with something like "end of story", even dumber if it's all caps 😂
Its being misused , it was made to make former African slaves into American citizens ,in the 1860s , its technically being misused and if the judges are honest they'll stop it.
I thought it was supposed to be criminals being deported not hard working families that don’t commit crimes.
Birthright citizenship doesn’t have to do with deportation. It has to do with interpreting that law going forward (ie stopping birth tourism, etc).
They all gotta go.
They have enter this country illegally, it is a crime, they have to go. And u go with them asap and live in their country
@@mdawn5665 just how indifferent are you?
🇺🇸. Entering the US illegally is breaking the law. As an American citizen at the Post Office line not allowed to break into the line. 🇺🇸
If he makes this retroactive does that mean he will Deport himself?
Why? Was his father not a an American citizen?
Look what the European immigrants an there descendants did, invent air travel, vehicles, electricity, Internet, the majority of medicine, the first antibiotics witch made the worlds population go 5x with Africa and everyone else stealing from white American culture
@@SeiyaSoiya-un4jjfrom what I hear, apparently it's his grandpa
@eatingyoshi4403
Looks like he was. He immigrated legally. Granted it wasn’t a bureaucratic bloated mess to get citizenship back then like it is now, but all reports are that he was a legal citizen.
Trumps grandfather was born in Germany. His father was born in U.S.
In new York
So?
Yea his grandparents came here Illegally I believe.
@@emamwashingtonsr9280
That’s irrelevant. Were they US citizens? That’s all that matters.
@@SeiyaSoiya-un4jj Its from 2025 onwards. Tell those waiting for green cards to get them before Trump's born😂
What about the legal immigrants ? Who was waiting for the green card in line for years ?
No
thats lega not illegal
@@GotoHerelike you are? Or your ancestors were? Come on! Have some sense to differentiate between the folks who come here lawfully to build a life and contribute to the nations growth vs the ones who just cross the border and cause nuisance
Nobody said anything about Legal immigrants he is not going to do anything against respectful ppl who came legally to the country
@@GotoHere i do agree with tour sentiment here leagl immigration needs to be more restricted as well we have too many poor unskilled people coming here
ok if is the case trump family should go first rigth
People forget about that. His Grandfather was an immigrant.
JD Vances family,and Elon Musk and his 14 kids.
So was trumps mother( Scottish) and 2 of Trump's wives!@@staceysharee9387
@@staceysharee9387the 14th amendment doesn’t exclude immigrants from having children who are US citizens. It only pertains to non-citizens. What’s your point?
Depends if it's a retroactive law
It will be litigated, but that does not mean it will be shot down. Trump would love for it to go to the Supreme Court that he built.
You mad because Democrats failed when they tried to take over the Supreme Court? 🙂
Almost made 250 years. Our Forefathers are turning in their graves.
I actually support this. The Forefathers aren’t around to see how it’s being abused. Illegal immigrants take advantage of this. It’s about we take a big step towards ending illegal immigration.
Our forefathers never intended to give citizenship to illegal immigrants...
completely fake
yeah or founding fathers would be real upset about how much taxes we pay
Not true. The so called forefathers were the cause. They enslaved people. The 14th amendment was explicitly meant to give legal status to newly emancipated enslaved people whose families were in the US for generations before getting their freedom. It was a court case in 1898 that interpreted it to include the children of illegal aliens. Court decisions can be overturned.
The Supreme Court better uphold the Constitution!!!! ITS YOUR JOB!!!! Congress DO YOUR JOB…NONE OF YOU WILL BE BACK IN OFFICE IN TWO YEARS UNLESS YOU START DOING YOUR JOB AND UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!!
Lol. Yes they will.
Good luck they be done next month 😂
Trump has a point. The 14th amendment was written for former slaves over 150 years ago. We have an immigration system for the world, including their babies. If based on interpretation, Trump should win because the 14th amendment was not written for them. Immigration laws were. Why should immigrants enjoy the benefits of black American oppression. But those same immigrants will vote against black Americans getting reparations based off the same oppression of their ancestors. Black Americans should pull for Trump. It’s in their best interests.
It’s a misconstrued interpretation of the 14th amendment
No more birth right citizenship
Are the local news stations going to keep Trump accountable the same way they kept the Biden administration accountable?
DT's grandparents were born in Germany and immigrated to the U.S.
I wonder if they came to the country legally
Yes. They did.
@@SeiyaSoiya-un4jj source: trust me bro.
But they were Christians... finish topic here
No, they did not
@@SeiyaSoiya-un4jj no, they did not
Most nations don’t have this
Most nations in the Western Hemisphere, which share a common history of having population growth through immigration from other parts of the world, do have it though.
Most nations don’t have the US constitution.
@@IncoherentCentristwe should impose restrictions like Europe has done. One of the parents must be a resident or citizen in order to receive citizenship
@@GO-kg2dwwhy?
Ours does
14th ammendment was meant for slaves
Right ,so Trump will won this order I guess ,as h1b visa holders don’t fall under slaves I guess 😂😂
It also was meant to stop insurrectionists but here are anyways.
Yes, the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was intended to grant citizenship to formerly enslaved people and define them as equal citizens under the law. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, three years after the 13th Amendment abolished slavery. bros right
@@anonymoushuman8443 it was also meant to have the US be re-colonized by Britain.
Yeah. And the 2nd amendment was meant for when we didn't have a standing army. Get rid of that one too?
hahaha. he thinks he can change the constitution by executive order. Then the second amendment is one executive order from being history. let's see what the courts say because two can play this game
hes not, the parents arent under the jurisdiction of the US, exactly what the constitution says
Isn’t that exactly what Biden did, try to change it with executive order?
he is changing the interpretation of the constitution
He is just enforcing the law.
No, thats not what's happening.
IF YOU GET RID OF THIS, IT WILL STOP ALOT IMMIGRANTS FROM COMING HERE. NO OTHER COUNTRY DOES THIS.. PAST PRACTICE DOES NOT MEAN ITS RIGHT, CAN CHANGE / FIX GOING FORWARD
You can have open boarders OR a welfare state. You cant have both. Illegals take far more in social services than they give back. Let's not even talk about the crime they bring.
Then start with yourself and go back to Europe
Why should we?
Lots of other countries do it, get an education
If you are born in America, you are a citizen
Anchor babies is a dirty move. Too unfair to tolerate.
birthright citizenship is very uncommon outside of the America continent
So are our gun laws, lets remove them as well!
Ignorant ignorant
Bad justification for dismantling the US Construction. 👎
That isn't true.
No it is not
Isnt Trump a second generation immigrant?
immigrant doesnt mean illegal you cant legally immigrate to this country.
That’s completely irrelevant. His grandfather was an American citizen. Every other major country on the planet practices jus sanguinis, not jus soli.
Birthright citizenship doesn’t apply to children of diplomats or children of a hostile invasive force on US territory. They just need to declare the migrants as a hostile invasive force and then birthright citizenship would not apply!
It's not as simple as you make it sound, but it's not impossible.
I feel like there would be too many gray areas for that to work. It's not a military invasion
@ doesn’t have to be a military invasion. It says a hostile force on US territory, but it doesn’t say anything about it being an actual military of another country.
@@russiantroubleyakutsk1612 : No. It says if you're born anywhere in the U.S. (including the territories) you are a citizen. Period. There are no cited exceptions. The part that says "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a clarification that the location of birth has to be owned by the government at the time of the birth.
Your argument makes no sense!! Invasive force... Lol. US CITIZENS commit far more damage than immigrants. White collar crimes are in the trillions of dollars in damages, schemes and corporations are the real problem not immigrants. Get educated!
They wanna talk about interpretation of the constitution? Let's start with the 2nd Amendment: the right to bear arms. We've been saying this as Democrats for years, but now when it fits their racist immigration ban, they want to start saying we've been misinterpreting the BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP?! Make it make sense. If they get to pull that line of reasoning on us, we should be able to do it to them.
Wouldn't that include his own son Baron? Jd Vance's children?
Are you stupid??? His wife is LEGALLY as American citizen in long time so their children are fine!
I mean, marriage is still an option lol, for gaining citizenship. 🤯
Yes but the father's are citizens. And Usha is a second generation immigrant so already naturalized
Are you high?
No, this is a super dumb question. Barons dad is a citizen. The parents of illegal immigrants children aren't citizens.
That would mean a president can change any amendment
Like democrats trying to change the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 , 6 , 7, 8 , 9 10 and 11 amendments?
@@GotoHere1st amendment? The Republicans support banning books, banning the right to burn a flag. 2nd amendment? In Republican states you can still lose gun rights over weed. Black men get shot by the police if they open carry a gun. Republicans are known for supporting cruel punishment. I could go on and on, quit pretending like they care about the Constitution.
@@GotoHereboth political parties infringe on constitutional rights. Conservative cops love searching your car without a warrant
Why would you want your daughters mother be deported.
They are here legally. He's addressing the illegal aliens.
She won’t be. That’s now how it works
Bye Bye Paco.
Because she's illegal and her kid is on food stamps.
This prevents families being separated. They can can be deported together.
Ok back to Europe for you and your family 😂
That's the point everyone is missing 😅 Tom Homan said it best💯
That's what happened last time trump did this kids went missing mexican human trafficking is real folks
How does this prevent families being separated? If one parent is a legal citizen and the other is not does the illegal spouse get to stay as mother of the US citizen? Or how would that work?
What if both are from two different countries, my wife is from Canada, I am from Nicaragua, she is under student visa and me work visa, I can't enter to Canada because they (Canada) has been making my process very difficult, Nicaragua is no doing well and I have a job here and now she is pregnant in 4.5 months! So...what should we do? This must have some options for people who are legally working here.
Reading some of these comments people saying America first are gonna be in for a shock when they find out they’re not safe either. People need to do some research and everyone family tree goes back to an immigrant coming here illegally especially in the early 1800’s and 1900’s hundreds.
At the very least one of the parents should be a green card holder before the child born can be considered a US citizen.
That’s common sense that most democrats lack.
😂😂😂😂😂😂 the ocean crossers need to go back first since they are the real invaders...
Trump is going for birthright citizenship because the supreme court is very much in his favor…im an independent leaning democrat who voted for harris but trump is spot on about all the immigration stuff and I agree birth should not automatically give someone citizenship it should be dependent on on the parents status and if one of the parents has no legal status then the baby takes on the status of that parent
Same
You agree on the immigration stuff but you voted for Kamala that campaigned on a crap bipartisan crap amnesty bill that allowed 5,000 a day and the Democrats have been screaming Mass amnesty for 4 years please don't vote ever again talk politics or do anything cuz you think you understand but you don't
Birthright citizenship passed in 1868. Fyi. ANYONE BORN WHEN PASSED HAS BEEN DEAD AND WILL ONLY RECEIVE BURIAL RIGHTS. FYI
I'm independent and I agreed. They're invading our country and shouldn't have any rights unless they come here legally.
Exactly right. They are born here illegally because the parents are illegal
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) is the Supreme Court ruling that determined the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granted birthright citizenship to all persons born in the United States regardless of race or nationality. This case was central in defending Nisei against efforts to take away their citizenship during World War II.
Then foster the kids and deport the parents. Better?
Have you looked at the make up of the supreme court today….i think that will be over turned
Give the full history. It was intended, rightfully so, to give legal status to the emancipated formerly enslaved and their descendants. It was not intended to cover EVERYONE born in the US. The Supreme Court ruling can be overturned just like the ruling on Roe v. Wade as it should be. We should get rid of dual citizenship too.
Hi, I disagree with you, and here is why. The 1898 case you cited as establishing birth right citizenship parents were permanent residents, second if that case established citizenship than why were Native American not U.S. citizens until 1924 when Congress passed a law to make it so, lastly illegal immigrants even though the men have to sign up for the draft are not actually subject to it, none we're drafted dearing Vietnam war for example. Now I could be wrong and would like to know your opinion.
Roe v. Wade. 1973-2022. Precedent is irrelevant. Only thing that matters is how the current US Supreme Court interprets the constitution.
It should be stopped in its tracks NOT allowed to advance
President Trump has a mandate. House, senate, presidency and SCOTUS. So sit in the back of the bus, the adults are driving the bus.
You support open-borders, huh? How noble.
Hi, I disagree with you, and here is why. The 1898 case that is often cited as establishing birth right citizenship parents were permanent residents, second if that case established citizenship than why were Native American not U.S. citizens until 1924 when Congress passed a law to make it so, lastly illegal immigrants even though the men have to sign up for the draft are not actually subject to it, none we're drafted dearing Vietnam war for example. Now I could be wrong and I would like to know your opinion.
Wouldn’t this order apply to everyone who isn’t a native american?
It's only for people who are not here lawfully.
Wrong, it has not been this way for hundreds of years.
True! I am always frustrated when these media pundits revise history. My grandparents were born in the late 1860s in the Arizona when it was a territory. They were not given US citizenship but Mexico recognized the native people. My father was born in 1924 with US citizenship.
It's already illegal!!!!
Been on the books decades but our unconstitutional gubmnt choose to ignore it.....
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." isn't applicable to undocumented (illegal) or temporary status immigrants; they are subjected to the jurisdiction of their country of origin.
The original intent of the 14th amendment of the United States was to establish birthright citizenship to the former African American slaves post Civil War; it was never intended to be utilized as a pathway for undocumented (illegal) or temporary status immigrants to establish legal permanent status and/or birthright citizenship (anchor baby loophole. The original intent of the law has been corrupted.
US v Wong Kim Ark 1898 decision was successful because his parents had legal permanent status, although his parents were still subjected to the jurisdiction of their country of origin(CCP).
Trump has been game planning this since his first term and will stack the deck even more by the time this reaches the SCOTUS. He is going to replace 2 retiring Justices who will vote in favor of ending birthright citizenship/anchor baby loophole, then using the arguments posted to end birthright citizenship.
This is a great analysis and I agree with you 100%. My parents were LEGAL immigrants from China and went through a very long process to gain legal residency in the USA. I am sure they would have loved to cut in line and cheat the system and come here illegally, but they did not and respected and followed the laws of the USA to get here. I think legal immigration is great for our country, but illegal immigration (and birthright citizenship to illegal immigrants) needs to be stopped.
Donald Trump WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN TO YOUR WIFE 💀
And kids.Trump's mother is from scotland,came here in the 1920's.Was she a citizen,when he was born?Oh,i forgot,she was white.
Baron Trump no longer a citizen, i guess.
Melania came into USA legally through a Port of Entry. He wants to end an illegal having a child in USA then claiming citizenship. Do you agree or disagree?
That’s not how it’s going to work. Any child born to at least one illegal parent, will not be given citizenship. It’s actually a very good idea. Ruins the incentive to cross the border.
One parent only needs to be Greencard or citizen... she's fine.. marriage still allows you to obtain citizenship.. why else would someone specifically give birth in the US? if not on a qualifying visa or for marriage/ love then why should that be allowed
If the child of the person who is here illegally is not under the jurisdiction of the US(laws) than either is the person who is here illegally.
If you're being born in the U.S. or any of it's territories, you're under U.S. jurisdiction. It does not matter how the parents entered the country. The only thing that would imply is that the parents are subject to criminal penalties. The child is still a citizen.
It is absolutely bizarre that they do not see that fatal flaw in their argument
@@Watermelon_Man92not that won’t be true pretty soon. Thank goodnessn
@@LovelyDilly630 It will still be the law of the land until it runs through all of the court systems and gets to the SCOTUS which is just what they want. So the corrupt SCOTUS will rule in their favor. If they are smart they will just leave it alone and when the next democratic president gains the office he can merely reverse it with his own executive order.
Incorrect, everyone is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. law and U.S. constitution .
Let’s start with Elon musk, his children, Usha Vance and her children, Melania Trump and her kids..
They are here legally. This issue is about illegal aliens.
And ivana(deceased)and her kids,ivanka,eric and don jr.
All of those people are legal citizens. Let the child be a citizen but their parents shouldn't just get to stay here because they broke the law.
That would be Barron
It’s not because his mom came to America legally. This is for illegal immigrants
Barron Trump was born in New York with a father who was an American citizen.
No he wasn't he's an illegal😂
the comments are disturbing to read
Please Guys pay attention let me clear this up the things which was said NOT for Legal Immigrant Its for illegal
Legal Immigrant if your wife give birth your child receive citizenship
Illegal Migrant if your wife give birth your child shouldn't receive citizenship
No. You got it wrong. If your parents are illegal. You don’t get birthright citizenship. If your parents are LEGAL you don’t get birthright citizenship as well. The only people who will get birthright citizenship are people in specific roles in the US government. Thats what birthright citizenship was originally meant for. You got it wrong. Trump is arguing that birthright citizenship should not have been extended the way it has been and was meant for a specific purpose. Birthright citizenship doesn’t apply to people who are born in the US to parents who are permanent green card holders. Anyone that delivers a baby on a tourist visa, student visa etc will not get birthright citizenship even though the parent is legal in the US. Its more complicated than you think.
I am legal immigrant and effects me. Please try reading and reviewing it again. It says all Visas!
@@tinaareddy I'm confused you are saying Visas ? Visa means you are legally visiting not legal Immigrant
@@byefelicia8632 Part of what you said is right " Anyone that delivers a baby on a tourist visa, student visa etc will not get birthright citizenship even though the parent is legal in the US"
Legal visit or study that doesn't mean they are Legal Immigrant let me repeat if someone visit your house IS a LEGAL VISITOR
IF SOMEONE is part of the FAMILY OF the HOUSE that are CITIZENs
LEGAL VISITOR is a VISITOR doesn't get CITIZEN for their kids
When did the presidential order become a law??
But ambassadors are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I'm fairly sure immigrants, regardless of status, are. But I guess we'll find out
This will likely go to the Supreme Court who are the primary interpreters of our Constitution but the text is not the sole criteria. They will determine what the MEANING was at the time the Amendment was enacted which in this case was to prevent the repatriation of slaves and their decendents. The argument seems to boil down to Text vs Purpose then there's the part of 'subject to the jurisdication thereof' that legal experts have a mixed opinion on. Guess we'll find out at some point but wouldn't make any wager either way.
We can make the same argument for the second amendment then.
This should end, as people abuse this.
No it’s in the U S constitution so is a right
@@hugovargas7411Not when they're here invading a Country.
@@hugovargas7411 The constitution is for american citixens , the argument is the consitution doesnt apply to someone who broke the law and is here illegally
They really do. Now they play the victim. No families shouldn't be separated they should go "home " together. Than come back legally. It's that simple.
@@hugovargas7411 constitution could be changed it has many times
If the child was born here but the parents are here illegally then the child can stay but the parents must be deported. Or the parents and child can all leave together. And when the child becomes 18 should have the right to return and claim their citizenship. But make no mistake Mommy & Daddy gotta go
Tough one, but if a pregnant mother from elsewhere comes into the country specifically just to have their baby declared an American citizen it seems a bit sneaky. If living here and then having a child, ok. Courts are going to be busy with this one.
NO MORE anchor babies.
That’s never gonna end no matter how angry and stupid you are.
You are also an anchor baby.Go back to ireland!!!
@@williamshaw5388but it’ll become illegal.
Lol!! You're included as well as 98% of America !
@@williamshaw5388 It literally just ended😂😂😂
So Baron Trump is a Slovenia😂😂
It only takes a little bit of critical thinking. Try it.
So dementia Joe Biden is Irish, deport dementia Joe. Alzheimer’s Joe announced he’s Irish many times.
You know is father is American right.
@tobiisiba1641 yea. It's just a joke
The term "naturalized citizen" is bogus to begin with. If you are smart, capable, and is a US citizen by passing a citizenship test, you should not have to be born in the US to run for president. This is why we keep ending up with electing scrub candidates every four years because some of the very talented ones were left out because they're not naturalized citizens.
The word is "naturalized" not "neutralized"
It's to prevent people like Musk from running for president.
I wouldn’t want a President that was naturalized… sorry…
@@gata683 One single vote of how many?.........
This is what makes America beautiful, I think it is fundamental for our rights.
Of course you do slob.
There are obviously several groups who are excluded from birthright citizenship. If the Chinese army ever invaded American soil as an example. All other invaders must therefore also be excluded.
If you enter the US illegally and commit a crime on US soil you are put on trial in a US cort because you are subject to the jurisdiction of the US, anyone on US soil is subject to the justification of the US. You can't have it both ways where you enforce US laws on US soil and not give birthright citizenship under this amendment
The free slaves is the reason why the 14th amendment were reading.I know europeans that was here
Ok so my primary care doctor, orthodontist & rheumatologist are about to be stripped of their citizenship because they’re all first generation Americans? That sounds ridiculous.
It's not going to be retroactive.
What about his kids? ..
All of their mothers apart from Tiffany aren’t American
@@fhxssmh are there trumps children or not.
Children born to an American citizen (can be either or both parents) anywhere in the world (you don't need to be born in the US) are citizens. My son is. It's very straightforward.
It was changed in 1924 and he can change it back to its original form.
You might end up biting more than you can chew. We have a saying here which says, if you are praised for running very fast, you should out run the finishing line. You might end up receiving as much hated against the love people showed you
Anyone upset about the executive order needs to read the Slaughterhouse case opinions and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The co-author of the 14th amendment explicitly said “the child cannot be subject to any foreign power”
Well, if you are NOT subject to the jurisdiction of then ... you can't be deported or arrested in any way. Obviously, that's not the case.
If the parents are here LEGALLY, the baby is a US citizen. If the parents are here illegally, they are not automatically a US citizen. They are citizens of the country the parents are from.
No
Current EO says otherwise.
Wrong.
That is not how the Constitution has been interpreted nor was that President Lincoln's intention. I do agree birthright citizenship is no longer needed. The times are very different now vs when President Lincoln was in the White House.
The 14th amendment disagrees with you
“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.”
Seems pretty clear to me
Get a visa and come here so you can see your daughter it’s not good to want bad for someone
The executive order clearly says all VISAs. That means legal immigrants!
When is Barron going back home?
Anyone who is physically present in the United States is under its jurisdiction, even if there are not here legally, Not under us jurisdiction is someone like a diplomat or their child even thought they are here. They live in essentially a walking bubble of another country. They are here but the are not subject to our laws no matter what they do
Goes to Federal Courts and will end up at Supreme Court. Illegals, undocumented and no residents should not participate to this privilege. Maybe courts will transfer over to Congress. IT IS POSSIBLE TO be ruled. It’s not ending birthright citizenship but changing the interpretation of the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof.". What this means is that it does not revoke or does not need any amendment it just needs to say what this means. If Supreme court says this means only American parents, then that it. So, this is totally possible considering supreme court is controlled by Republicans.
Just like “militia” in the 2nd amendment?
No birthright citizenship!
Should have never been💯🙌
Good luck 😂 yall some idiots
@@HaveMercy1964-u8wright on mama did good right on time thanks mom
They didn't have airplanes or cars when the 14th amendment was passed. So it's time to update it. Many nations including the UK have updated similar laws.
Dur. We knew it would be challenged. But now we can finally get an answer.
What did the writers mean when they said, "Under the jurisdiction thereof". We ALL know exactly what they meant. They meant "If the parents are citizens". Because that's what they said they meant.
SCOTUS has never answered this. Lower courts have misinterpreted it. But not SCOTUS.
But it doesn't say "if the parents are legal citizens" in the constitution. Your twisting words around.
@BateseAnderson That's what "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means.
How do I know? Because the people who wrote the 14th said that is what they meant. It's similar to the 2A. Democrats twist it into knots. But we only need to look at what the writers said they meant.
This is the meaning of 14A. You can deny it. You might even get the court to agree with you. But this is 100% what they meant when they wrote it.
Children born here can be US citizens but doesn't mean that the parents have to stay here.
As a legal immigrant, now a citizen. I 100% agree to end birth right citizenship. It's bigger than what you think. It took us 15 years to get here. But a lot of tourist goes to US territories just to give birth so their child can get citizenship.
what about people like me who have been living here legally for 10 years? Don't my kids deserve to be US citizens? Should they have to wait for 10-20 years more and apply for work visa after they turn 18? Are you understanding how deep this goes? You want to punish everybody working hard to legally make it hear because of some rich tourists?
Wait, so you are here legally for 10 years, then you had kids prior to the executive order. So what's the problem? Additionally, why you did not apply for citizenship when you could've once you proved that you live here for 5 consecutive years. Ignorance of the Law excuses no one. You had your chance, American dream is not just about coming over here and get jobs, living the life and enjoying the freedom. It's more than that, it's about taking the owning this Great Country, voting, productive citizen so someday our Kids and their kids can continue to live and enjoy the freedom and prosperity that we had.
@tinaareddy aight let me address you,
1. You legally living here for 10 years.
- What happen? You can apply for citizenship once you live here for 5 consecutive years. So that's no excuse of why you are not a citizen, clearly, you have your reasons and now it backfired.
2. You kids are not citizen.
- the Executive order just came out. Do you have kids now or planning to have kids. You kids now are grandfathered and still a citizen. Now, if you plan to have kids, they can still get citizenship through naturalization, as long as you are here legally.
Make sure you pay attention, the order is to stop illegal immigrants and other tourist from using the 14th amendment in acquiring citizenship through birthright.
It’s not explained very clearly. Is this going to be like future kids born after his executive order or people that have already been born to illegal immigrants? Say that child was born to an illegal immigrant, and the child has since grown into an adult and now that adult has their own family
2:25 - Well, we, the People, are going to STOP interpreting it -- that way! And start interpreting it the CORRECT way; the way the founders intended it. And we will NOW require and INSIST that our lawmakers do LIKEWISE; and stop being so LAZY and passive about doing so!
Get rid of it!
Agree
Never
🇺🇸. Democrats favor poverty individuals because it’s easier to rip their vote. 🇺🇸
For that to work, the US needs to remove that "Jus Soli" principle from their Law.
She’s not. American.
It will be struck down, but it should open avenues for debate and conversation. I don’t support the amendment completely yet I don’t want the law gone. We need to revamp it. 1 legal parent can claim the child , but there should also be mandatory paternity tests in case of fraud. This is an opportunity to have a middle ground and actually work together. Both sides can win, yet both will have to compromise
There is no compromise Trump is assaulting the constitution. The president does not have the authority to do what he did
The only way I see this holding up is if the Supreme Court decides to interpret "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as already being a citizen or LPR.
@@user-tz5uq2bt1s : Well, I imagine the Supreme Court justices can read. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means "our laws apply to you". If U.S. law didn't apply to illegal immigrants, we wouldn't be able to deport them. They would just be able to stay here and hang out forever.
And they very well could. Why is that line there at all if that’s not what it means?
@@davidbertrand7069 : The term "jurisdiction" refers to any place that the U.S. can enforce its laws. They added that part to the 14th amendment to make it clear that it doesn't necessarily have to be a specific state.
Citizens by birth should be ended both on America and Canada. Many people come with different status and the first thing people do is to give birth. This should be given only if the parents are citizens or at least legal residencian status.
Australia does not have this birth right stuff. Not even for permanent residency. For a new born child in Australia to be eligible for permanent residency of Australia, both parents must be permanent residency of Australia
Crazy how we're not talking about Australia, are we mate?
Who cares about austraylia go fight a kangaroo or something
Who tf wants to live in Australia ?😂😂 that’s why they come to the US
Your name suits you just fine
A child born in Australia is automatically an Australian citizen if at least one parent is an Australian citizen or permanent resident. This also applies to children born outside of Australia to an Australian citizen parent.
No requirement on 'both'
If a married American couple were working, on holiday in another country, would that country grant their baby citizenship for their county? The answer for the overwhelming majority of countries is NO. So, why should Americans have to give citizenship then???
Take it to the Supreme Court and he’s gonna win!
Lol! Slaves let themselves be enslaved for 400 years! Didn't do anything about it. Embarrassing!
That is so stupid! these people are idiots! Someone born IS NOT SUBJECT TO ANY JURISDICTION. When there is birth certificate made for such baby, that is when it enters the jurisdiction of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, thus by entering the Jurisdiction of the USA and having been born in the USA = NEW AMERICAN CITIZEN! DUH! Likewise when a birth certificate (by birth or naturalization) is issued ANYWERE = NEW CITIZEN !
Its already so long since it being implement, to me its fair to take it back moving forward
Previously, we possessed considerable strength. The distinction lies in the motivation behind the votes. Initially, people supported Trump to effect change in Washington, D.C. Subsequently, their support reflected a deeper alignment with his ideology.
You are misquoting the 14th Amendment.
If a pregnant illegal alien gives birth in the United States should that baby become a U.S. citizen at birth?
If that issue comes up in a case before The U.S. Supreme Court, it may rule on that Constitutional issue by interpreting the citizenship clause contained in the 14th Amendment.
Here is that clause:
"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 court may reason that a baby cannot be arrested or jailed or charged with or convicted of a crime. A baby cannot be sued and taken to court for a civil matter. A judge cannot enter judgment against a baby. A baby cannot be ordered to pay a fine or restitution to an injured party. The government cannot even spank a baby or order that it must miss a feeding or a diaper change. And if these things are true, how can that baby be "...subject to the jurisdiction thereof...? And if persons such as that baby do not meet that Constitutional requirement, it follows that they do not become citizens at birth.
The illegal alien mother should be deported along with her baby. When the baby grows to a suitable age he or she may decide to legally apply for U.S. citizenship. The U.S. might then award citizenship to that person.
isn't this the way Trumps family become Americans?
Trump should update the constitution every 2 weeks to patch it.
He can sign whatever orders he wants. Is it gonna be valid? Good luck with that
No its gonna end up in the courts and likely the supreme court and you can expect them to reimagine the 14th amendment in contrast to past ruling s
The former slave kids won't them go the 14th amendment. Do not apply to them.
Huh?
Is that you dementia Joe commenting on RUclips?
@@GotoHere ikr!
This is going to especially be highly doscriminatory against indians on h1b because of how long they have to wait for green cards.
Indiwans wait close to 20 years or more for a green card.
By this logic a child would basically study in the usa and then would have to apply for a h1b of thier own to work here.
Or basically cannot work until the father or mother get a green card
Just be glad Trump closed this loophole.
Neither Congress nor the President can end birthright citizenship because it is guaranteed by the Constitution. The only way to end birthright citizenship would be to amend the Constitution. The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.
There isn’t a good argument for birthright citizenship in 2025. Children of immigrants get the citizenship of their parents. Then when the parents get citizenship, their kids can get it at the same time. All of the sticky situations that come up with stem from birthright citizenship. Separation of DACA families, trafficking of poor pregnant women, etc. This isn’t even a humane policy.
I have personally seen birth tourism billboards in China ($10k in 2015) and while living in an offshore financial hub had a coworker who openly had her baby in Miami for the citizenship. It is so grossly abused…
I have been living in the country for 10+ years here legally in a high skilled job and my child will not be a US citizen under the new executive order. So trust me, he is coming after all immigrants. It takes a long time to legally even get a green card and it is not easy for women to give birth after they have attained that status. This is a messed up executive order.
Thats not accurate youre info is wrong is very minimum people who do that 😂😂😂😂
@tinaareddy I lived as an expat for 10 years in 3 different countries. My son was born abroad and he didn’t local citizenship as that is the norm around the world. My sister has lived abroad 20 years in more countries than me and she can’t get citizenship elsewhere. My wife and I thought Singapore could be our forever home but in order to even get PR, we had to commit our son to their mandatory military duties without any promise he would ever be a citizen. Ultimately, we moved home.
All of my immigration considerations were for the whole family. As someone who has been in the States for a long time, you are an example of what is wrong with the immigration system as it should be easier. That said, unless the intention is family citizenship via a child, why would you even want to your family members to have different citizenships? Even geopolitical chaos happened, at least your family is together.
@CalmBuffalo-gk3fi lol, yep so few that even my brother-in-law is planning to have his next kid born in California in June😂
@ronnietruman7296 ok 👍
What is the argument for keeping birthright citizenship (whether it changes or not)? I’m looking for actual non-biased comments.
Finally some common sense
@@IC941 We are the party of Common Sense 🙌 Welcome back President Trump. He was missed very much.
Anchor babies. They're called anchor babies.
They’re called American. Does it make you feel better than them when you through that language around? maybe it dehumanizes them a little so you can sleep sound at night when the day comes where Americans are deported because of the what their parents did?
I’m curious I always wondered why do you dislike anchor babies? What is baby doing to you? Do you think the parents receive aid from the government cause of that baby or guarantee path to citizenship?
@@bulld9646 Unfortunately yes. A way people have found to manipulate the system. Now the system is fighting back. Welcome back Donald Trump👋
A US President CANNOT make an executive order to end a guaranteed Constitutional right.
The US Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship, stating 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.”
It’s not a constitutional right if you’re in the country illegally. Try to keep up.
@@GotoHeretoo stupid to keep up. I think it is time to strip away voting rights from Americans whom support this kind of nonsense. If u are in USA illegally ( born here or not), u do not have any rights.
@@GotoHereThe newborn is not in the country illegally and is subject to American Jurisdiction
The Constitution is a living document.
Instead of detention centers.
The U.S. could categorize people and groups. Then act as an employment agent for emergency labor. Skilled and unskilled.
Then deal with the rest that don’t generate profit.
A long term project for both sides of the border.
You could use current government and military contractors. Put together bid packages. Like LOGCAP projects.
Too bad its not a constitutional protected right.
There is a happy medium. Require people to opt in or out on 18th birthday like UK
How far back will it go?
I live in El Paso, see this crap all the time, tired of it….no more anchor kids…😊
Maybe, Alfonso, they should have closed the border before YOUR family came here!
😂😂😂😂 no mames you a sell outs whitewashed 😂😂😂😂😂
💯
I agree either way you!!!!