Doesn't matter. It was a bad decision. It opens the door for foreign adversaries to plant people in our system, all the way up to the president, simply by taking an airplane ride at month 9. The entire thing needs to be reversed.
@Rajesh Don't lie. LEGAL IMMIGRANTS who give birth here their children are LEGAL CITIZENS! ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS are still LEGALLY citizens of their own homeland (ex. Mexico, China, etc.) and their children CANNOT become LEGAL until the parents go through the LEGAL PROCESS!!! So just having children ILLEGALLY in our country, does NOT make the parents or the child LEGAL!
@@RajeshKumar-xv9bgWrong. Children born to at least ONE parent who is a lawful permanent resident (green card holders) are American citizens. Did you even read the Executive order? It's on The White House website.
@@TopoftheBottomoftheTop there are legal immigrants who don't have green card. F1,J1,H1 and many others. They will be denied per the order. It takes years, sometimes more than 10 years to get a green card
Its also important to note that when 14th amendment was introduced native americans were not given citizenship because they were living on tribal lands were not considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States at that time, as they were regarded as members of sovereign nations. Native Americans were seen as belonging to their own tribal nations, which were considered separate political entities. The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was interpreted to exclude individuals who owed allegiance to another government, including tribal governments. The framers of the amendment understood jurisdiction to mean more than mere physical presence; it implied full allegiance to the laws and authority of the United States. When it comes to the supreme court case "US vs Wong Kim Ark, Wong Kim Ark’s parents were legal residents of the United States, having been admitted under treaties that allowed Chinese laborers to live and work in the country. They were lawfully domiciled in the United States and therefore subject to its jurisdiction in the fullest sense. In contrast, illegal migrants by definition, are not lawfully present in the United States and have violated immigration laws to enter or remain in the country. This distinction is crucial. The Court’s decision in Wong Kim Ark was based on the premise that his parents had established lawful ties to the United States, a factor absent in cases involving illegal migrants.
It's actually really crazy to think that being within our borders makes a person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Imagine I was vacationing in Finland, which has mandatory military conscription; could I be conscripted? Of course not, I'm not under the jurisdiction of the Finnish government. Wouldn't it also be pretty crazy if I had a child while in Finland, and that child was then a Finnish citizen?
If that is true Trump's EO goes against this. H1B, F1, L, J visa holders are subject to US laws and they have to pay taxes. They are given visas because agreed to these lawful ties.
@@botto1619not to mention you are subject to the laws of a country while visiting. Thats why if you commit a crime in a country they can arrest and imprison you. So it seems you are subject to their jurisdiction for some things but not others. As the person above used in their Finland sample, citing they wouldn’t be conscripted for military service. However if they robbed someone while in Finland they would be arrest and prosecuted.
No they are "lawfully present", you're mixing up the colloquial term 'lawfully' to mean 'not in violation of criminal law'. If they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States then they could not be charged with any federal crime such as owning an untaxed machine gun or smuggling federally regulated narcotics. That is the case with the staff of foreign embassies who have diplomatic immunity, they aren't subject to US jurisdiction, even if one is caught spying they can only be returned home not lawfully punished in any way. "The Court’s decision in Wong Kim Ark was based on the premise that his parents had established lawful ties to the United States" That may be a fact but it's also a fact that his name was Wong so therefore this doesn't apply to any other Chinese person without the name Wong? You can't just say that a fact existed in a case so therefore that's the pivotal fact. I think the case was pivotal on the wording of the 14th amendment on birth and how he obviously was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. He could not violate federal law like violate excise tax laws and claim he wasn't subject to US jurisdiction.
@@Treblaine "That may be a fact but it's also a fact that his name was Wong so therefore this doesn't apply to any other Chinese person without the name Wong? You can't just say that a fact existed in a case so therefore that's the pivotal fact." WHAT?? That made NO sense at all, especially along your argument. Or is this your attempt at making a really poor racist joke? Either way, it discredited you argument.
Unfortunately, current legal precedent is grey here. SCOTUS will likely need to rule on this. I think it's clear that birthright citizenship applies to children of legal aliens. However, birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens seems counter to the spirit of the 14th amendment to me.
It most certainly is. Those other groups trying to use amendments that were established for blacks, need to go and fight their own battles and get their own laws and see how easy it is for them to do in a country like the USA. I love America, but too many imimigrants here don't know the history and simultaneously want to step on black americans while trying to use all the rights we fought for.
So the parents have to be here legally and have a permanent residence before a child is a citizen. That I can see, but someone who is pregnant and enters illegally and has a baby isn’t a citizen. This is good to know.
Actually, EVERYONE and ANYONE who is born in the U.S. is granted automatic citizenship. And this is why so many of these new immigrants have children so that their kids have the natural right, and that qualifies them for benefits and everything. At 18, they can apply for the parents to become green card holders or residents!
Well, whatever, let's get it to the Supreme Court and get it clarified. It seems to me that people who come here illegally shouldn't necessarily benefit from all the laws of the land. But let's get it cleared up.
This is like the visa program. It was written for a very specific purpose, but has been getting abused for decades. And of course, like everything else because the left controls culture and controls the education system. Most people are not very intelligent and they are brainwashed. The purpose of the 14th amendment was to give citizenship to the children of slaves. at the time they had no clue that women in Asia or other parts of the world could get on a boat. I get on an airplane and come here and then a few weeks later give birth and use that as a way to cheat the immigration system. And that’s what people have been doing for decades. Just like the H1B visa program. It was created for a very specific purpose back in 1990. But it is being royally abused. We should not throw it out, but we definitely need to reform it and make sure it is only being used for its original intended purpose.
It is so disrespectful for all of these people to take advantage of laws that were put in the constitution for slaves but yet the descendants of slaves can’t benefit from the laws their ancestors fought for. We are still fighting to be American
Our country is in full-blown immigration crisis and birthright citizenship is being widely abused. It's EXACTLY time for a moratorium on birthright citizenship.
Immigration crisis? Yeah sorry but no. There have been illegals here since the beginning of America. Illegals arent the ones raising my rent. Inceeasing my taxes. Forcing me to recite the bible. Etc.
An undocumented immigrant having a baby, sometimes called an "anchor baby," is considered to be breaking the law simply by being in the country. Many laws do not protect people in the process of committing a crime. It could be argued that this person should not have the same legal rights as a citizen or someone who has legal residency and is in the process of becoming a citizen.
A child who is born has not and cannot commit a crime. Crime of the parent doesn't extend to the child. A child also cannot sponsor their parents. It will require them to reach adulthood before they can legally sponsor their parents.
The documents they don't have are legal documents they are illegal immigrants. But if that term is offensive, I will start using "invading colonizers". Twenty million crossed the border undocumented in four years during the democrat endorsed, Soros funded mass invasion. No more politically correct terms, just correct terms. Ask the little girls of Britian what political correctness has done for them
@ I’m not talking about laws concerning crimes. I’m talking about the rights and privileges granted by the Constitution. There are privileges (e.g. voting) that people here legally who aren’t citizens don’t have. Again, I don’t see why the Constitution would apply to people here illegally.
Senator Jacob Howard, on the Congressional record, said the Amendment did not include 'foreigners.' But, regardless, our laws cannot bind us to allow criminals to determine what we do. The idea that someone can sneak into the country and drop a baby, and our hands our tied, is RIDICULOUS. No. No. No. A person needs one citizen parent to be a citizen.
Agreed! An illegal alien IS.a foreigner or a foreign.national; NOT an "immigrant, migrant, nor undocumented person/resident." I CANNOT stand and loathe all who perpetuate this false equivalence either out of malice or sheer stupidity. Neither is a an attribute to be proud of.
I am an American by birth and I also have lived outside the US. I can tell you firsthand that many foreigners look to date Americans for the sole purpose of getting pregnant and then crossing the border to give birth. I believe a person born in the US should only be an American if one of the child's parents is an American. So a Canadian who meets a Mexican in NYC should not be able to have American citizen children. The same should happen if a French couple moves to the US for work. No American parent should mean no US citizenship. I would also like to add an English language fluency requirement to become a US citizen. No English, no citizenship. It is way too easy to become an American. The entire process should take decades and not just a few years.
@@el_ra And the ones who jump the line need to stop being rewarded for it. Maybe the process would be quicker for the honest people if less criminal colonizers were mucking up the system.
@@DomSchiavoni The left relaxed us into a 20 million people invasion. There is some beef there. Sorry the laws seem "uptight" to you. Letting criminals and mental patients in makes lives even shorter for American taxpayers.
In the real world, a private citizen, no matter how well informed and educated, does not decide what an Amendment means or not. Technically she should write, in my opinion, the 14th does not guarantee Birthright Citizenship and here's why I think the Supreme Court will rule this way. I'm amazed how often Americans think all legal problems are defined not the Supreme Court but by popular opinion. Perhaps in the long run, but not in the short run. I don't know or have an opinion. But I do know that prior to around the 1880's a ton of illegal immigrants came here and nobody noticed. It's up to our Supreme Court. Both sides have a fair argument to my thinking.
It's very simple. Birthright advocates want to ignore the jurisdiction qualifier in the amendment. If that qualifier has no meaning, why was it included in the wording????
Ya… but this lady did a horrible job of explaining her case in basic English and used a bunch of legal terminology which leaves me even more confused about her argument.
It's insane that this was ever accepted as logical. One of the most fundamental aspects of being a country is that the country can decide who is a citizen of said country.
Ludicrous to think a pregnant tourist passing through the states has their baby in the states and then that baby is the citizen of the US, which other country allows that?
Canada. And it's more about the basic dignity of people... Anyone used to be able to just come to the US when the 14th Amendment was passed. It's only since WW2 that everyone needs papers, and needs to prove ownership by one government or the other to have any rights.
I believe Native Americans were not American citizens on the whole until the Coolidge administration. So not everyone born on US soil was an American citizen, despite this Amendment. So it was not believed at the time that everyone born in the US was automatically an American citizen. If anyone reads my post, I would like to hear this issue discussed.
Native Americans had their own lands and treaties and nations…so no they weren’t born on American soil yet… This is bad policy. You don’t want to give government more power especially letting them decide who is/isn’t a citizen. This type of argument is what the left does about guns.
I would reply that neither the Executive, Legislative, Judicial branches of the government thought if it should be challenged. Native Americans, freed slaves, Asians, whomever were 'naturally' not meant or implied in the amendment.
06:12 "permanent domicile" should, of course make a "citizen". But "residency" does not exclude "freedom of movement". If that were so, Americans would lose their citizenship after a long stay in another country. It's a wholly irrational idea.
The term LPR is going to be very important in court and briefings, as well as any prior case rulings. I appreciate the articulation of this woman. I do not disagree. I think it is a good idea for people to read prior cases and use critical thinking before digging in heels. LPR = legal permanent resident.
Slaves who were being used as illegal voters for the south upon getting their freedom and as former slaves of the defeated Confederacy came under the jurisdiction of the winning participant and the 14 amendment was to make whole those 3/4 citizens with limited voting rights as their masters could only cast their votes and for who the master wanted, those 3/4 people were made whole citizens with full voting rights and their descendants, this was nothing about immigration, the Chinese businesses finance the legal challenge at the time to make it about immigration and that ruling was wrong. Because the 14 amendment was not about immigration because the slaves were not immigrants they were property that was eventually given status as a 3/4 person for political rights of the Southern states and the northern states counted them as a full citizen with full voting rights and their descendants.
The drafters of the 14th Amendment, particularly Senator Jacob Howard and Senator Lyman Trumbull, provided insight into the amendment's intent during the Congressional debates in 1866. Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the Citizenship Clause, stated that it was intended to ensure that "every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States" would be considered a citizen. Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, noted that the clause would extend citizenship to "all persons born in the United States, without reference to the color or the blood of their parents." These statements, along with other Congressional records and historical accounts, suggest that the drafters intended the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause to guarantee birthright citizenship, regardless of parental citizenship or immigration status.
The Congressional Globe, which contains the official record of the Congressional debates, provides valuable insights into the intentions of the drafters. The Globe shows that the drafters of the 14th Amendment, including Senator Jacob Howard and Senator Lyman Trumbull, repeatedly emphasized that the Citizenship Clause was intended to guarantee birthright citizenship to all persons born in the United States, regardless of their parents' citizenship or immigration status. Additionally, the Globe contains statements from other members of Congress, such as Senator Lot Morrill and Representative John Bingham, who also expressed support for the idea that the Citizenship Clause was intended to guarantee birthright citizenship. These statements, along with the statements of Howard and Trumbull, provide strong evidence of the intent of the 14th Amendment. "I see three possibilities. First, the knifers could stop being fratricidal, stop being leftist and learn something about the true basis for conservative principles, so that they stop becoming hysterical over silly errors arising from their own false understanding. Second, one side or the other will take control of the tent and kick the others out. Third, all this continued acrimony might destroy the tent, causing us all to scatter and regroup in more stable and like-minded coalitions." - Michael Anton
@@DrSanity7777777 Explain why the phrase "and subject to the laws of the U.S." was included in the Amendment after the phrase "born in the U.S." Why not just state that anyone born here is a U.S. citizen, if that was the intent.
@@hollyprice4351 I agree that "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States is an additional requirement to simple birth. But everyone in the U.S. physically is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. EXCEPT diplomats and enemy combatants.
07:20 - There is still a massive problem with this "prospective" reasoning. The "national blood" theory is difficult to uphold, even though countries like Germany and Israel seem to embrace the idea. It is a problem of defining "blood" or "race" - which doesn't even really work for Israel, as there were many converted societies and kingdoms in the Jewish line. It certainly shouldn't apply to Germany, because the German "language group" is highly admixed genetically. And, absolutely, America is an even more mixed society of many other, already "mixed" origins.
The "total, complete allegiance to the US" thing is nonsense... Few Americans have such allegiance... Not even that many US military have such allegiance. Many elected representatives, obviously do not have such allegiance to any great degree. At the time when the 14th Amendment was passed... Pretty much anyone could still just come to the US on a boat and make a life in the US. That's how people like Andrew Carnegie got here. And his family came for the sake of "better economic opportunities". There was no elaborate immigration process to limit who did or did not get to come to "the land of the free".
Imagine thinking the 2nd amendment is absolute but not the 14th. Also "well regulated" in the militia part seems to be left out when talking about it on the right.
@@thorkagemob1297please explain what a well regulated malita is. Wouldn't said milita, being so regulated as you suggest, be incapable of functioning as a malita?
Acquiring citizenship legally is usually a decades long process. Most people who become naturalized citizens are on some kind of a temporary visa before becoming permanent residents and eventually citizens. So usually people at the child bearing age of 20s and early 30s are not yet permanent residents and still on some temporary visa. Should their children be denied citizenship ? Just because they have not past the necessary hurdles one needs to cross in order to become a citizen yet ?
It is a common misconception that US government is housing and feeding all legal immigrants. The basic condition for legal immigration is 'Are you going to support yourself or depend on the state for welfare ?' . It is impossible to legally have a path to citizenship if you have utilized any governmental welfare. It's called public charge rule. The thing people get wrong is this notion that legal immigrants take from the economy. While that's not true in most cases.
@@bluebird3281 It is a common misconception that all legal immigrants depend on the state welfare. That's not true at all. The basic condition for legal immigration is actually the opposite. The question that gets asked in the immigration process is 'Are you going to support yourself and contribute to the economy or take from it ?'. If the answer is the latter, immigration is not possible today in most cases. This basically punishes people who follow the law, come through the front door and work for decades to some day become a citizen. It's an attack on legal immigration if what it is. Under the guise being against illegal immigration, what most people seem to be is against all forms of immigration. Even the people who are a net positive to the country and economy at large. If this is passed and also includes legal immigrants - this will be a fundamental re-definition and repudiation of what America is and has always been. A beacon of hope. Sad times.
Anti-competitive views towards immigrants are usually a position taken by people who know that they can't really compete on talent or hard work, against someone actually trying to make their life better. Since these people assume that just for being American they deserve some well paying job and an easy life. Success is always earned. It is never deserved just because of where you were born.
I would think the answer is obvious: yes, the CHILD is an American citizen, but the parents are NOT. Therefore, unless other parties might take over care of the child in the USA, the child goes back with the parents to the country of origin. It can return at any time, as long as there are guardians that ARE citizens, and enjoy full rights of any citizen. If those circumstances don't occur, the child can return when it is 18, as an adult, and again enjoy full rights. Parents do NOT get auto citizenship, so the kid goes back with them. Come back when you can. Parents can always pursue immigration the proper way as well.
I could understand that her analysis/interpretation is completeley based through the vantage point of her lens but the 14th amendment is framed in sweeping and very broad manner. There is very little basis for this argument and can only be modified through an amendment
At some point, the words on the page make a difference. Where in the 14th Amendment does it say anything about the parents of a child born on American soil? An executive order isn't good enough to change or reinterpret the Constitution. Article V of the Constitution defines the procedure required to change it. If you want to change the Constitution, execute those procedures.
It all comes down to the interpretation of the Amendment which is up to the Supreme Court. Thanks to the 22 states, and one federal district judge, SCOTUS will have to review this clause.
Better yet - no one should receive citizenship without passing the same tests that legal immigrants must pass to become citizens. We have way too many citizens who do not understand the basics of U.S. history and government. We might even want to go a step further and require two or more years of government or military service to gain citizenship. The idea that we're all citizens just by birth doesn't seem sensible to me.
Do we really want Chinese and Russians born in the US to go back for state training to one day become US Government employees as internal enemies of the state?
If "and subject to the jurisdiction" just means that you are physically here and not in another country at the time of your birth, then the phrase has no independent meaning from "born". In interpreting a statute, one rule of interpretation is that the word "and" represents two independent tests: 1) born or naturalized; AND 2) subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. If "born or naturalized" automatically subjects the individual to the jurisdiction of the United States, then the second test is superfluous. When interpreting such language, Courts usually refuse to assume that such a second test is superfluous and, instead, give it a meaning that is independent of the first test. In this case, I predict the Supreme Court, after reviewing what legal scholars at the time of the 14th Amendment believed the words "subject to the jurisdiction" meant, will rule in favor of Trump.
@@riskyflash6812 Birthright citizenship is being implemented by executive order? Whose? Which would also mean that all Trump has to do is rescind the order and birthright citizenship is over? I don’t think so. And… since when can executive order override Supreme Court decisions?
Under this executive order, individuals born in the United States will no longer automatically be granted U.S. citizenship if they fall under two specific categories: If the child's mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of the child's birth. If the child's mother’s presence in the U.S. was lawful but temporary (e.g., visiting under a student, tourist, or work visa, or under the Visa Waiver Program) and the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of birth.
Even if the parents were lawful US residents and not citizens, why would their child receive a designation they themselves don't have and may never pursue? The parents are never going to automatically become citizens, so why should their child? If at least one parent is not a US citizen it makes no sense that their child would be granted it, no sense at all. And as the child grows up and the parents decide to become citizens they can request for their child to become a citizen at that time as well.
@@michaelrudolph7003 Basically for the same reason that (assuming that in your family everybody has the same principal residence at birth as both parents) being the second generation born with a principal residence in the (current) Kingdom of the Netherlands means you are a Dutch citizen... (Technically NOT a ius soli birthright, but a ius domicili birthright, based on where you were living while you were born, rather than where you were born). Established non-citizen population groups lead to civil rights unrest and "no taxation without presentation" tea parties, which is bad for the economy, so families should go away or become citizens.
The temporary status people seem subject to the jurisdiction thereof, so I don't think that bullet point will stand. Foriegn nationals that sneak in illegally can be argued to not be subject to our jurisdiction. They worded it this way because they needed it to apply to slaves.
Inn my read, the question lies in whether or not a newborn born in the U.S. is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Wouldn’t the newborn be subject to the jurisdiction of local, State, and federal law.
That’s bc the 14th amendment was created to protect freed slaves and their progeny from being denied citizenship. It wasn’t created to be used for all of humanity who happens to arrive in our country.
Isn’t it much easier to amend the constitution and get rid of the 14th Amendment instead of arguing about whose interpretation is correct? It seems like an overwhelming majority of the public are against birthright citizenship.
I just can’t understand why people would even want this whether it’s legal or not. I just don’t understand the prioritization of people who aren’t from here or share our values.
Imagine being born here. School, Home, Friends, Pet dog, American Values, Ect.. One of your parents die young from cancer or a car accident. You are helping support your household through working PT while in Highschool. ICE shows up during 3rd period biology and deports you.
@ No. History has shown what tends to happen after a government disarms their citizens. It usually doesn’t end well. Birthright citizenship… bad. Second amendment… good. Feel free to find the “double standard” there.
@@winstonsalem5124 It looks like you are trying to get an “ah ha” moment by finding a double standard in my view. I could just as easily turn it back on you. Since you want to see the second amendment erased from the constitution, you are also ok with erasing the first amendment? See how that works? Get a better argument.
Section 2 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution determines how many representatives each state receives in Congress. It also addresses the consequences of denying the right to vote to certain citizens.
@ but it makes an exception in the case of Indians. And they were granted citizenship 60 years later. Not under the 14th. So the law can operate under those conditions.
That is what a lot of law professors sound like. Nothing like the skilled litigators I have encountered. You have to deal head on with the text of the 14th Amendment, which she did not do at all.
Seems like a messy argument and forced misinterpretation to argue that you’re not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” just because your mother’s there illegally. If a person born to a mother who is not here legally commits a crime on American soil, are they not subject to our laws?
How far back do we wanna go cause if thats the case alot of yall in these comments going to have to leave but i think yall think it doesn't apply to you right 👍🏾
Such a great example of trump’s utter incompetence. He should be using this moment of public concern about immigration to run and pass a referendum to repeal the amendment.
The 14th amendment was (for context) about freed slaves. The langauage though.... when applied to modern times should cover anchor babies. The 2nd Amendment covers (muskets) and your AR-15....
I have always thought that if a person is here illegally that a child born here should not be a citizen by birthright. I am not a lawyer, but that has been my opinion based on common sense.
The celebrated Albert Barnes, whose notes on the New Testament are so widely diffused, uses the following startling language: "There is no power out of the church that could sustain slavery an hour, if it were not sustained in it." "The churches are the bulwark of American slavery."
What if they weren’t trafficked here, which is probably 99.9% of cases? Can we focus on the actual problem or should we debate tiny fractions of an exception and never solve the problem?
@ oh you mean like the tiny amount of violent illegal immigrants which was used to instill fear and hatred against all immigrants? I asked a legitimate question. Your comment was neither a valid response nor intelligent. Go read a book
Thank you rising for not having Nomiki back. We got to hear an objective but adversely discussion of the issue without a bunch of nonsense. This is the type of news and opinion that the country is craving.
I lived in Germany for 13 years. My husband's family came from Turkey and are now German citizens, as are my husband and my husband's siblings, BUT, his parents were NOT citizens at the time of their births so none of them were Germany citizens. They were Turkish citizens. They, one at a time, each had to apply and go through the process to become citizens. I was shocked to find this out because I had grown up in the U.S. and thought every country was like this. It is in fact the exact opposite. Trump is exactly correct. We are the ONLY country to do this and it's past due time for us too, to implement the same, traditional approach towards citizenship.
07:58 - absolute nonsense. To have the citizenship of a different country bestowed upon you at birth would allow immediate deportation to another country. In such a case, as is seen in Germany, being "Stateless" would offer far greater protection.
Kinda entertaining if it gets changed. Solidifying the place of all humans as naturally being the property of whatever government claimed ownership of their parents.
I think this us a very clear and straight matter. Quite sensible. Because you had an accident where your water broke away from your home and somone gave you help they are not indebted to you for the rest of your life.Sych is this case the parent have no legal right to be here. It reminds me of the case of the cat having kittens in an open do you call them bread? Never
The whole idea that people should be owned by a country and not let in because they are owned by some other country... Is not very American. It's definitely not American in spirit. If someone wants to work, and gives more than you, they deserve more than you... That's how it was when the country was formed. That's how it was when the 14th Amendment was passed.
Hopefully this Constitutional Crisis can be addressed by the Judicial and/or Legislative branches which should do the interpreting and making legislation, respectively. Both the 14th amendment and the court ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case reflect an update on who can be a US citizen specific to reviewing the restrictions of their time. It is now time to affirm or update the interpretation. It should be acknowledged that both precedents expanded rather than restricted citizenship eligibility.
Indian lands are (even now) sovereign countries. Reservations do not pay federal income taxes, FICA and all of that because one sovereign never pays tax to another. Federal laws do not apply inside Indian reservations. So Indians do not come under the "Subject to the Jurisdiction of the USA" clause, as you can see.
@@holdmybeer123 I forgot to mention you're also incorrect that federal law doesn't apply on Indian reservations, it's state law that has no jurisdiction. They also pay federal income tax. Google is free
My parents came the right way and I was born in the US.. but my parents were allowed to be here and went through the paperwork and tests etc If you do it the right way documented and approved then it is okay
Perhaps the topic of slavery is what triggered the amendment to be created but at the end it was decided that ALL including slaves and others the right of birth by soil
Regarding Birthright Citizenship, after reading the 14th amendment, One Could argue that by bypassing legal methods of entry, that they have circumvented and bypassed jurisdiction. Therefore not protected by the 14th amendment, nor any other constitutional right afforded to The People, as they have not been recognized as a member of The People. ...Just a thought.
Roger Brooke Taney ( March 17, 1777 - October 12, 1864) was an American lawyer and politician who served as the fifth chief justice of the United States, holding that office from 1836 until his death in 1864. Taney delivered the majority opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), ruling that African Americans could not be considered U.S. citizens and that Congress could not prohibit slavery in the U.S. territories. Prior to joining the U.S. Supreme Court, Taney served as the U.S. attorney general and U.S. secretary of the treasury under President Andrew Jackson. He was the first Catholic to serve on the Supreme Court.
Someone smoked something strong for breakfast? The clause is simply worded without any legal weasel words. If you are born or naturalized in a jurisdiction of the US, no restrictions mentioning the status of your parents at the time and place of birth, you are a citizen of the US and the state of which you reside. Very plain US English, at least as I was taught in the US school system before the dept. of education was created… Maybe there is a “new” US English to go along with the “new” math the dept. of education put forth?
You added words....the 14th never mentioned jusridiction of the us. It is implying legality not territory. It has precendence alteady which applied to diplomats for century. You conveniently created a new constitution as you understood it.
@ Huh? The word “jurisdiction” is in all the versions of the US constitution, amendment 14, section 1 text I found. I’m not adding the word. “In the United States” wording could be trouble for those born on US bases or territories. You would still need to explain why someone physically present in the US, the baby, isn’t subject to US law and jurisdiction, assuming they aren’t a foreign diplomat with immunity of course. In the end, doesn’t matter squat what you or I think, the Supreme Court will make the final determination on what the article means. The losing side will then have to make the case for another amendment to push their interpretation of what determines if you are a US citizen based on where you are born or naturalized; article 14 is addressing both situations after all.
Okay this is dumb. If your born here your a citizen period. If your parent is illegal and has you here to stay, they are wrong. They will be deported as they broke the law. Either take your child with you back to wherever or leave them to the US government. Don’t break the law and this isn’t an issue. Leave now if you want to keep your children with you if you’ve came illegally. It’s not that crazy guys.
No, the America's is the only place in the world that has birthright citizenship. Nowhere in Asia, Africa or Europe has it. Ireland was the last western country and it got rid of it over 20yrs ago
Yes, what also occurs is rich Chinese people come here, give birth, and then go home so their child is now a legal citizen of the US without another tie here. It's also a security concern.
LOL......I understand....you have a reading comprehension problem....try reading the 14th again slowly....if you cannot understand the words' meaning consult a dictionary
In the Wong case, the parents had legal residency. This is not the same as applied to illegal immigrants.
Doesn't matter.
It was a bad decision.
It opens the door for foreign adversaries to plant people in our system, all the way up to the president, simply by taking an airplane ride at month 9.
The entire thing needs to be reversed.
Trump EO also denies birthright for children of legal immigrants
@Rajesh
Don't lie. LEGAL IMMIGRANTS who give birth here their children are LEGAL CITIZENS!
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS are still LEGALLY citizens of their own homeland (ex. Mexico, China, etc.) and their children CANNOT become LEGAL until the parents go through the LEGAL PROCESS!!!
So just having children ILLEGALLY in our country, does NOT make the parents or the child LEGAL!
@@RajeshKumar-xv9bgWrong. Children born to at least ONE parent who is a lawful permanent resident (green card holders) are American citizens. Did you even read the Executive order? It's on The White House website.
@@TopoftheBottomoftheTop there are legal immigrants who don't have green card. F1,J1,H1 and many others. They will be denied per the order. It takes years, sometimes more than 10 years to get a green card
Its also important to note that when 14th amendment was introduced native americans were not given citizenship because they were living on tribal lands were not considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States at that time, as they were regarded as members of sovereign nations. Native Americans were seen as belonging to their own tribal nations, which were considered separate political entities. The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was interpreted to exclude individuals who owed allegiance to another government, including tribal governments. The framers of the amendment understood jurisdiction to mean more than mere physical presence; it implied full allegiance to the laws and authority of the United States.
When it comes to the supreme court case "US vs Wong Kim Ark, Wong Kim Ark’s parents were legal residents of the United States, having been admitted under treaties that allowed Chinese laborers to live and work in the country. They were lawfully domiciled in the United States and therefore subject to its jurisdiction in the fullest sense. In contrast, illegal migrants by definition, are not lawfully present in the United States and have violated immigration laws to enter or remain in the country. This distinction is crucial. The Court’s decision in Wong Kim Ark was based on the premise that his parents had established lawful ties to the United States, a factor absent in cases involving illegal migrants.
It's actually really crazy to think that being within our borders makes a person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Imagine I was vacationing in Finland, which has mandatory military conscription; could I be conscripted? Of course not, I'm not under the jurisdiction of the Finnish government.
Wouldn't it also be pretty crazy if I had a child while in Finland, and that child was then a Finnish citizen?
If that is true Trump's EO goes against this. H1B, F1, L, J visa holders are subject to US laws and they have to pay taxes. They are given visas because agreed to these lawful ties.
@@botto1619not to mention you are subject to the laws of a country while visiting. Thats why if you commit a crime in a country they can arrest and imprison you. So it seems you are subject to their jurisdiction for some things but not others. As the person above used in their Finland sample, citing they wouldn’t be conscripted for military service. However if they robbed someone while in Finland they would be arrest and prosecuted.
No they are "lawfully present", you're mixing up the colloquial term 'lawfully' to mean 'not in violation of criminal law'.
If they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States then they could not be charged with any federal crime such as owning an untaxed machine gun or smuggling federally regulated narcotics. That is the case with the staff of foreign embassies who have diplomatic immunity, they aren't subject to US jurisdiction, even if one is caught spying they can only be returned home not lawfully punished in any way.
"The Court’s decision in Wong Kim Ark was based on the premise that his parents had established lawful ties to the United States"
That may be a fact but it's also a fact that his name was Wong so therefore this doesn't apply to any other Chinese person without the name Wong? You can't just say that a fact existed in a case so therefore that's the pivotal fact.
I think the case was pivotal on the wording of the 14th amendment on birth and how he obviously was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. He could not violate federal law like violate excise tax laws and claim he wasn't subject to US jurisdiction.
@@Treblaine "That may be a fact but it's also a fact that his name was Wong so therefore this doesn't apply to any other Chinese person without the name Wong? You can't just say that a fact existed in a case so therefore that's the pivotal fact."
WHAT?? That made NO sense at all, especially along your argument. Or is this your attempt at making a really poor racist joke?
Either way, it discredited you argument.
You can’t enter the country illegally, then expect to have a right to birthright citizenship for your children 👎🏾
Unfortunately, current legal precedent is grey here.
SCOTUS will likely need to rule on this.
I think it's clear that birthright citizenship applies to children of legal aliens.
However, birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens seems counter to the spirit of the 14th amendment to me.
well they've been doing that for over a century now.
@@throughhellback3931- it's time to change.
@@throughhellback3931 And now it finally stops! Go Trump you rock!
Yes you can 😂😂😂
I’m almost positive birthright citizenship is related to freed slaves not immigration
You are 100% correct
But I thought the Constitution was racist against Black people.
It most certainly is. Those other groups trying to use amendments that were established for blacks, need to go and fight their own battles and get their own laws and see how easy it is for them to do in a country like the USA. I love America, but too many imimigrants here don't know the history and simultaneously want to step on black americans while trying to use all the rights we fought for.
It most likely does mean/was written for freed slaves. But the words of the 14th is very specific and doesn't mention children of slaves.
You are correct. It's why it was written.
So the parents have to be here legally and have a permanent residence before a child is a citizen. That I can see, but someone who is pregnant and enters illegally and has a baby isn’t a citizen. This is good to know.
At least one of the parents must be a permanent resident for the child to be a citizen now.
Nice fantasy. Wrong tho
@@ludditynope
This is a hypothetical. Not truth, just remember.
Actually, EVERYONE and ANYONE who is born in the U.S. is granted automatic citizenship. And this is why so many of these new immigrants have children so that their kids have the natural right, and that qualifies them for benefits and everything. At 18, they can apply for the parents to become green card holders or residents!
Well, whatever, let's get it to the Supreme Court and get it clarified. It seems to me that people who come here illegally shouldn't necessarily benefit from all the laws of the land. But let's get it cleared up.
Some states have entered lawsuits. It will end up in the Supreme Court.
Yes that’s literally 2/3 of south Texas. Most of Trump supporters here are anchor babies. Even members of congress
If you're in the US, you're automatically subject to its laws... Thus the US' ability to jail you.
This is like the visa program. It was written for a very specific purpose, but has been getting abused for decades. And of course, like everything else because the left controls culture and controls the education system. Most people are not very intelligent and they are brainwashed. The purpose of the 14th amendment was to give citizenship to the children of slaves. at the time they had no clue that women in Asia or other parts of the world could get on a boat. I get on an airplane and come here and then a few weeks later give birth and use that as a way to cheat the immigration system. And that’s what people have been doing for decades. Just like the H1B visa program. It was created for a very specific purpose back in 1990. But it is being royally abused. We should not throw it out, but we definitely need to reform it and make sure it is only being used for its original intended purpose.
@@Leto2ndAtreidesyes if your in the US LEGALLY NOT ILLEGALLY
Great job Mr President for closing this illegal aliens/ immigrants citizenship loophole.
21 years
It is so disrespectful for all of these people to take advantage of laws that were put in the constitution for slaves but yet the descendants of slaves can’t benefit from the laws their ancestors fought for. We are still fighting to be American
Our country is in full-blown immigration crisis and birthright citizenship is being widely abused. It's EXACTLY time for a moratorium on birthright citizenship.
1000%
I concur.
Yep. Let's not pretend that prior supreme Court decisions also cannot be overturned or changed either.
Did the authors of the constitution ever think that H1B visa people come here just to get pregnant? That is something I personally know does happen.
Immigration crisis? Yeah sorry but no. There have been illegals here since the beginning of America. Illegals arent the ones raising my rent. Inceeasing my taxes. Forcing me to recite the bible. Etc.
An undocumented immigrant having a baby, sometimes called an "anchor baby," is considered to be breaking the law simply by being in the country. Many laws do not protect people in the process of committing a crime. It could be argued that this person should not have the same legal rights as a citizen or someone who has legal residency and is in the process of becoming a citizen.
A child who is born has not and cannot commit a crime. Crime of the parent doesn't extend to the child. A child also cannot sponsor their parents. It will require them to reach adulthood before they can legally sponsor their parents.
@@MinhVu-fl4nn They were not talking about the child, they were talking about the mother.
The documents they don't have are legal documents they are illegal immigrants. But if that term is offensive, I will start using "invading colonizers".
Twenty million crossed the border undocumented in four years during the democrat endorsed, Soros funded mass invasion. No more politically correct terms, just correct terms.
Ask the little girls of Britian what political correctness has done for them
It's not some great felony though. It's just a misdemeanor... Like running a red light.
I honestly don't understand why the Constitution would apply to those here illegally.
US law applies to actions on US soil. Robbery and other laws work the same way.
@ I’m not talking about laws concerning crimes. I’m talking about the rights and privileges granted by the Constitution. There are privileges (e.g. voting) that people here legally who aren’t citizens don’t have. Again, I don’t see why the Constitution would apply to people here illegally.
@@theBear89451He is asking why.
@@chingron Exactly. I don’t see why “We the people…” should include people who aren’t here legally/don’t belong here/shouldn’t be here.
But executive order also affects children of legal immigrants. That's why it's unlawful.
THIS IS/HAS BEEN A PROBLEM. SUPREME COURT HERE WE COME.
I would li e cor the Supreme Court to rule. I think so doea trump
been saying the 14th amend was highjacked for decades. so many of our problems come from slavery.
Senator Jacob Howard, on the Congressional record, said the Amendment did not include 'foreigners.' But, regardless, our laws cannot bind us to allow criminals to determine what we do. The idea that someone can sneak into the country and drop a baby, and our hands our tied, is RIDICULOUS.
No. No. No. A person needs one citizen parent to be a citizen.
Or a legal permanent resident
Agreed! An illegal alien IS.a foreigner or a foreign.national; NOT an "immigrant, migrant, nor undocumented person/resident." I CANNOT stand and loathe all who perpetuate this false equivalence either out of malice or sheer stupidity. Neither is a an attribute to be proud of.
@@paigeawinWell said!
Amy's an excellent guest. I hope she's invited back.
She just blabbered without making a good case. Very weak
@@waterinawellSo are you a Legal Scholar? I Think Not!
Her relevant point was the legal status of the parents of the Chinese man. She was clear and interesting as were the questions Niall and Robby asked
Wow. Amy Swearer this name is going to be remembered. So professional.
She's been around for a little while now. She often provides testimony during Congressional hearings on 2nd Amendment issues.
She may be a drug addiction allegedly...
I am an American by birth and I also have lived outside the US. I can tell you firsthand that many foreigners look to date Americans for the sole purpose of getting pregnant and then crossing the border to give birth.
I believe a person born in the US should only be an American if one of the child's parents is an American. So a Canadian who meets a Mexican in NYC should not be able to have American citizen children. The same should happen if a French couple moves to the US for work. No American parent should mean no US citizenship. I would also like to add an English language fluency requirement to become a US citizen. No English, no citizenship.
It is way too easy to become an American. The entire process should take decades and not just a few years.
For some people it has taken 20 years for the residency paperwork to come in
"The entire process should take decades"
I hear ya, but 20+ years??? Life is short bro! Why the beef? Relax.
@@el_ra And the ones who jump the line need to stop being rewarded for it. Maybe the process would be quicker for the honest people if less criminal colonizers were mucking up the system.
@@DomSchiavoni The left relaxed us into a 20 million people invasion. There is some beef there. Sorry the laws seem "uptight" to you. Letting criminals and mental patients in makes lives even shorter for American taxpayers.
@
Great! The US should not be an easy nation for relocation. Being demanding now will only allow the good people into the US.
In the real world, a private citizen, no matter how well informed and educated, does not decide what an Amendment means or not. Technically she should write, in my opinion, the 14th does not guarantee Birthright Citizenship and here's why I think the Supreme Court will rule this way.
I'm amazed how often Americans think all legal problems are defined not the Supreme Court but by popular opinion. Perhaps in the long run, but not in the short run.
I don't know or have an opinion. But I do know that prior to around the 1880's a ton of illegal immigrants came here and nobody noticed.
It's up to our Supreme Court. Both sides have a fair argument to my thinking.
It's very simple. Birthright advocates want to ignore the jurisdiction qualifier in the amendment. If that qualifier has no meaning, why was it included in the wording????
This was an enlightening segment. No spin, just debate. Thanks.
Ya… but this lady did a horrible job of explaining her case in basic English and used a bunch of legal terminology which leaves me even more confused about her argument.
It's insane that this was ever accepted as logical. One of the most fundamental aspects of being a country is that the country can decide who is a citizen of said country.
Ludicrous to think a pregnant tourist passing through the states has their baby in the states and then that baby is the citizen of the US, which other country allows that?
Canada.
And it's more about the basic dignity of people... Anyone used to be able to just come to the US when the 14th Amendment was passed.
It's only since WW2 that everyone needs papers, and needs to prove ownership by one government or the other to have any rights.
I believe Native Americans were not American citizens on the whole until the Coolidge administration. So not everyone born on US soil was an American citizen, despite this Amendment. So it was not believed at the time that everyone born in the US was automatically an American citizen. If anyone reads my post, I would like to hear this issue discussed.
This is true.
Native Americans had their own lands and treaties and nations…so no they weren’t born on American soil yet…
This is bad policy. You don’t want to give government more power especially letting them decide who is/isn’t a citizen.
This type of argument is what the left does about guns.
I would reply that neither the Executive, Legislative, Judicial branches of the government thought if it should be challenged. Native Americans, freed slaves, Asians, whomever were 'naturally' not meant or implied in the amendment.
Correct
250 years in, and today we have this brilliant insight? 😂😂😂
1868, so about 147 years ! Not 250
14th Amendment is quite clear. If one is born in the US , they are US citizens. Doesn’t say only if parents are citizens or legal residents.
We have an originalist SCOTUS. Context is important.
If Hilter's parents came here illegally and had him, does that make him a US citizen?
No, but we don’t enforce the laws on illegal immigrants but we do enforce on citizens.
06:12 "permanent domicile" should, of course make a "citizen". But "residency" does not exclude "freedom of movement". If that were so, Americans would lose their citizenship after a long stay in another country. It's a wholly irrational idea.
What the constitution say is clear if you don’t like it change the constitution. Do it legally.
Yes. It is clear that "born on U.S. soil" is not the only requirement.
The term LPR is going to be very important in court and briefings, as well as any prior case rulings. I appreciate the articulation of this woman. I do not disagree. I think it is a good idea for people to read prior cases and use critical thinking before digging in heels. LPR = legal permanent resident.
Slaves who were being used as illegal voters for the south upon getting their freedom and as former slaves of the defeated Confederacy came under the jurisdiction of the winning participant and the 14 amendment was to make whole those 3/4 citizens with limited voting rights as their masters could only cast their votes and for who the master wanted, those 3/4 people were made whole citizens with full voting rights and their descendants, this was nothing about immigration, the Chinese businesses finance the legal challenge at the time to make it about immigration and that ruling was wrong. Because the 14 amendment was not about immigration because the slaves were not immigrants they were property that was eventually given status as a 3/4 person for political rights of the Southern states and the northern states counted them as a full citizen with full voting rights and their descendants.
At the time of the 14th Amendment, it just did not matter who came to the US. All hard working people were welcome.
The drafters of the 14th Amendment, particularly Senator Jacob Howard and Senator Lyman Trumbull, provided insight into the amendment's intent during the Congressional debates in 1866. Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the Citizenship Clause, stated that it was intended to ensure that "every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States" would be considered a citizen. Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, noted that the clause would extend citizenship to "all persons born in the United States, without reference to the color or the blood of their parents." These statements, along with other Congressional records and historical accounts, suggest that the drafters intended the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause to guarantee birthright citizenship, regardless of parental citizenship or immigration status.
The Congressional Globe, which contains the official record of the Congressional debates, provides valuable insights into the intentions of the drafters. The Globe shows that the drafters of the 14th Amendment, including Senator Jacob Howard and Senator Lyman Trumbull, repeatedly emphasized that the Citizenship Clause was intended to guarantee birthright citizenship to all persons born in the United States, regardless of their parents' citizenship or immigration status. Additionally, the Globe contains statements from other members of Congress, such as Senator Lot Morrill and Representative John Bingham, who also expressed support for the idea that the Citizenship Clause was intended to guarantee birthright citizenship. These statements, along with the statements of Howard and Trumbull, provide strong evidence of the intent of the 14th Amendment.
"I see three possibilities. First, the knifers could stop being fratricidal, stop being leftist and learn something about the true basis for conservative principles, so that they stop becoming hysterical over silly errors arising from their own false understanding. Second, one side or the other will take control of the tent and kick the others out. Third, all this continued acrimony might destroy the tent, causing us all to scatter and regroup in more stable and like-minded coalitions." - Michael Anton
@@DrSanity7777777 Explain why the phrase "and subject to the laws of the U.S." was included in the Amendment after the phrase
"born in the U.S." Why not just state that anyone born here is a U.S. citizen, if that was the intent.
@@hollyprice4351 I agree that "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States is an additional requirement to simple birth.
But everyone in the U.S. physically is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. EXCEPT diplomats and enemy combatants.
07:20 - There is still a massive problem with this "prospective" reasoning. The "national blood" theory is difficult to uphold, even though countries like Germany and Israel seem to embrace the idea. It is a problem of defining "blood" or "race" - which doesn't even really work for Israel, as there were many converted societies and kingdoms in the Jewish line. It certainly shouldn't apply to Germany, because the German "language group" is highly admixed genetically. And, absolutely, America is an even more mixed society of many other, already "mixed" origins.
It’s about time you have someone on here that can make some sense thank you. I appreciate this.
I am very interested in seeing how SCOTUS decides this eventually.
The "total, complete allegiance to the US" thing is nonsense... Few Americans have such allegiance... Not even that many US military have such allegiance. Many elected representatives, obviously do not have such allegiance to any great degree.
At the time when the 14th Amendment was passed... Pretty much anyone could still just come to the US on a boat and make a life in the US.
That's how people like Andrew Carnegie got here. And his family came for the sake of "better economic opportunities".
There was no elaborate immigration process to limit who did or did not get to come to "the land of the free".
Imagine thinking "shall not be infringed" isn't actually that and 14th is absolute.
An excellent point.
Imagine thinking the 2nd amendment is absolute but not the 14th. Also "well regulated" in the militia part seems to be left out when talking about it on the right.
@thorkagemob1297 completely different part and not same meaning as today.
@@Jerry-rg8mx so only yall get to pick and choose, got it
@@thorkagemob1297please explain what a well regulated malita is. Wouldn't said milita, being so regulated as you suggest, be incapable of functioning as a malita?
VERY HELPFUL! THATS one smart chick. Thanks!
Dont you love this adult discourse without the narrow methodology of identity politics? 😊
Even if the children are citizens, they should not be separated from their parents when they leave the country for any reason.
They go with them. What parent in their right mind is going to leave their child?
When would that situation occur? The family leaves the country, the parents arnt allowed back but the kid is?
@@maxpower8429 - the child stays home with them. These people think that we are a Free Disney Land.
@maxpower8429 Sounds good to me. It's not my problem if you break our laws and then want to cry about separation. Boo hoo.
They can leave together
Acquiring citizenship legally is usually a decades long process. Most people who become naturalized citizens are on some kind of a temporary visa before becoming permanent residents and eventually citizens. So usually people at the child bearing age of 20s and early 30s are not yet permanent residents and still on some temporary visa. Should their children be denied citizenship ? Just because they have not past the necessary hurdles one needs to cross in order to become a citizen yet ?
Yes! emphatically yes, as the law states. How many migrants are you housing and feeding with your big heart?
It is a common misconception that US government is housing and feeding all legal immigrants. The basic condition for legal immigration is 'Are you going to support yourself or depend on the state for welfare ?' . It is impossible to legally have a path to citizenship if you have utilized any governmental welfare. It's called public charge rule. The thing people get wrong is this notion that legal immigrants take from the economy. While that's not true in most cases.
@@bluebird3281 It is a common misconception that all legal immigrants depend on the state welfare. That's not true at all. The basic condition for legal immigration is actually the opposite. The question that gets asked in the immigration process is 'Are you going to support yourself and contribute to the economy or take from it ?'. If the answer is the latter, immigration is not possible today in most cases. This basically punishes people who follow the law, come through the front door and work for decades to some day become a citizen. It's an attack on legal immigration if what it is. Under the guise being against illegal immigration, what most people seem to be is against all forms of immigration. Even the people who are a net positive to the country and economy at large. If this is passed and also includes legal immigrants - this will be a fundamental re-definition and repudiation of what America is and has always been. A beacon of hope. Sad times.
Anti-competitive views towards immigrants are usually a position taken by people who know that they can't really compete on talent or hard work, against someone actually trying to make their life better.
Since these people assume that just for being American they deserve some well paying job and an easy life.
Success is always earned. It is never deserved just because of where you were born.
@@Leto2ndAtreides This is why rich people want open boarders and poor people want closed.
I would think the answer is obvious: yes, the CHILD is an American citizen, but the parents are NOT. Therefore, unless other parties might take over care of the child in the USA, the child goes back with the parents to the country of origin. It can return at any time, as long as there are guardians that ARE citizens, and enjoy full rights of any citizen. If those circumstances don't occur, the child can return when it is 18, as an adult, and again enjoy full rights. Parents do NOT get auto citizenship, so the kid goes back with them. Come back when you can. Parents can always pursue immigration the proper way as well.
I could understand that her analysis/interpretation is completeley based through the vantage point of her lens but the 14th amendment is framed in sweeping and very broad manner. There is very little basis for this argument and can only be modified through an amendment
At some point, the words on the page make a difference. Where in the 14th Amendment does it say anything about the parents of a child born on American soil?
An executive order isn't good enough to change or reinterpret the Constitution. Article V of the Constitution defines the procedure required to change it. If you want to change the Constitution, execute those procedures.
It all comes down to the interpretation of the Amendment which is up to the Supreme Court. Thanks to the 22 states, and one federal district judge, SCOTUS will have to review this clause.
Better yet - no one should receive citizenship without passing the same tests that legal immigrants must pass to become citizens. We have way too many citizens who do not understand the basics of U.S. history and government. We might even want to go a step further and require two or more years of government or military service to gain citizenship. The idea that we're all citizens just by birth doesn't seem sensible to me.
Do we really want Chinese and Russians born in the US to go back for state training to one day become US Government employees as internal enemies of the state?
Trust me -I am sure there probably some that have done that exact same thing.
I don't know if she's right but she sure is convincing.
LOL
If "and subject to the jurisdiction" just means that you are physically here and not in another country at the time of your birth, then the phrase has no independent meaning from "born". In interpreting a statute, one rule of interpretation is that the word "and" represents two independent tests: 1) born or naturalized; AND 2) subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. If "born or naturalized" automatically subjects the individual to the jurisdiction of the United States, then the second test is superfluous. When interpreting such language, Courts usually refuse to assume that such a second test is superfluous and, instead, give it a meaning that is independent of the first test. In this case, I predict the Supreme Court, after reviewing what legal scholars at the time of the 14th Amendment believed the words "subject to the jurisdiction" meant, will rule in favor of Trump.
My parents are from Texas but I was born in Virginia so my birth certificate should say Texas?
For people citing Wong Kim Ark, the majority in that ruling wrote that the 14A didn’t apply to people here illegally.
Then why do we interpret the 14th amendment to mean just that? If the judges said what you claimed… wouldn’t it be law of the land then?
@ Because it’s being implemented by executive fiat instead of any Constitutional obligations
@@riskyflash6812 Birthright citizenship is being implemented by executive order? Whose? Which would also mean that all Trump has to do is rescind the order and birthright citizenship is over? I don’t think so. And… since when can executive order override Supreme Court decisions?
Under this executive order, individuals born in the United States will no longer automatically be granted U.S. citizenship if they fall under two specific categories:
If the child's mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of the child's birth.
If the child's mother’s presence in the U.S. was lawful but temporary (e.g., visiting under a student, tourist, or work visa, or under the Visa Waiver Program) and the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of birth.
Even if the parents were lawful US residents and not citizens, why would their child receive a designation they themselves don't have and may never pursue? The parents are never going to automatically become citizens, so why should their child? If at least one parent is not a US citizen it makes no sense that their child would be granted it, no sense at all. And as the child grows up and the parents decide to become citizens they can request for their child to become a citizen at that time as well.
@@michaelrudolph7003 Basically for the same reason that (assuming that in your family everybody has the same principal residence at birth as both parents) being the second generation born with a principal residence in the (current) Kingdom of the Netherlands means you are a Dutch citizen... (Technically NOT a ius soli birthright, but a ius domicili birthright, based on where you were living while you were born, rather than where you were born). Established non-citizen population groups lead to civil rights unrest and "no taxation without presentation" tea parties, which is bad for the economy, so families should go away or become citizens.
Let this go to the supreme courts. Remember roe vs wade.
The temporary status people seem subject to the jurisdiction thereof, so I don't think that bullet point will stand. Foriegn nationals that sneak in illegally can be argued to not be subject to our jurisdiction. They worded it this way because they needed it to apply to slaves.
Yea, so permanent visa holders, green card holders, and other permanent residents qualify for citizenship.
Tourists and illegals would not.
So, what jurisdiction are they subject to while on US soil if not the US one?
Inn my read, the question lies in whether or not a newborn born in the U.S. is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Wouldn’t the newborn be subject to the jurisdiction of local, State, and federal law.
Exactly. And if they aren't subject to the jurisdiction, does that mean they are treated like ambassadors?
She does have some valid points.
With all the debate around the Second Amendment and how sacred it is ... I never thought I would see Americans against what the constitution says .
That’s bc the 14th amendment was created to protect freed slaves and their progeny from being denied citizenship. It wasn’t created to be used for all of humanity who happens to arrive in our country.
Foundational Black Americans have 100% allegiance to America. All immigrants carry an allegiance to their home country.
[At least] one parent needs to be a U.S. citizen for a child birthed in the U.S. to have citizenship. There, done. 🤷
Isn’t it much easier to amend the constitution and get rid of the 14th Amendment instead of arguing about whose interpretation is correct? It seems like an overwhelming majority of the public are against birthright citizenship.
Marco Rubio has to go
I just can’t understand why people would even want this whether it’s legal or not. I just don’t understand the prioritization of people who aren’t from here or share our values.
Imagine being born here. School, Home, Friends, Pet dog, American Values, Ect.. One of your parents die young from cancer or a car accident. You are helping support your household through working PT while in Highschool. ICE shows up during 3rd period biology and deports you.
Birthright citizenship would not have been a problem if the original constitution before the amendment did not discriminate against minorities.
Is your point that we should allow birthright citizenship?
@chingron Since you would want birthright citizenship erased from the constitution,would you also like to see the 2nd amendment abolished?
no, because the 2nd is good
@ No. History has shown what tends to happen after a government disarms their citizens. It usually doesn’t end well.
Birthright citizenship… bad. Second amendment… good. Feel free to find the “double standard” there.
@@winstonsalem5124 It looks like you are trying to get an “ah ha” moment by finding a double standard in my view.
I could just as easily turn it back on you. Since you want to see the second amendment erased from the constitution, you are also ok with erasing the first amendment?
See how that works? Get a better argument.
Section 2 of the 14th amendment literally has an exception to it.
Section 2 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution determines how many representatives each state receives in Congress. It also addresses the consequences of denying the right to vote to certain citizens.
@ but it makes an exception in the case of Indians. And they were granted citizenship 60 years later. Not under the 14th. So the law can operate under those conditions.
The issue is that the President doesn't and shouldn't have the right to decide what is constitutional and what isn't.
That is what a lot of law professors sound like. Nothing like the skilled litigators I have encountered. You have to deal head on with the text of the 14th Amendment, which she did not do at all.
Seems like a messy argument and forced misinterpretation to argue that you’re not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” just because your mother’s there illegally. If a person born to a mother who is not here legally commits a crime on American soil, are they not subject to our laws?
How far back do we wanna go cause if thats the case alot of yall in these comments going to have to leave but i think yall think it doesn't apply to you right 👍🏾
Such a great example of trump’s utter incompetence. He should be using this moment of public concern about immigration to run and pass a referendum to repeal the amendment.
The 14th amendment was (for context) about freed slaves. The langauage though.... when applied to modern times should cover anchor babies. The 2nd Amendment covers (muskets) and your AR-15....
I have always thought that if a person is here illegally that a child born here should not be a citizen by birthright. I am not a lawyer, but that has been my opinion based on common sense.
I am the product of two illegal parents. Dad from Mexico and mom's student visa ran out, found out. And look at me, I TURNED OUT GREAT!
If “shall not be infringed” is not unambiguous, then I’m sure the 14th amendment has some wiggle room.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is the really ambiguous part there.
The celebrated Albert Barnes, whose notes on the New Testament are so widely diffused, uses the following startling language:
"There is no power out of the church that could sustain slavery an hour, if it were not sustained in it."
"The churches are the bulwark of American slavery."
What if a person was trafficked here then had a baby on US soil? Wouldn’t that be similar to what the law was initially intended to cover?
What if they weren’t trafficked here, which is probably 99.9% of cases? Can we focus on the actual problem or should we debate tiny fractions of an exception and never solve the problem?
@ oh you mean like the tiny amount of violent illegal immigrants which was used to instill fear and hatred against all immigrants? I asked a legitimate question. Your comment was neither a valid response nor intelligent. Go read a book
She needs to argue for President Trump executive order at tbe Supreme Court
Thank you rising for not having Nomiki back. We got to hear an objective but adversely discussion of the issue without a bunch of nonsense. This is the type of news and opinion that the country is craving.
I lived in Germany for 13 years. My husband's family came from Turkey and are now German citizens, as are my husband and my husband's siblings, BUT, his parents were NOT citizens at the time of their births so none of them were Germany citizens. They were Turkish citizens. They, one at a time, each had to apply and go through the process to become citizens. I was shocked to find this out because I had grown up in the U.S. and thought every country was like this. It is in fact the exact opposite. Trump is exactly correct. We are the ONLY country to do this and it's past due time for us too, to implement the same, traditional approach towards citizenship.
07:58 - absolute nonsense. To have the citizenship of a different country bestowed upon you at birth would allow immediate deportation to another country. In such a case, as is seen in Germany, being "Stateless" would offer far greater protection.
This amendment is in the context of Reconstruction and is related to slavery…not unconceived 2025
The Democrats twist all our laws around.. Have been since the signing of the original US Constitution...
Are the grandchildren of American citizens entitled to U.S. citizenship? I'm asking because Elon Musk's maternal grandfather was born in Minnesota.
Yes.
Well this will go all the way to the Supreme Court, again.
Kinda entertaining if it gets changed.
Solidifying the place of all humans as naturally being the property of whatever government claimed ownership of their parents.
I think this us a very clear and straight matter. Quite sensible. Because you had an accident where your water broke away from your home and somone gave you help they are not indebted to you for the rest of your life.Sych is this case the parent have no legal right to be here. It reminds me of the case of the cat having kittens in an open do you call them bread? Never
The whole idea that people should be owned by a country and not let in because they are owned by some other country... Is not very American.
It's definitely not American in spirit.
If someone wants to work, and gives more than you, they deserve more than you... That's how it was when the country was formed. That's how it was when the 14th Amendment was passed.
Hopefully this Constitutional Crisis can be addressed by the Judicial and/or Legislative branches which should do the interpreting and making legislation, respectively.
Both the 14th amendment and the court ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case reflect an update on who can be a US citizen specific to reviewing the restrictions of their time. It is now time to affirm or update the interpretation.
It should be acknowledged that both precedents expanded rather than restricted citizenship eligibility.
1924 Indian Citizenship Act passed around 50 years after the 14th shows that it's not absolute.
Indian lands are (even now) sovereign countries. Reservations do not pay federal income taxes, FICA and all of that because one sovereign never pays tax to another. Federal laws do not apply inside Indian reservations. So Indians do not come under the "Subject to the Jurisdiction of the USA" clause, as you can see.
@@holdmybeer123 BINGO! RIGHT ON
@@holdmybeer123 I forgot to mention you're also incorrect that federal law doesn't apply on Indian reservations, it's state law that has no jurisdiction. They also pay federal income tax. Google is free
@ What do you mean by "They" Who is they? Can you be any more vague?
Unrestricted Birthright Citizenship only in North America.....
My parents came the right way and I was born in the US.. but my parents were allowed to be here and went through the paperwork and tests etc
If you do it the right way documented and approved then it is okay
what's the right way
No it’s not ok. There’s homeless Americans and too many unemployed Americans. America is full no more immigrants.
Perhaps the topic of slavery is what triggered the amendment to be created but at the end it was decided that ALL including slaves and others the right of birth by soil
14th ammendment is not for giving automatic citizenship to the children of the tourists
The Caveat: An American citizen can be deported just as an alien can. It has been done numerous times in our history.
As long as you're Democrate you can ignore rhe law
Is anyone looking at which countries have unrestricted birthright citizenship? ….not many…. Just make it reciprocal.
"subject to the jurisdiction thereof" quite clear
Great post. The case was made in a clear thoughtful way. Will be very interesting to see how this pans out.
Common Law - Common Good. The General Welfare.
Regarding Birthright Citizenship, after reading the 14th amendment,
One Could argue that by bypassing legal methods of entry, that they have circumvented and bypassed jurisdiction. Therefore not protected by the 14th amendment, nor any other constitutional right afforded to The People, as they have not been recognized as a member of The People. ...Just a thought.
Roger Brooke Taney ( March 17, 1777 - October 12, 1864) was an American lawyer and politician who served as the fifth chief justice of the United States, holding that office from 1836 until his death in 1864.
Taney delivered the majority opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), ruling that African Americans could not be considered U.S. citizens and that Congress could not prohibit slavery in the U.S. territories. Prior to joining the U.S. Supreme Court, Taney served as the U.S. attorney general and U.S. secretary of the treasury under President Andrew Jackson.
He was the first Catholic to serve on the Supreme Court.
It does not apply to illegal migrants
There were no "illegal immigrants" when the 14th was passed. Anyone was welcome to come as long as they were hard working.
I am for getting rid of birthright citizenship, but I don’t think this woman makes a strong argument - it’s very circular. Anyone else?
Who are all these people that are primed and ready to sue over this??
Someone smoked something strong for breakfast?
The clause is simply worded without any legal weasel words.
If you are born or naturalized in a jurisdiction of the US, no restrictions mentioning the status of your parents at the time and place of birth, you are a citizen of the US and the state of which you reside.
Very plain US English, at least as I was taught in the US school system before the dept. of education was created…
Maybe there is a “new” US English to go along with the “new” math the dept. of education put forth?
You added words....the 14th never mentioned jusridiction of the us. It is implying legality not territory. It has precendence alteady which applied to diplomats for century. You conveniently created a new constitution as you understood it.
@ Huh?
The word “jurisdiction” is in all the versions of the US constitution, amendment 14, section 1 text I found. I’m not adding the word.
“In the United States” wording could be trouble for those born on US bases or territories.
You would still need to explain why someone physically present in the US, the baby, isn’t subject to US law and jurisdiction, assuming they aren’t a foreign diplomat with immunity of course.
In the end, doesn’t matter squat what you or I think, the Supreme Court will make the final determination on what the article means.
The losing side will then have to make the case for another amendment to push their interpretation of what determines if you are a US citizen based on where you are born or naturalized; article 14 is addressing both situations after all.
Okay this is dumb. If your born here your a citizen period. If your parent is illegal and has you here to stay, they are wrong. They will be deported as they broke the law. Either take your child with you back to wherever or leave them to the US government. Don’t break the law and this isn’t an issue. Leave now if you want to keep your children with you if you’ve came illegally. It’s not that crazy guys.
No, the America's is the only place in the world that has birthright citizenship. Nowhere in Asia, Africa or Europe has it. Ireland was the last western country and it got rid of it over 20yrs ago
Yes, what also occurs is rich Chinese people come here, give birth, and then go home so their child is now a legal citizen of the US without another tie here. It's also a security concern.
@@KatieKatDA then maybe a ban on late term women traveling into the country for this reason. Given what you said that might be reasonable.
LOL......I understand....you have a reading comprehension problem....try reading the 14th again slowly....if you cannot understand the words' meaning consult a dictionary
@@aussierob390 except it DOESN'T....this is a new phenomenon (1983) and the result of an INTENTIONAL misreading of the 14th by the Left