Do you think he'll succeed in ending this 150+ year legal precedent? Compare news coverage from diverse sources around the world on a transparent platform driven by data. Try Ground News today and get 40% off your subscription: ground.news/legaleagle ⚖⚖⚖ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam
At this point it would not surprise me. A fair chunk of american view him as some divine prophet, and if republicans see if this both appeals/makes money they sure will.
Doubt, how would they handle legal immigrants giving birth to a child in the states? Would they need to get permission from their "home" country? How would that work over generations? How would they deal with children who both aren't American but also aren't claimed by their "home" country? It's just less complicated and less headaches to say that everyone born on US soil is American. And I don't mean just conceptually, because I'd imagine that there would be many case by case basis's that would cost a ton of money to take to court. I understand that encouraging people to illegally immigrate isn't a good idea, but this isn't one of the ways to do that. Just work on the border or give the people a reason to stay in their country.
Don't worry LegalEagle, if I get deported you can visit me in DR. I got you fam!!! First they end the birth right and then they take away my birth certificate.
So let me get this straight. The 2nd Amendment is an "enshrined constitutional right" but the 14th Amendment is "woke policy that needs to be abolished"
no. The 2nd Amendment is an "enshrined constitutional right" when politically expedient. the 14th Amendment is "woke policy that needs to be abolished" because its politically expedient.
Right. Anything they don’t like about the Constitution is merely an inconvenience that can be ignored but you better not “grab my guns!!!!” because it’s their constitutional right to have any weapon they want without restriction or limitation.
These leftwing takes never cease to amaze me, where did this idea of abolishing the 14th amendment come from? It's like no one watched the video, the argument is about misinterpretation of birth right citizenship. This is what peak conformation bias.
That joke in Futurama where the head of Nixon says "Oh yeah? Well I know a place where the constitution means squat!" and then it cuts to the Supreme Court continues to age uncomfortably well
@@Jack-sq6xb Exactly. "Interpret" doesn't give a judge free rule to claim that a law means whatever they want. "My interpretation of the first amendment is that it's illegal to eat bananas!"
@ Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 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... This language isn't wishy-washy or open to interpretation. It's actually more definite in its intent than the second amendment, which begins "A well regulated Militia...", which has begged the questions...What did they mean by "militia"? Regulated by whom?
The people who support removing the 14th amendment from the constituion tend to overlap with people who argue that you can't remove the 2nd amendment because it's part of the constitution. Gotta love the double standards.
Its classic “rights for me but not for thee” the same crayzo 2nd amendment people have also tried to say people who don’t align with them shouldn’t have the right to bear arms ironically
I think we know by now that things like “legality” and “tradition” aren’t really what they care about. This is more about benefitting people that look like them and pray to the same God at the expense of everyone else.
The only amendment that has ever been removed so far was prohibition because it was causing too much trouble to apply. We’re going to lose the 14th first and probably the 1st second
Donald Trump's grandfather and grandmother were not US citizens, Therefore, Donald Trump's father was not a US citizen (if there is no birthright citizenship). Donald Trump's mother came form Scotland and she was only granted citizenship on the (incorrect) assumption that Fred Trump was an American citizen. Therefore, neither of Donald Trump's parents were US citizens, so Donald Trump is not a US citizen. Melania is an illegal immigrant. She entered the US as a visitor, but then did a lot of modeling work without a work visa. That violation made her ineligible for naturalization. Baron would not be a US citizen. Turtles all the way down... [edit] There are posts down below that claim that Frederick Trump was a US citizen before Fred Trump was born. There is no evidence of that. The court records for the court where Fredrick Trump claims to have gained his citizenship do not agree. Also, Frederick Trump had illegally fled Germany and was not eligible for US citizenship. Also again, Fredrick Trump went back to Germany to become a citizen, where he was required to renounce his US citizenship (if he had any). Because of his criminal past, Germany revoked his German citizenship and he returned to the US. However, once you renounce US citizenship, you cannot get it back (at least not easily). In the early 1900's many people falsely claimed to be US citizens because it was practically impossible to prove otherwise. Fredrick Trump was very likely one of them.
@@Snake369 Yeah, under the federalist interpretation of the 14th Amendment, not even Trump could claim American citizenship. So, y'know, careful what you wish for and all that.
@@joanfregapane8683 there are many conservatives that actually believe that the bill of rights are the only "real" amendments and even some don't like all of them...
As it should be. It's full of a bunch of outdated nonsense that doesn't apply in today's world. The idea that such a framework should be followed when people back then couldn't even convince of the concept of a smartphone is laughable.
Yeah you’re not kidding. They literally just manufactured some nonsense about “presidential immunity” out of thin air. There’s not a single word about that in the Constitution but they just decided they wanted it to exist anyway, so now it does.
Let's not forget, Drump's mother was an immigrant. 2 of his wives were/are immigrants, so 4 of his kids would, technically, also be affected by his "rules". This is equivalent to the German moustached man, whose mother was Jewish and who did not look Aryan in anyway. Yet, he somehow lead that whole "movement". The hypocrisy is gross.
Man they really told that man “we kidnapped your ancestors so you’re not a citizen here” as if he had anything to do with THEIR crime against HIS family wtf
@KohniHart Calling 18th century America "advanced" is a bit of a stretch, Britain was still more advanced than us at the time. We really kicked things off in the 19th century, and became fully dominant only after WW1.
This whole debate reminds me of the discussion we have here in my home country - about who was and wasn't a "true german". I'd rather not get into that. Here's the takeaway: Once there is precedent for one minority losing their rights, they'll soon come for everybody they deem "unfit".
Hello Thank you for sharing Speaking as someone who has reason to believe her paternal ancestors left Germany precisely to get away from a certain dictator's nonsense, please allow me to welcome you to the United States and to wish you the best.I think you voiced my own concern in the best words. I am not of any legal profession so I could be missing something, but I do not believe any other president has ever even spoken of even attempting such a thing. That this order is not being universally vilified, shocks/embarrasses me to no end. Why his chances for a second term did not die immediately when he said he would do this, is beyond me. However, the debate also reaffirms that the nation is not a dictatorship. Again, Thank you and best wishes
They're mixing up illegal immigrants and legal non-permanent residents. Politicians like to say things that sound smart, not things that are actually smart.
@@neurofiedyamato8763 yh the biggest screw up America ever did was letting the traitors live. US has been divided ever since, I wonder what would have happened if Lincoln lived. Texas still threatens to damn cede every couple years for god sake 😭
Back in the Dubya era, there was a widely circulated political cartoon where an Angry White Man was shaking a finger at a Hispanic family shouting "It's time to reclaim America from illegal immigrants!" A Native American behind him said "I'll help *you* pack." The people who were actually here first weren't granted citizenship until 1924. EDIT: I can't believe this comment is trouncing Devin's pinned comment in ratios.
I never understood this argument because doesn’t this actually prove the point of Americans who support strict immigration ? You’re saying that the fear of illegal immigrants coming in and displacing you and your culture is rationally based on history…
I never understood this argument because doesn’t this actually prove the point of Americans who support strict immigration ? You’re saying that the fear of illegal immigrants coming in and displacing you and your culture is rationally based on history…
Mostly forgotten peoples. But they were considered citizens of their own nation. Native Nations were the first nations the United States made treaties with. We showed these treaties as evidence of our independence to England. But after repeatedly breaking our treaties and brutally killing them and removing them it's evident they were only used for the benefit of United States colonization.
That makes a certain kind of sense. If native groups wanted to view themselves as independent nations, then accepting citizenship from their occupier might be seen as tacit approval. But I'm not sure what they actually thought about it at the time.
It's not an argument it's just showing hypocrisy. Modern immigrants are coming for similar reasons as most of the early Americans did and unlike back them aren't doing so with the support of a major power who wants to destroy and replace the existing countries. The main point is to not hate immigrants when you and your family are immigrants
@@lameh.838 It's so weird hearing Americans hate on immigrants. I don't support it in Europe either, but at least it makes more sense there since the majority of any European country's population IS people who have lived there since forever. But America is such a young country. Did you forget that you all came from immigrants, unless you're Native American?
Congress has previously ignored the 14th Amendment to remove citizenship from law-abiding, natural-born citizens, so unfortunately, thete is ample precedent. Specifically, in the Expatriation Act of 1907, which declared that women who married non-citizen men, even those who were permanent residents, automatically lost their citizenship. And when that part of the law was rewritten in 1934, it wasn't made retroactive, so affected women--who may have never left the U.S. their whole lives--had to _apply to get their citizenship back_ My great-grandmother was one of those affected by this law, so this hits close to home.
That's why my grandfather was born as a "Jennings" instead of a "Hernandez". His parents had to separate, or he wouldn't have been an American citizen.
It looks like the caselaw for that revolved around the theory that marriage was a voluntary act. So the court avoided the 14th amendment because supposedly the women effectively consented to losing citizenship.
That is insane and how was that skipped in my multiple US history classes K-12? I know there is a lot to teach but damn, wouldn't that have required at least a paragraph? How tf did I stumble across forced sterilization and not this? (which sadly, was news to my high school teachers as well)
Melania Trump became a citizen on July 28, 2006. Baron Trump was born March 20th, 2006; that’s four months before his mother had citizenship. I hope the President will set an example by sending his son “home” first.
The father was already a US citizen so therefore the child is born to an American which implies that he earned directly citizenship and her mother was not an illegally immigrant . 😂
If one of the two parents is a legal US citizen, then the child is a US citizen. It's stated pretty clearly in the EO. Not to blindly agree with all of this, but make sure to read it before assuming.
I am a third generation American. 2 of my grandparents were Mexican immigrants (legal) and the other was a British immigrant (also legal). My one grandparent who was born American also had a British mother. My parents are U.S. citizens but only by birth in the United States. I'm mixed race obviously but all of this mess is just making me contemplate going back to the UK (not sure if they'd welcome someone like me though). I can't gain citizenship by descent but I might try a work visa or something like that. I never thought there'd be a day in my life where I, an American citizen by birth, a native English speaker, and a taxpayer would consider returning to the UK. The government will gladly consider me American to collect my tax dollars but when it comes to everything else, will make me feel like I don't belong here. I even had friends who knew full well who I was, who voted against me. I don't know what to think about it all. Maybe I'm just being paranoid. I might not belong there either.
The answer to "can they do this?" is yes. Not because it's legally sound or morally correct. Because democracy is dead and the oligarchs can do whatever they want.
Democracy is dead is such a defeatist attitude. Bastardised, yes, absolutely. But its fixable, theres still more of us (when everyone stops being apathetic). It cant be fixed without everyone either.
@@deliquescencemusic Yes, but the majority clearly voted to get rid of democracy. We had a whole election about it. People who want democracy are doing nothing to bring it back. Actions matter more than feelings.
Morality has little to do with governance. People need to stop living in fantasy land and realize if the government can give you something it can take it away too. The only defense is a small government with tightly defined responsibilities.
As a citizen of the democraty of the state of new york who does not live within the confines of one of the 5 cities required to win the election, good riddance. Democray is a dictatorship pretending to be free and fair. Long live the Republic.
This won't end here. Many in conservative movements have also expressed the opinion that only landowners should be allowed to vote. They are literally trying to return to feudalism. There will be the oligarchs and the serfs.
Yeah, I've been seeing that sentiment in various social media circles by some conservatives. It's hilarious to think these people believe their vote should be worth more just because they live in bumfuck nowhere with some plot a land opposed to somebody living in an apartment in some random city.
I’m glad my brother who owns a house and my other brother’s friend who owns his house are fully for women’s education and access to reproductive healthcare. For really stupid reasons, IMO, but they are.
@XBluDiamondX What’s sad is that migrants being mistreated and paid peanuts if what keeps the price of eggs and other groceries down. The system has long been broken, the problem was no one cared. But hey! You’re not wrong! Let’s see if all the “they’re taking our jobs” homies flock to the fields to take those positions that are about to suddenly become open!
I love how RUclips now censors even the most harmless of comments. Even a comment mentioning how the price of eggs and groceries was as low as they were due to migrants being mistreated and paid peanuts for years.
A note to the video editor: could you possibly use yellow highlights instead of blue highlights when highlighting text? The blue is pretty hard to read on some of my screens. Thank you!!!
Imagine being a 15 year old child of an illegal immigrant who's spent their entire life in the US, and then getting deported to a place you've never lived before, that you have no concept of ghe culture of, and that you might not even speak the language of. This is going to be someone's reality soon enough.
@@viefcheesecake we have to keep the families together 😂. There is only one way. I don't believe that children should suffer for the sins of their parents, but it's impossible to seek justice without cutting through an innocent. I agree with removing the incentive for people to enter illegally. I disagree with retroactively applying this law.
Well, he already said ages ago that the "oath of office" isn't something he believes in, cares about, or is bound by. The fact that we're still going along with the whole song and dance is grotesque.
If someone was born here, they likely don’t have citizenship anywhere else. That would mean these people also have no country to legally send them. The legal and diplomatic hurdles would be extraordinary. Then the amount to fund this operations working through all this and housing the people would be huge. This would create more problems for almost no real societal contribution
This is the situation I’m in right now, for a different reason. Born covertly and never had a birth certificate or any record of my existence for the first half of my life. I’ve been on my own since I was an early teen and that’s when I started seeking proof that I was born here. I know that I must have been, but I have no one to attest to my birth, personally or legally. It’s been over a decade and I’m still not a ‘citizen’ - which also means I can’t get any form of ID or anything that requires it - but there’s nowhere for me to be deported to. I’m not a citizen of anywhere and wouldn’t be allowed into anywhere without documentation of _some_ sort from _somewhere._ It’s a nightmare and this isn’t what our country needs.
@@takatamiyagawa5688 but if youre born in a country that makes you a citizen of that country. Not the one your parents were born in. The other country isn't just gonna give them citizenship cause thier parents were born there.
A politician being able to pass a 5th grade history test has no bearing on their constituent's ability to do so, and their constituents are the ones they have to appeal to. The issue is not just knowledge, but malice.
Elon and Trump do not need to pass the test, they can afford to pay someone to take the test for them. I agree with President Musk that we should get rid of birthright citizenship so we can deport the Trump to Russia where they are beloved.
I was born in Chicago in 1983 to Mexican parents. I'm a Marine Corps veteran and I've been a law abiding citizen all my life. In short, I've considered myself an American and nothing else. If feels deeply offensive someone like trump, a patriot in name only (PINO?), would say someone like me is not worthy enough to be an American citizen.
As a person of color who has been pulled over multiple times for my skin color, one cop going as far as to start detaining me and asking for my green card (i was born in the US to legal US citizens), I am terrified that this is setting up precedence that people like me will be denaturalized and deported to some random place they think I'm from. *edit* Yay for 1k likes!
I wish they’d clarify what technicalities this is based on bc this has been happening for decades, but now it seems like its solely race and not paperwork, or some fun combo of the two where they deport first and ask questions never My friend’s dad was arrested twice by 🧊 under the bush admin as a green card holder, and they’re white, so …
That’s exactly where this is heading, happened as recently as the 50’s, US born citizens getting shipped to Mexico even tho most had never even stepped foot in Mexico in their entire life.
This is normal in the rest of the world, though. Many countries also require you to have your ID on you at all times while in public. If you WERE in the U.K. or Japan illegally, or overstayed your visa, you'd be tracked down within days and kicked out. So, yes, they can and do ask and yes, they enforce their immigration policies with zero leeway or consideration given. So does the E.U., and even Mexico. We are the one exception in the entire world (that has a functioning police/government) where people who are here illegally are not immediately deported.
The class of people not covered by the 14th amendant was speficially claried by its author. It may not be in the official text of the bill, but its clear what the writers of the amendant intended. "Simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of person." - Jacob Howard
The vast majority if not outright all of countries in europe, africa, and asia do not have birthright citizenship, it is only common in north and south america due to colonization population requirements due to historically "unsettled" lands. This is the default state in almost all of the world, where the only citizen generation is through children of citizens being born, and immigrants going through the naturalization process. This is not opression, this is the standard position nearly every worldwide government has.
Does the 14th exist only to kill people? Don’t lie, cry or deny it, a guns only purpose is to kill. Why do you think you have an unlimited right to kill people, with no checks or responsibilities?
It's not a kangaroo court or they would have just made the tik tok ban illegal because Trump told them too. All of their rulings have to be backed up with rational arguments supported by the constitution or they could run the risk of being impeached.
@@markjohansen6048 What you you saying? For 200 years the 2nd amendment was (correctly IMO) believed to be about state rights to raise militia. Then Ronald Reagan's supreme court changed it to allow everyone the right to carry any gun. It is absolutely inconceivable that the authors of your 2nd amendment intended individual citizens to have the fire power to mow down a few dozen people at a time. The 2nd amendment was very badly written.
@@Victor-fq6lz She now is but literally by his own wording this would apply to both his son and wife. Barron was born months before melanie got her citizenship and was only allowed to stay domestically because of the birth. Had she given birth in her country of origin (bc again she was already being pushed to leave bc visas have time limits) Baron would have to apply for US citizenship despite his dad. Trump stated he wants to go after people who abuse having kids to get citizenship. If he is telling the truth (like he always is...) then this applies to them. Hope this clears up the confusion
HE is not changing it, he is returning it to its ORIGINAL INTENT of not including foreigners, the birthright citizenship is for US citizens only, and the 14th amendment made sure that free blacks and the freed slaves were INCLUDED as US citizens forever. As to the rest of your post, it shows how ridiculous you are! EVERY PART of the US Constitution is OPEN to scrutiny by everyone. If the requisite number of people and states agreed, they could take away your freedom of speech or any other right. It is NOT going to happen, but it is OPEN to scrutiny and to be talked about.
It will be interesting. Most americans are citizens because they were born in the USA. What else do they have? Their parents also born here? Not enough I am afraid. If they can't prove citizenship, you can't. Recently immigrated families may be able to point to a rightful citizenship. But the descendents of the pilgrim fathers? Did the Pilgrim Fathers have proper immigration status?
I know you're being sardonic, but, yeah, how far back is "good enough". As for the pilgrims, no, they were refugees coming to North America. And, had the indigenous people of the area not welcomed them in and helped them out during that winter, they would have just straight up died from starvation and cold.
@@PhotonBeast You can call me sarccastic but this is the consequence of denying birtright citizenshio without replacing it by another legitimation. Yes. And they were basically trespassing on native land. Only the natives didn't kow how to deal with it in a modern way so they didnt oppose but also didn't give them legal status. . Their refugee status was shady. They were _not_ persecuted in the Netherlands where they previously lived. In fact they felt too welcome. Members of the group started to mingle with the locals and the leaders wanted to prevent that. They were _Jim Jones_ refugees, one might say.
@ To be clear, the mention of sarcasm/sardonicism was not meant as an insult, merely an observation on my part as to how I was interpreting tone. And it was not intended as a negative observation - I'm from New England; sarcasm and sardonicism is basically the same thing as a neutral tone for me :)
@@PhotonBeast remember, DT said "Deportations will happen, regardless of citizenship" We are only US citizens because we were born here. Which would technically mean only naturalized citizens would be US citizens, because they have paperwork proving it...
So ironic trump says “we’ll have education back”. Didn’t he say he was getting rid of the department of education? How do you fix something by getting rid of it?
@@Gbleeskoyou do get in some states they try to include young earth teaching which is not education at all. That can happpen only if the department of education is abolished. Not like america got a good education level compared to other countries.
There's nothing ironic about it... your post is like saying, "You're getting rid of God by closing a church." Governmental agencies don't bring education... they help shape it, but by getting rid of a department it doesn't follow that education will go away.
@@Gbleesko If that were true we wouldn't have a Department of Education, because that was created to address problems of not having equity and cohesion within the country in regards to fair access to education and educational opportunities.
@@cmdraftbrn Honestly Carrier fits. You could load up a modern supercarrier with just documents from Trump's court cases and have no room for the planes.
i've been 27 years alive in the US as a law abiding citizen with birthright citizenship from Canadian-born parents. i find it insane that through no effort of my own i can be come a criminal with grounds for deportation
@@garrett8707 looks around the room in Spanish. My parents are both Dominican, they came here illegally and got to stay cuz I was born here. So yea, I think I'm gonna audition for 90Day Fiance, gotta find an American to marry first.
I find it crazy that right now you can have lived here since you were a baby and not be a citizen if you were born elsewhere. There are people that have lived here longer than me who are not citizens because of the hospital they were born in lol.
The statement that we are more of a country of settlers than immigrants...huh? I have NEVER met an American White person who can trace 100% of their ancestory to an early settlement like the Mayflower - and that's still immigration. My native American boyfriend however is truly not an immigrant, but I don't think these people like that any better.
There is not a single person on this planet whose ancestry goes back to American soil. Native Americans came here over a land bridge between Russia and Alaska. This argument could not possibly make less sense.
@@kendallwilson8892 there new are studies showing that modern day native Americans were likely not the first people here based on footprints found in New Mexico. Also the history of native Americans was of constant colonizing pillaging and land stealing. This idea of a unified Native American people is historically false.
It would also strip basically all African-Americans of citizenship, given that this amendment was created explicitly to grant them citizenship. It would be insane, but the Republicans are willing to overturn interracial marriage so... who knows. It'd also be an international crime to strip people of their citizenship if they have no alternative citizenship available, but that's never stopped an American president from doing something.
Not many. A lot of people like to talk about how their ancestors came here legally, but what they leave out is that doesn’t mean they came here with visas and passports, it means America didn’t require documentation for immigration back then. The ethic slur “WOP” is literally short for WithOut Papers to describe people who immigrated here without documentation.
Funny thing: we can prove trumps ancestor came to the U.S. illegally, and if they made this retroactive, Trump would no longer be a natural-born citizen, and thus no longer eligible for presidency of the United States of America.
Here in Britain kids are only citizens at birth if both the below are satisfied: 1) Born on British territory and 2) At least one parent is a citizen (or has official right to remain). If parents are undocumented etc. no citizenship can be claimed. I think you guys could do with an amendment to something similar. Laws written generations ago should not be taken as gospel; they were drawn up in a different time under different circumstances. That is why we all have Supreme Courts to review these issues. Review is a good thing where laws may no longer be fit for purpose.
@ I think it's worse than that: they only care if they *think* it affects them, not realizing that a lot of the time, it affects them without them knowing it.
@@Cabelcrod If that's the case, why didn't Trump just say that in response to the question about what will happen to families already here with US citizen children? His waffle was to suggest that they'd have to ship them all out in order to keep the family together. Not that anyone already here at the time is fine it will only affect new cases.
Agreed- I feel like this falls into the category (as with many of these extremist sorts’ policies) of things that could just as easily be used to attack almost anyone if the powers that be so desired it, never mind the atrocities to come of their stated intention off the bat. It just feels like the sort of a thing that, if pushed to its extreme (as if it’s not already extreme enough), could become another case of ‘leopards eating faces’.
@@tyrannicpuppy What are you talking about? His response was clear. If the family wants to stay together then the child goes with. Only the us citizen is allowed to stay. Which would mean the citizen chooses to separate from their family.
@@PinkFZeppelin Do I need to ramble it for it to be clear for you? If the change only affects new births made after the change, then every child of illegals already in the US is already a US citizen. So why would any of the existing families (those referenced in the question) have anything to worry about? If it applies retroactively, how far back do they go? Coz all present US citizens are the children of immigrants at some point. Like all Trump policies, there is no actual substance. He just says he's gonna do a thing but gives no specifics as to how it will work. Like the healthcare plan he's been working on for a decade but is still in the concept phase. One day we might actually hear what that plan is. But I doubt it will happen before he leaves office again. Given his present track record with it.
Thank you for the enlightening educational moment.I am beyond grateful that a judge apparently blocked the order for 14 days. That the Supreme Court is not universally expected to immediately declare this order unconstitutional, that is terrifying.Does anyone know to which authority, if any, a citizen may voice concerns that failing to dismiss the order will set an unimaginable precedent?
My brother once supported this idea saying your parents should have to be citizens for you to be a citizen. I said be careful what you wish for. I had done genealogy research for fun & learned our parents never had birth certificates. They were born at home by a midwife and nobody back in those days bothered to tell the government they just had a child. It was not required. No social security numbers back then either. That didn't come until 1936 and only if you were working, not stay at home moms. FYI non-citizen green card holders get a SS# too, so that they pay SS taxes. Not that anyone in our family needed a green card. He never mentioned THAT again. If you are younger ask yourself this; did your grandparents ever have a birth certificate? Does that invalidate your parents citizenship and therefore yours? What about your great grandparents? How far back does this have to go? How else can your PROVE you are a citizen to say get a passport for the first time except proof that you were born here? 🤔😯
I guess you convinced him, but that he changed his mind as soon as and purely because it benefited him, is kinda a cheap way to arrive at a conclusion about granting someone rights.
I don't really see how that matters. It's not the 50's anymore, everything is digitalised. People should not get birthright citizenship, you have citizenship, this is not relevant to you or your brother. Furthermore, whether they had a birth certificate or not, does not change the fact that they were legal citizens, unless of course they were immigrants.
....my grandma parents have a birth certificate but it's more like a card my great grand mother had a certificate..although it was pretty much a paper with all necessary details but yes the usa still accepted that Your story doesn't add up at all
Meanwhile my father escaped communist Asia by coming to America by signing every single piece of paperwork, filling out loads more paperwork, finding a Catholic American missionary to help him translate and even then he made sure to dot his Is and cross his t's to make sure he had social security, credit, a valid license, birth certificate etc. Sounds to me like your grandparents were just lazy and didn't put the work in to making sure they have citizenship.
Damn, Liz has been a SOLID addition to your Eagleteam®, Devin. That was what 23min of dense information delivered pretty much without error, with distinct inflection and rhythm to keep the brainrot at bay. Not an easy thing to do, as we all know. Well done, Liz. Mad respect.
11:46 That was a _beautiful_ bit of politics by Sen. Padilla. He sets up the Nominee with a question that he knows the answer to AND that he knows _she_ won't admit in public, thus forcing her into a position where she has to either lie, say the quite part out loud, or claim that she needs to re-read a document that any nominee for Attorney General should already be _very_ familiar with. In all three cases, she's _screwed._
I don't know. Padilla is terminal blue...and it's not like senators are nonpartisan in this matter, especially when it comes to immigration issues. Bondi isn't going to lose anymore votes than before...
screwed? Trump wants her in the cabinet, and the GOP Senate in power will obey Trump. This is just political grandstanding by Democrats, accomplishing nothing.
Well that’s assuming sadly that these hearings are anything but performative because it would assume any member of the GOP held a form of ethics which they don’t.
Remember when this mattered: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!'"
I love how their favorite laws are completely unambiguous. Like how they go around wearing hats that say "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" but when it comes to the ones they _don't_ like, then it's all no no no, it's open to interpretation.
@@Dapper_Deanthe 14th amendment is not in the Bill of Rights. Furthermore, birthright citizenship was to solve the issue of Emancipation, not for foreign nationals to exploit it is it is now. It's an archaic law.
@ they so now, let's see the mental gymnastics needed to justify requiring a non-citizen paying taxes. This is going to be an interesting situation when all is said and done
My friend, non-citizens absolutely do pay taxes. People who make purchases, earn income, own property, etc. in the United States still have to pay taxes regardless of which country they are citizens of.
"The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means" is going to be said a lot over the next 4 years. It is how they will get everything they want.
Here's a thing most people don't realise. In the declaration of emancipation Lincoln abolished slavery in "states in rebellion ". Thus technically he did not abolish it in the Northern States that also had slavery. (Yes, I know it's not the actual act to which you referred.)
@@steelgunsuit NOTHING of which she stated is actually true, not just the part about Lincoln abolishing slavery and THEN a Civil War started. She IGNORED "AND UNDER THE JURISDICTION THEREOF" in her commentary. This means more than just personal jurisdiction which you get from just being here, otherwise their would ne no reason to mention jurisdiction. This means that you OWE NO ALLEGIANCE to any other power or potentate, which is more than just being here, you MUST be a US citizen or a LEGAL long term permanent resident as was extended under Wong.
@@ianhopping105 To correct you even further, the Emancipation Proclamation ONLY freed slaves that were in rebellious states and only those areas of the rebellious states that were NOT then under Union control, because it was a WAR MEASURE, it was deteremined that to ensure that it lasted that an amendment abolishing slavery was needed and the 13th amendment was passed in dec 1865
This is why there needs to be a law that requires the President to hold a law degree and a clean criminal background check. Why are lawyers required to pass the bar but the commander and chief is not?
I’d settle for requiring the President to meet the same criteria as a minimum wage job - clean background check, no felony convictions, and passing a drug test. Trump would fail all three.
is this a serious question? because the president is supposed to represent the average citizen. an average citizen does not need to have a law degree. the idea is that the average citizen should agree that a proposed law should pass. also, president has advisors and attorney general to consult. i can agree with having a clean criminal background though.
@@joegame4576 you wouldn't argue that a surgeon is meant to represent the average of their patients. I don't agree they should need a law degree either, but you want people able to do the job.
@@Parmesan_Seeker yeah like i said, that's why the president is surrounded by (supposedly) highly qualified professionals to advise him on technical matters. using your surgeon example, a surgeon doesn't represent patients when doing an actual surgery, but when deciding policies like who should be treated first, you should be representing an average patient. do you need to consult with doctors to make an informed decision? yes, but you don't have to be one. also, a president makes all kinds of policies, not just medical. that's why he has surgeon general, attorney general, secretary of this and that. the president is supposed to make the "right" decision, not an "expert" decision.
I was legitimately born on Australian soil, in Western Australia, that makes me a bona fide Australian citizen, what I would like to ask Mr Trump is this "By what right have you to determine whether a person is a US citizen or not, when your mum was originally from Scotland, and your dad was originally a refugee from Germany? who made you God to say you can take away someone's US citizenship? no one." technically, the only way Mr Trump can change the US Constitution is if the US congress has a two-thirds majority vote.
Nothing says "I'm a profoundly stupid racist" quite like "Well, if they have children here who grow up their entire lives as part of our culture and society....won't they be loyal to the origin countries of their birth parents?!?" Literally terrified of infants. That shit belongs on The Onion, not Newsweek, and it's author deserves ridicule not consideration.
Why aren't their parents' citizens? Nothing stops them from earning citizenship when they grow up, either. My parents and I are migrants to the US. We all earned citizenship. Other countries don't just give it to you for being born on their land. Stop being naive.
@@lominero5 What the shit do "other countries" have to do with anything? The US isn't other countries. It doesn't have to do what they do. (A principle which conservatives usually seem quite proud of!) There can be reasons that the US should do something the way "other countries" do it, but you have to actually say what those reasons are, it's not enough to just point out that "other countries do it". Countries don't all have to do all things the same way. And besides, as the video points out, the US is far from the only country with birthright citizenship! So if we were using your logic, it would be _just as accurate_ to say "other countries DO just give it to you for being born on their land, so the US should keep doing it too"!
I agree with the statement, but ive also argued before with people who were born in another country, came here at a super early age and have spent 90% of their life here, still argue that their country of birth is their home.
I think you don't know what tyranny means Skippy. Look it up you aren't using it correctly. I get it, you'd rather have the sycophant weaklings in charge to promote DEI and advancement based on race. Because you are probably a mediocrity.
Have any of you ever read the Civil Rights Act of 1866?? It was written by the same Congress who LATER condensed it into the Citizenship Clause. "All persons born in the United States AND NOT SUBJECT TO ANY FOREIGN POWER (like say, Guatemala or Venezuela), EXcluding Indians not taxed, are citizens." They were written right after the Civil War was fought over black slavery, right after the 13th Amendment abolished slavery, to ensure the Citizenship of freed slaves and THEIR children. It's just that simple. (Unless you're going to argue that the authors deliberately intended to exclude Native Americans but include illegal Mexicans...
Supreme Court Case US V Wong Kim ark: “The Supreme Court held in a 6-2 decision that a child born in the United States to parents of foreign decent is a citizen of the United States unless the parents are: 1) foreign diplomats, or 2) the child was born to parents who are nationals of an enemy nation that is engaged in a hostile occupation of the country’s territory. This follows classic English common law tradition and set down the most powerful precedent in favor of equality of citizenship in U.S. history.”
It's ridiculous that he thinks he can just rewrite a constitutional amendment to suit his whims. And that the supreme court may go along with such bold violations of the oath he will take to protect the constitution...
Ehh.. the fact that it’s the 14th “amendment” means that it wasn’t in the original constitution either. That said only congress has the power to do so. Not the president.
The supreme Court and Congress neither have the ability to modify the Constitution. Check your founders We the people, we the power Our founders certainly didn't give the power to a centralized authority
Wait, if being born in the US isn’t enough, doesn't that mean Trump should lose citizenship? I mean birthright citizenship applies to a child whose parent is a citizen of U.S. or someone born on the soil. Also, Trump's own mom is a scottish immigrant...
@@dionh70 Well if you want to actually go back on the chain, his dad's parents were not citizens when they had Fred, so Fred was not a citizen, which means dj trump though born on US soil, would himself not be a citizen and ineligible to hold the office if he undoes birthright citizenship.
Let's be honest with ourselves, from this point on, "The Law" is what they say it is. There is no one left to hold them accountable by legal means. They have taken control of every arena that matters. And mark my words, they will never again let go of it willingly or peacefully. Y'all didn't just open the gates of hell, you jumped though.
While I agree with the sentiment, blaming the voting population in a country that actively does everything they can to stop people from voting (including people being able to get fired over taking time off to vote) isn't going to get us anywhere...
I like how he said "We're the only country doing birthright citizenship," when he signed it. Because we are besides those 32 other countries that do it. I've been waiting a decade for him to say something that's actually right.... still waiting apparently. 😎
Most of the world actually. Just look up countries that practice jus soli, where you get citizenship if you get born through proper procedures and with a birth certificate. Immigrants are still capable of getting one but like Liz said in the vid, while it is in the countries' right to punish the offenders, the children are a victim of circumstance and should be granted the citizenship
Only 27.4% of countries in the world have laws regarding birthright citizenship if you go with the maximum count of 237 official countries. The large majority of the unrestricted countries (33) are in the Americas likely due to colonialism, and another 32 have restrictions on citizenship dependent on the status of the parents. Japan has a stipulation for those who do not have any type of citizenship. I wonder what drove that 🤔
Only 1 state (Massachusetts) had zero slaves when the Constitution was written. The 3/5 compromise was thus really NOT between “slave states” and “free states” but rather between “states with a lot of slaves” and “states with relatively few slaves.” We really need to emphasize this because it isn’t as though the North was slave-free in 1790 since it wasn’t. Pretending that slavery was nonexistent in the North from the inception, which is what the whole “slave state” vs “free state” narrative tends to imply to people massively mischaracterizes just how illiberal and immoral the US was just about everywhere at the time of the Constitutional Convention.
We can't forget Manasseh Cutler declared that the Northwest Territory would have no slaves or else would have blood in 1787. Abolitionism was a big deal in new england (Vermont demanded that they be allowed to remain slave free before joining the US)
The North didn't really embrace chattel slavery in the same way as the South, and it was thought that barring the import of African slaves would eventually diminish the slave population over time to make the issue irrelevant. The North got hoodwinked; captive slaves breed just fine and it wasn't going to end on its own.
Hate to give Eastman credit but he’s not wrong about the 3/5 compromise blunting slaveholder influence. The abolitionists had a dilemma: they did not want the slave states padding their congressional representation numbers with their slave population while not treating them as human but also wanted the slaves counted as people. So the 3/5 compromise ended being the legislative equivalent of saying, “Fine! You get to use your slaves but not all of them!”
While technically correct 'they had slaves in the North'... most of the North was more or less anti-slavery but it wasn't enshrined in law and generally the treatment of the slaves and scale of that slavery was much less in the North. I'm not trying to say, North good South bad but I just want to be sure people understand that there is a difference between 'yeh, a little bit' compared to 'it was the economy'.
Well he did say it would only apply "going forward" to future children of illegal aliens, so yes, you were exaggerating. As for whether you no longer wish to identify as an American after the change in government, that's really up to you.
Never underestimate the power of racism. There is a reason for this whole thing. To remove and takeover whats there. To also control whoever comes into the county. Let see how this works out if it happens.
Wouldn't defining immigrants as "invading enemy combatants" and declaring "war" against them also constitute a declaration of war against the country or countries they are emigrating from?
Listening to the speech yesterday there were a few things that stood out. 1. declaring a national emergency at the southern border, 2. categorizing cartels as terrorist organizations and also a mention of American being an expanding nation again and acquiring new territories. I'm concerned he's going to try some shit with Mexico.
I'm curious. What if the parents of a person born in America are criminals? Should they still receive citizenship according to this amendment? I think that "jurisdiction" line is carrying a lot of weight... 🤔
Someone should tell him that law applies to him as well. I guarantee you he will explicitly make his overreach applying to brown people only or to exempt white people.
Love that the immigrants who voted for Trump because they wanted to limit competition from their fellow countrymen in the American job market are also the ones getting kicked out first. I'm not saying this is a good situation obviously, or even that it's fair, but the Lions Eating Faces Party coming for the faces of some of those who voted for them feels almost poetic. Stay strong, folks!
It's called karma. Don't get me wrong, I think Trump is delusional. And those you mentioned, who voted for them for the reason you mentioned, may well bear the fruits of Trump's delusional labour.
Always love seeing the seething contempt from the left against minorities who don't fall into line. US citizens voted him into office, retroactive citizenship revocation is purely a deliberately dishonest interpretation of law precedence.
Pushback @11:07, as someone who would be classified as African American/Black, parents and grandparents as Colored or American Negro, WE ARE NOT IMMIGRANTS. The African ancestors I have were forced here, the Indigenous side were re-classified as Negro. I AM NOT AN IMMIGRANT
Jus Soli Birthright Citizenship is nationality law (not immigration), existed as establ. common law pre-indep. Only thing 14th Amend. did was extend it to Black ppl then o/POCs instead of Whites only.
With the exception of Native Americans, no one originated from North America. All of our ancestors cross the different periods throughout our American history. Anyone, not Native American, claiming their family originated from North America, and nowhere else, should really take a look at their family tree. Now, Anyone involved in organized crime or has committed heinous crimes should be deported. America is heading into a war with the Mexican Cartels. Any known associates should be considered a threat. Protect all other immigrants and allow them to live their lives. People, this war will soon be clear and present danger all Americans and our allies. We can't afford to be divided. Support and care for each other. The Drug and Human Trafficking must end.
Soooo if you are against Birthright citizenship then everyone minus Native Americans needs to leave. Buuuuuuut what they really mean is; if you’re white you’re a citizen and you’re good. If you’re anything but white you’re questionable. I’m so fed up with these bigots. All because a black man became president.
@Kanal-yh5xi That doesn't magically get rid of their points. Birthright is something that protects children, yet you who is presumably one who whines about protecting the children wants to annihilate it?
Yeah I mean let’s be honest, statistically there are more Europeans on visa overstays than their are Mexicans who illegally crossed the border, and yet we all know who they’re talking about when they talk about illegal immigrants.
@@Kanal-yh5xithe US has some of the most tedious citizenship process though, it can take AWHILE before your accepted as a citizen if your considered to be of a foreign nation Oh and god forbid your a child
Because the Dems Darling Merrick Garland decided that letting a convicted felon run again "set a better precedent" than holding a former president accountable.... But hey, admitting something like _that_ would make it harder to call it "constructive" to look down on everyone around you...
He's going to have to change his rhetoric on calling anyone "bad" a criminal since his immigrant wife is married to a natural born convicted felon... which I do believe, makes him a "criminal" who married an immigrant thereby making her a citizen. A "nice young lady" ... married to a criminal.
_"A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country to by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."_ - President Thomas Jefferson
My girlfriend of 4 years was born here and is every bit American as anyone else. To think racists want to send her to a third world country she has never been to is terrifying and disgusting. During Trump’s first term she faced so much hatred from emboldened white supremacists. I’m worried about what we’re going to have to deal with now.
@@ShadowwingMDwut? She was born here so she is American. They trying to change that but that makes no sense. What makes an American if not a person born in America? You are where your lineage is I guess? But that makes no sense because no American is lineage from America unless Native American. So it makes no sense. Lol.
He makes absolutely no sense. How do you deport a legal citizen to another country, and why would that other country accept them? But this is what happens when a third of the nation can't get off their ass to vote and lets another third vote in an insane man with no respect for or understanding of the law.
It does make sense. There's no way someone can just enter a country illegally, then have children there, and everyone is now American. You could even come on a visiting visa, have kids, then boom. American. It's a loophole in the system. Citizenship should be by merit to non naturalized parents.
There is also the case of Rio Rico, Texas, where a piece of Texas was treated by all as if it were Mexico. The land was later given to Mexico. However people who were born there before that happened later successfully argued that they were US citizens. That is a more recent precedent.
@@Gentleman.J.Daniels Biden literally commit any crimes. It’s the only reason his brother was charged of shit. Of which, what he did wasn’t that bad from what I could find out. Unlike Trump who literally has 30+ felony’s. They followed the rules. Even when Biden did pardon his brother, I think that’s more than justified considering that Trump does his absolute best in being an ass.
@@perkele9994uh no, cause apparently the mom wasn't a citizen, so it still wouldn't work, use your own rules man. If I can't be considered a citizen because I was born here, neither should baron.
"You can't take away my [insert constitutional right here]. It's a constitutional right!" I better see that same energy for others' constitutional rights.
@@griffinarcher2911I think it’s more nuanced than that, as we have the resources as a nation to accommodate those immigrants and help them, as many are desperate and need help, which we can offer if we are willing.
@ That doesn't make it any less illegal. Also, I would argue that we don't have enough resources given our healthcare, social security, homelessness etc. How could we go to the extent of ignoring the law like we are wealthy enough to take care of millions who come here when we don't even have enough to take care of ourselves.
One question: is there any ground for originalists to distort the interpretation? I do agree with your arguments but I would like to know more about the debates at the time the 14th was approved. Thanks!
00:59 that's generous of you to believe he thinks before speaking. Nope, he just wants to end birthright citizenship, post dated for the day after Baron Trump was born... but only if Baron does that one favor he asked for.
If SCOTUS lets him end it I hope the masses really take action. If we can’t count on a clear and plain reading of the laws and constitution, we can only count on tyranny.
Let's be honest, like it or not 77m people voted for this. People get stuck in bubbles of their own beliefs and don't realize this isn't an accident, it was the entire point. I feel for these people but even I have to admit as a left leaning moderate that the border issue is a real problem. It is why I sit this election out.
@@TheJmac82They used the border issue to push for racist policies. The border is an issue because the border states don't have enough capacity to take in migrants of this scale. That's it. There is no other good reason to deny them entry, especially those who are already citizens, even those that were born here from illegal immigrant parents. At that point, they have integrated into US society, and aren't burdening the resources used to handle the border crisis. If they are born in the US, they have already integrated enough to pay for the hospital fees, or moved deeper into the US, found a job etc. At that point, what exactly is the issue? Why target birthright citizenship here?
@@TheJmac82 The border issue has been perpetuated by wealthy elites and corporations so they can benefit from undocumented labor and now, it's fine they are using it as an excuse to take rights away from citizens? Are you sure that's the position you want to take?
@@TheJmac82 just because someone voted for trump does not mean that they agree with his every action. Also, if they end birthright citizenship, what’s stopping them from saying whatever marginalized group they dislike is no longer a citizen? What’s stopping them from saying any plainly written law clearly doesn’t mean what it says (like they already did with the immunity decision)?
I've studied history for 20 years. Have the student loans to prove it lol I've written family histories for about 15 years. Thank you so much for detailing the very important history behind this amendment. It has been horrifying watching people try to twist the meaning behind our laws and amendments. I honestly never thought I'd watch a leader reverse our history. It's wild.
That this is even a conversation is 2025 mindboggling. Imaging looking back at this time periode in the future - "remember when we arguing about basic human rights?".
Just because the Supreme Court makes claims about the Constitution (such as claims about so-called "birth rights" and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof)," that does not mean that the claims are correct in respect to the original intended meaning or the understanding of those who drafted the Constitution's provisions.
We know the amendment was intended to grant citizenship to former slaves and the free Africans who were descendants of former slaves. So "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" needed to include people who were (1) not the children of U.S. citizens (2) potentially had parents who originated from or were a citizen foreign country (3) potentially born from parents who were living in the country as an illegal resident at the time of birth, which was the case for all runaway slaves after Dred Scott. It seems pretty clear the intended scope was birthright citizen regardless of whether a person's parents had a right to be in the US or not.
Do you think he'll succeed in ending this 150+ year legal precedent? Compare news coverage from diverse sources around the world on a transparent platform driven by data. Try Ground News today and get 40% off your subscription: ground.news/legaleagle ⚖⚖⚖ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam
He better not!
At this point it would not surprise me. A fair chunk of american view him as some divine prophet, and if republicans see if this both appeals/makes money they sure will.
Doubt, how would they handle legal immigrants giving birth to a child in the states?
Would they need to get permission from their "home" country?
How would that work over generations?
How would they deal with children who both aren't American but also aren't claimed by their "home" country?
It's just less complicated and less headaches to say that everyone born on US soil is American. And I don't mean just conceptually, because I'd imagine that there would be many case by case basis's that would cost a ton of money to take to court.
I understand that encouraging people to illegally immigrate isn't a good idea, but this isn't one of the ways to do that. Just work on the border or give the people a reason to stay in their country.
Don't worry LegalEagle, if I get deported you can visit me in DR. I got you fam!!!
First they end the birth right and then they take away my birth certificate.
It's difficult to amend the Constitution, even for a full house. But if so? Then... All Europeans can return to the Queen.
Remember folks, when someone says “The Government would never do that” oh they would. And they have.
"I am the Senate" vibes
Have done what
And they *should*
Seems like an accurate representation of what the voters want. Keep electing these clowns, get a circus.
@someguy1ification I'm confused, when he sais they have, what have they done
So let me get this straight. The 2nd Amendment is an "enshrined constitutional right" but the 14th Amendment is "woke policy that needs to be abolished"
no. The 2nd Amendment is an "enshrined constitutional right" when politically expedient. the 14th Amendment is "woke policy that needs to be abolished" because its politically expedient.
Right. Anything they don’t like about the Constitution is merely an inconvenience that can be ignored but you better not “grab my guns!!!!” because it’s their constitutional right to have any weapon they want without restriction or limitation.
The hypocrisy
Bingo
These leftwing takes never cease to amaze me, where did this idea of abolishing the 14th amendment come from? It's like no one watched the video, the argument is about misinterpretation of birth right citizenship. This is what peak conformation bias.
That joke in Futurama where the head of Nixon says "Oh yeah? Well I know a place where the constitution means squat!" and then it cuts to the Supreme Court continues to age uncomfortably well
unfortunately for you , you do not know what a judges job is.
the police enforce the law
judges interpret the law
@@vonn4017if i interpret someone saying “no” as “yes” im interpreting it but im interpreting it wrong
@@Jack-sq6xb Exactly. "Interpret" doesn't give a judge free rule to claim that a law means whatever they want.
"My interpretation of the first amendment is that it's illegal to eat bananas!"
@@vonn4017 Considering bribery is legal; a judge's job is to deliver the legal rulings their backers want.
@@vonn4017 and the judges are not Gods, they're people, and very corrupt people who have consistently been ignoring stare decisis
If birthright citizenship can be eliminated via executive order, then so can the second amendment.
As much I don't want that for the people nothing is impossible.
Wrong
@@wonder777warrior6, a lot is impossible though.
@
Fourteenth Amendment
Section 1
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...
This language isn't wishy-washy or open to interpretation. It's actually more definite in its intent than the second amendment, which begins "A well regulated Militia...", which has begged the questions...What did they mean by "militia"? Regulated by whom?
@@Joe-bh4vz RIGHT. tf 😂
The people who support removing the 14th amendment from the constituion tend to overlap with people who argue that you can't remove the 2nd amendment because it's part of the constitution.
Gotta love the double standards.
Its classic “rights for me but not for thee” the same crayzo 2nd amendment people have also tried to say people who don’t align with them shouldn’t have the right to bear arms ironically
I think we know by now that things like “legality” and “tradition” aren’t really what they care about. This is more about benefitting people that look like them and pray to the same God at the expense of everyone else.
Keep 'em both I say.
The only amendment that has ever been removed so far was prohibition because it was causing too much trouble to apply. We’re going to lose the 14th first and probably the 1st second
@@planescapedwhat about removing both?🤔
Actually that’s kinda dum
Donald Trump's grandfather and grandmother were not US citizens, Therefore, Donald Trump's father was not a US citizen (if there is no birthright citizenship). Donald Trump's mother came form Scotland and she was only granted citizenship on the (incorrect) assumption that Fred Trump was an American citizen. Therefore, neither of Donald Trump's parents were US citizens, so Donald Trump is not a US citizen.
Melania is an illegal immigrant. She entered the US as a visitor, but then did a lot of modeling work without a work visa. That violation made her ineligible for naturalization.
Baron would not be a US citizen.
Turtles all the way down...
[edit]
There are posts down below that claim that Frederick Trump was a US citizen before Fred Trump was born. There is no evidence of that. The court records for the court where Fredrick Trump claims to have gained his citizenship do not agree. Also, Frederick Trump had illegally fled Germany and was not eligible for US citizenship. Also again, Fredrick Trump went back to Germany to become a citizen, where he was required to renounce his US citizenship (if he had any). Because of his criminal past, Germany revoked his German citizenship and he returned to the US. However, once you renounce US citizenship, you cannot get it back (at least not easily). In the early 1900's many people falsely claimed to be US citizens because it was practically impossible to prove otherwise. Fredrick Trump was very likely one of them.
It doesnt affect white people
Rules for thee not for me
@@Snake369just using trumps logic
@@Snake369 Yeah, under the federalist interpretation of the 14th Amendment, not even Trump could claim American citizenship. So, y'know, careful what you wish for and all that.
@Snake369 yes, you are right. I'm not, as I did not write it.. glad we could come to a even agreement on that.
Breaking News: Us supreme Court declares the Constitution unconstitutional
Is this The Onion? Oh no, it's reality. Hard to tell sometimes...
Just the Bill of Rights.
@@joanfregapane8683 there are many conservatives that actually believe that the bill of rights are the only "real" amendments and even some don't like all of them...
Breaking News: US Border just an imaginary line that means nothing.
@@BackStabbinJewno it does mean something
“Confirming that Native Americans were indeed US Citizens” the audacity 😂😂😂😂
“Hey at this point who cares about the Constitution anyways?” -The Supreme Court, Defenders of the Constitution
As it should be. It's full of a bunch of outdated nonsense that doesn't apply in today's world. The idea that such a framework should be followed when people back then couldn't even convince of the concept of a smartphone is laughable.
Yeah you’re not kidding. They literally just manufactured some nonsense about “presidential immunity” out of thin air. There’s not a single word about that in the Constitution but they just decided they wanted it to exist anyway, so now it does.
@@AdanSolasthere’s a process to change the Constitution and it doesn’t include the Supreme Court just ignoring it
@@ErikDayne Which means nothing whatsoever if they just do it anyway.
They don't defend it or we would still have tiktok and I don't even use tiktok but I think that was a major 1st amendment violation
Elon was born in South Africa. The mental gymnastics required for the mindset of these people is absolutely mind-boggling.
Ironically, this makes him a valid citizen since he qualified for citizenship through other routes.
he has legal documents. The loop is fairly obvious, and not quite a loop at all...
Let's not forget, Drump's mother was an immigrant. 2 of his wives were/are immigrants, so 4 of his kids would, technically, also be affected by his "rules".
This is equivalent to the German moustached man, whose mother was Jewish and who did not look Aryan in anyway. Yet, he somehow lead that whole "movement". The hypocrisy is gross.
He's rich so they don't think rules should apply to him
@@izicial7469 Well, you can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs.
Man they really told that man “we kidnapped your ancestors so you’re not a citizen here” as if he had anything to do with THEIR crime against HIS family wtf
Who are you talking about?
@@NoriMori1992 Dredd Scott
whom built a technologically advanced society?
@KohniHart Calling 18th century America "advanced" is a bit of a stretch, Britain was still more advanced than us at the time. We really kicked things off in the 19th century, and became fully dominant only after WW1.
Welcome to North Korea.
This whole debate reminds me of the discussion we have here in my home country - about who was and wasn't a "true german". I'd rather not get into that. Here's the takeaway: Once there is precedent for one minority losing their rights, they'll soon come for everybody they deem "unfit".
Hello Thank you for sharing Speaking as someone who has reason to believe her paternal ancestors left Germany precisely to get away from a certain dictator's nonsense, please allow me to welcome you to the United States and to wish you the best.I think you voiced my own concern in the best words. I am not of any legal profession so I could be missing something, but I do not believe any other president has ever even spoken of even attempting such a thing. That this order is not being universally vilified, shocks/embarrasses me to no end. Why his chances for a second term did not die immediately when he said he would do this, is beyond me. However, the debate also reaffirms that the nation is not a dictatorship.
Again, Thank you and best wishes
You are so right and it scares me.
we know. they know.
normies have zero clue what they got themselves into in the hopes to have cheaper eggs.
obama kenya was elected so 14th abolish is ok😊
They're mixing up illegal immigrants and legal non-permanent residents. Politicians like to say things that sound smart, not things that are actually smart.
It's not an accident. They're wholly racist remember?
Well the eo came out and it have a clause specifically about legal non permanent resident.
"Invaders" being the primary dog whistle.
I wish more legal US citizens knew how hard it is to actually get citizenship.
No, what you don't understand is there is no such thing as a legal non-permanent residents, in their opinion.
@@JanelleChristmas-w6u that's pretty much what I'm saying
"We had a war in which the Confederacy lost"
Yeah, it seems they keep forgetting that bit.
They lost in the short term, but seem to be winning at the moment...
@@garethaethwyShouldn't have pardoned those traitors.
I think they need a reminder. A stronger one
The confederates were liberals. The "big switch" is a lie
@@neurofiedyamato8763 yh the biggest screw up America ever did was letting the traitors live. US has been divided ever since, I wonder what would have happened if Lincoln lived. Texas still threatens to damn cede every couple years for god sake 😭
Back in the Dubya era, there was a widely circulated political cartoon where an Angry White Man was shaking a finger at a Hispanic family shouting "It's time to reclaim America from illegal immigrants!" A Native American behind him said "I'll help *you* pack."
The people who were actually here first weren't granted citizenship until 1924.
EDIT: I can't believe this comment is trouncing Devin's pinned comment in ratios.
I never understood this argument because doesn’t this actually prove the point of Americans who support strict immigration ?
You’re saying that the fear of illegal immigrants coming in and displacing you and your culture is rationally based on history…
I never understood this argument because doesn’t this actually prove the point of Americans who support strict immigration ?
You’re saying that the fear of illegal immigrants coming in and displacing you and your culture is rationally based on history…
Mostly forgotten peoples. But they were considered citizens of their own nation. Native Nations were the first nations the United States made treaties with. We showed these treaties as evidence of our independence to England. But after repeatedly breaking our treaties and brutally killing them and removing them it's evident they were only used for the benefit of United States colonization.
That makes a certain kind of sense. If native groups wanted to view themselves as independent nations, then accepting citizenship from their occupier might be seen as tacit approval. But I'm not sure what they actually thought about it at the time.
It's not an argument it's just showing hypocrisy. Modern immigrants are coming for similar reasons as most of the early Americans did and unlike back them aren't doing so with the support of a major power who wants to destroy and replace the existing countries. The main point is to not hate immigrants when you and your family are immigrants
“In the beginning, there was racism”
And that sums up all you need to know about America and the current war on immigrants
homie this is not racism, this is justice. if your here in America and not legal, goodbye.
@@lameh.838 It's so weird hearing Americans hate on immigrants. I don't support it in Europe either, but at least it makes more sense there since the majority of any European country's population IS people who have lived there since forever. But America is such a young country. Did you forget that you all came from immigrants, unless you're Native American?
Congress has previously ignored the 14th Amendment to remove citizenship from law-abiding, natural-born citizens, so unfortunately, thete is ample precedent. Specifically, in the Expatriation Act of 1907, which declared that women who married non-citizen men, even those who were permanent residents, automatically lost their citizenship. And when that part of the law was rewritten in 1934, it wasn't made retroactive, so affected women--who may have never left the U.S. their whole lives--had to _apply to get their citizenship back_
My great-grandmother was one of those affected by this law, so this hits close to home.
The f###? Crazy smh
Same here.
That's why my grandfather was born as a "Jennings" instead of a "Hernandez". His parents had to separate, or he wouldn't have been an American citizen.
It looks like the caselaw for that revolved around the theory that marriage was a voluntary act. So the court avoided the 14th amendment because supposedly the women effectively consented to losing citizenship.
That is insane and how was that skipped in my multiple US history classes K-12? I know there is a lot to teach but damn, wouldn't that have required at least a paragraph? How tf did I stumble across forced sterilization and not this? (which sadly, was news to my high school teachers as well)
Melania Trump became a citizen on July 28, 2006. Baron Trump was born March 20th, 2006; that’s four months before his mother had citizenship. I hope the President will set an example by sending his son “home” first.
How do we make sure this reaches his ears😂
I find it funny that you think he cares about his son. That's a lot more faith in his humanity than I have, and I don't even live in the US.
The father was already a US citizen so therefore the child is born to an American which implies that he earned directly citizenship and her mother was not an illegally immigrant . 😂
If one of the two parents is a legal US citizen, then the child is a US citizen. It's stated pretty clearly in the EO. Not to blindly agree with all of this, but make sure to read it before assuming.
You’re so dramatic. Donald is a legal citizen so nothing will happen to Baron.
So this amendment can be removed, but "right to bear arms shall not be infringed"??
what about free speech and the right to bear Arms😂
@@kingfait5437
Funny... Given the stone above the sun with a name on it.
Everything in the Constitution can be amended, even ignored. It’s just hard to amend.
I don't know about you but with the way things are going I think people should take every option to defend themselves and their families.
It’s always been more than just banning guns. We shouldn’t let our politicians revoke whatever rights we have left just because they can.
I am a third generation American. 2 of my grandparents were Mexican immigrants (legal) and the other was a British immigrant (also legal). My one grandparent who was born American also had a British mother. My parents are U.S. citizens but only by birth in the United States. I'm mixed race obviously but all of this mess is just making me contemplate going back to the UK (not sure if they'd welcome someone like me though). I can't gain citizenship by descent but I might try a work visa or something like that. I never thought there'd be a day in my life where I, an American citizen by birth, a native English speaker, and a taxpayer would consider returning to the UK. The government will gladly consider me American to collect my tax dollars but when it comes to everything else, will make me feel like I don't belong here. I even had friends who knew full well who I was, who voted against me. I don't know what to think about it all.
Maybe I'm just being paranoid.
I might not belong there either.
The answer to "can they do this?" is yes. Not because it's legally sound or morally correct. Because democracy is dead and the oligarchs can do whatever they want.
Democracy is dead is such a defeatist attitude.
Bastardised, yes, absolutely. But its fixable, theres still more of us (when everyone stops being apathetic).
It cant be fixed without everyone either.
@@deliquescencemusic "It cant be fixed without everyone either" - That is exactly why it's dead
@@deliquescencemusic Yes, but the majority clearly voted to get rid of democracy. We had a whole election about it. People who want democracy are doing nothing to bring it back.
Actions matter more than feelings.
Morality has little to do with governance.
People need to stop living in fantasy land and realize if the government can give you something it can take it away too. The only defense is a small government with tightly defined responsibilities.
As a citizen of the democraty of the state of new york who does not live within the confines of one of the 5 cities required to win the election, good riddance. Democray is a dictatorship pretending to be free and fair. Long live the Republic.
This won't end here. Many in conservative movements have also expressed the opinion that only landowners should be allowed to vote. They are literally trying to return to feudalism. There will be the oligarchs and the serfs.
And then the pitchforks come out.
Guys, I'm starting to think they might only care about rich people.
Yeah, I've been seeing that sentiment in various social media circles by some conservatives. It's hilarious to think these people believe their vote should be worth more just because they live in bumfuck nowhere with some plot a land opposed to somebody living in an apartment in some random city.
@@wormer104 Pitchforks vs knights in armor and horses was bad enough....now it's Apache helicopters and abrams tanks...this has all been intentional.
I’m glad my brother who owns a house and my other brother’s friend who owns his house are fully for women’s education and access to reproductive healthcare. For really stupid reasons, IMO, but they are.
I'm sure this will bring down the price of eggs
Yeah. The farmers can lift themselves up by their own bootstraps and do all the farming themselves. Who needs migrants?
@XBluDiamondX What’s sad is that migrants being mistreated and paid peanuts if what keeps the price of eggs and other groceries down. The system has long been broken, the problem was no one cared. But hey! You’re not wrong! Let’s see if all the “they’re taking our jobs” homies flock to the fields to take those positions that are about to suddenly become open!
I guess irony is not dead. I want CHEAP eggs. Forget the constitution. v
@Gentleman.J.Daniels lol thats funny
I love how RUclips now censors even the most harmless of comments. Even a comment mentioning how the price of eggs and groceries was as low as they were due to migrants being mistreated and paid peanuts for years.
A note to the video editor: could you possibly use yellow highlights instead of blue highlights when highlighting text? The blue is pretty hard to read on some of my screens. Thank you!!!
Imagine being a 15 year old child of an illegal immigrant who's spent their entire life in the US, and then getting deported to a place you've never lived before, that you have no concept of ghe culture of, and that you might not even speak the language of. This is going to be someone's reality soon enough.
Or their parents get deported and the kid gets left alone?
@@viefcheesecake we have to keep the families together 😂. There is only one way.
I don't believe that children should suffer for the sins of their parents, but it's impossible to seek justice without cutting through an innocent. I agree with removing the incentive for people to enter illegally. I disagree with retroactively applying this law.
@viefcheesecake that doesn't work and is wildly unethical. 😂
Or when parents move out of the states and take the child with them. It happens
This is already a reality for some people, for instance those that entered the US as babies. Now, they want to upscale it!
So the pledge he made on Inauguration Day to defend the Constitution is actually gonna be a "eh, maybe if I feel like it, or not" kind of pledge.
So he's a normal politician after all.
It always was for Dump
Well, he already said ages ago that the "oath of office" isn't something he believes in, cares about, or is bound by. The fact that we're still going along with the whole song and dance is grotesque.
Remember, he argued he had NOT sworn an oath to support the constitution, when that oath was inconvenient for him
@@I_AM_BAYTOR Faaaaarrrrr from it.
If someone was born here, they likely don’t have citizenship anywhere else. That would mean these people also have no country to legally send them. The legal and diplomatic hurdles would be extraordinary. Then the amount to fund this operations working through all this and housing the people would be huge.
This would create more problems for almost no real societal contribution
This is the situation I’m in right now, for a different reason. Born covertly and never had a birth certificate or any record of my existence for the first half of my life. I’ve been on my own since I was an early teen and that’s when I started seeking proof that I was born here. I know that I must have been, but I have no one to attest to my birth, personally or legally. It’s been over a decade and I’m still not a ‘citizen’ - which also means I can’t get any form of ID or anything that requires it - but there’s nowhere for me to be deported to. I’m not a citizen of anywhere and wouldn’t be allowed into anywhere without documentation of _some_ sort from _somewhere._
It’s a nightmare and this isn’t what our country needs.
@jasond.b-w i'm sorry for you bro, usa legal system is truely a bureucratic hell as soon as you don't grasp it the right side, hope the best for you
They are likely citizens of the country their parents are citizens of, AKA jus sanguinis.
@@jasond.b-w I really hope you can find some help navigating your situation. I wish you the best of luck!
@@takatamiyagawa5688 but if youre born in a country that makes you a citizen of that country. Not the one your parents were born in. The other country isn't just gonna give them citizenship cause thier parents were born there.
11:05 BLACK AMERICAN DESCENDENT OF AMERICAN SLAVERY AREN'T IMMIGRANTS AND DIDN'T CHOOSE TO MIGRANT TO THE UNITED STATES.
This is why you don't elect people to office that can't pass a 5th grade test on history.
That’s what legal experts are for😂
A politician being able to pass a 5th grade history test has no bearing on their constituent's ability to do so, and their constituents are the ones they have to appeal to. The issue is not just knowledge, but malice.
But it seems like the majority that apply are this group of people 😭😭😭 Because intelligent people don't wanna deal with this mess😔😒
Elon and Trump do not need to pass the test, they can afford to pay someone to take the test for them. I agree with President Musk that we should get rid of birthright citizenship so we can deport the Trump to Russia where they are beloved.
This is why you don't elect people to office that simply can't pass the 5th grade.
I was born in Chicago in 1983 to Mexican parents. I'm a Marine Corps veteran and I've been a law abiding citizen all my life. In short, I've considered myself an American and nothing else.
If feels deeply offensive someone like trump, a patriot in name only (PINO?), would say someone like me is not worthy enough to be an American citizen.
Yeah that's absolutely disgusting and you're far more American than Trump will ever be. 🫡🇺🇸
I'm adopting the PINO abbreviation into my lingo now, thanks ^^
There are a majority giving birth in the country to stay in the country. If there weren’t an influx, I think it’d be okay.
yeah man. It's frickin ridiculous. Some of the most patriotic people I know were born here to parents of other countries
They are coming specifically for you and your parents.
Thank the majority of stupid voters in this country and may you be safe.
As a person of color who has been pulled over multiple times for my skin color, one cop going as far as to start detaining me and asking for my green card (i was born in the US to legal US citizens), I am terrified that this is setting up precedence that people like me will be denaturalized and deported to some random place they think I'm from.
*edit*
Yay for 1k likes!
Don't feel bad, I'm hoping to use this law to remove President Musk and his puppet to a country that wants them like Russia.
I wish they’d clarify what technicalities this is based on bc this has been happening for decades, but now it seems like its solely race and not paperwork, or some fun combo of the two where they deport first and ask questions
never
My friend’s dad was arrested twice by 🧊 under the bush admin as a green card holder, and they’re white, so …
That’s exactly where this is heading, happened as recently as the 50’s, US born citizens getting shipped to Mexico even tho most had never even stepped foot in Mexico in their entire life.
Lol. You never got pulled over because of your skin color. 😂
This is normal in the rest of the world, though. Many countries also require you to have your ID on you at all times while in public. If you WERE in the U.K. or Japan illegally, or overstayed your visa, you'd be tracked down within days and kicked out. So, yes, they can and do ask and yes, they enforce their immigration policies with zero leeway or consideration given. So does the E.U., and even Mexico. We are the one exception in the entire world (that has a functioning police/government) where people who are here illegally are not immediately deported.
The class of people not covered by the 14th amendant was speficially claried by its author. It may not be in the official text of the bill, but its clear what the writers of the amendant intended.
"Simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of person." - Jacob Howard
"In the beginning there was racism" is an underrated line
Luckily that's all behind us now /s
@@wambacwm Exactly. These people out here are screaming about things long past.
Im pretty sure it is still there. In fact i believe it is the Reichwings main source of energy.
well... in the begining africa was enslaving itself for others to use them from other tribes...cmmon now
The vast majority if not outright all of countries in europe, africa, and asia do not have birthright citizenship, it is only common in north and south america due to colonization population requirements due to historically "unsettled" lands.
This is the default state in almost all of the world, where the only citizen generation is through children of citizens being born, and immigrants going through the naturalization process.
This is not opression, this is the standard position nearly every worldwide government has.
"You'd think that a 130 years a precedence, would give us confidence about the outcome at the supreme court - but with these guys you never know"
Same court that used 1600 law to saw what they do is legal, that court?
And the second amendment is a precedent of over 200 years. Why is it ok to question the second but not the 14th?
Does the 14th exist only to kill people?
Don’t lie, cry or deny it, a guns only purpose is to kill.
Why do you think you have an unlimited right to kill people, with no checks or responsibilities?
It's not a kangaroo court or they would have just made the tik tok ban illegal because Trump told them too. All of their rulings have to be backed up with rational arguments supported by the constitution or they could run the risk of being impeached.
@@markjohansen6048 What you you saying? For 200 years the 2nd amendment was (correctly IMO) believed to be about state rights to raise militia. Then Ronald Reagan's supreme court changed it to allow everyone the right to carry any gun. It is absolutely inconceivable that the authors of your 2nd amendment intended individual citizens to have the fire power to mow down a few dozen people at a time. The 2nd amendment was very badly written.
So wouldn’t that make his wife and kids also not citizens? Since wasn’t Melania an immigrant?
No, they’re white.
@ still migrants
Because they are legal immigrants?
@@dejaypage1575 and you know that’s not the point of what they’re trying to do.
@@Victor-fq6lz She now is but literally by his own wording this would apply to both his son and wife. Barron was born months before melanie got her citizenship and was only allowed to stay domestically because of the birth. Had she given birth in her country of origin (bc again she was already being pushed to leave bc visas have time limits) Baron would have to apply for US citizenship despite his dad. Trump stated he wants to go after people who abuse having kids to get citizenship. If he is telling the truth (like he always is...) then this applies to them. Hope this clears up the confusion
If he changes this part of the constitution, this leaves the door open for other aspects of the constitution to be under scrutiny.
HE is not changing it, he is returning it to its ORIGINAL INTENT of not including foreigners, the birthright citizenship is for US citizens only, and the 14th amendment made sure that free blacks and the freed slaves were INCLUDED as US citizens forever.
As to the rest of your post, it shows how ridiculous you are! EVERY PART of the US Constitution is OPEN to scrutiny by everyone. If the requisite number of people and states agreed, they could take away your freedom of speech or any other right. It is NOT going to happen, but it is OPEN to scrutiny and to be talked about.
It will be interesting. Most americans are citizens because they were born in the USA. What else do they have? Their parents also born here? Not enough I am afraid. If they can't prove citizenship, you can't. Recently immigrated families may be able to point to a rightful citizenship. But the descendents of the pilgrim fathers? Did the Pilgrim Fathers have proper immigration status?
I know you're being sardonic, but, yeah, how far back is "good enough". As for the pilgrims, no, they were refugees coming to North America. And, had the indigenous people of the area not welcomed them in and helped them out during that winter, they would have just straight up died from starvation and cold.
@@PhotonBeast You can call me sarccastic but this is the consequence of denying birtright citizenshio without replacing it by another legitimation.
Yes. And they were basically trespassing on native land. Only the natives didn't kow how to deal with it in a modern way so they didnt oppose but also didn't give them legal status. .
Their refugee status was shady. They were _not_ persecuted in the Netherlands where they previously lived. In fact they felt too welcome. Members of the group started to mingle with the locals and the leaders wanted to prevent that. They were _Jim Jones_ refugees, one might say.
@ To be clear, the mention of sarcasm/sardonicism was not meant as an insult, merely an observation on my part as to how I was interpreting tone. And it was not intended as a negative observation - I'm from New England; sarcasm and sardonicism is basically the same thing as a neutral tone for me :)
@@PhotonBeast Same question I have, my family came over before the CW, when do I or my family get to be called "native"? Never?
@@PhotonBeast remember, DT said "Deportations will happen, regardless of citizenship" We are only US citizens because we were born here. Which would technically mean only naturalized citizens would be US citizens, because they have paperwork proving it...
So ironic trump says “we’ll have education back”. Didn’t he say he was getting rid of the department of education? How do you fix something by getting rid of it?
You get rid of it and remake it in your own image 😊
@@Gbleesko Yeah, and it was shit.
@@Gbleeskoyou do get in some states they try to include young earth teaching which is not education at all. That can happpen only if the department of education is abolished. Not like america got a good education level compared to other countries.
There's nothing ironic about it... your post is like saying, "You're getting rid of God by closing a church." Governmental agencies don't bring education... they help shape it, but by getting rid of a department it doesn't follow that education will go away.
@@Gbleesko If that were true we wouldn't have a Department of Education, because that was created to address problems of not having equity and cohesion within the country in regards to fair access to education and educational opportunities.
"We have to have rules and regulations" - says the man that has a career in breaking all the laws he can and all the regulations too.
thats career not carrier. hoping thats a spellcheck thing
@@cmdraftbrn Honestly Carrier fits. You could load up a modern supercarrier with just documents from Trump's court cases and have no room for the planes.
@@shaunmcisaac782 I thought you were going to say "carrier", as in, disease carrier.
@@cmdraftbrn “s-spellcheck ☝️🤓🪰” no argument lmao
@@JerichoDeaththat works too tbh
“So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause…”
i've been 27 years alive in the US as a law abiding citizen with birthright citizenship from Canadian-born parents. i find it insane that through no effort of my own i can be come a criminal with grounds for deportation
Nothing is being said about previous cases. It’s all about future cases.
But in practice they might not go after you. They tend to only go after those from the below southern border
@YouAreSoMadRN lmao. thats cute you think that
@@garrett8707 looks around the room in Spanish. My parents are both Dominican, they came here illegally and got to stay cuz I was born here. So yea, I think I'm gonna audition for 90Day Fiance, gotta find an American to marry first.
I find it crazy that right now you can have lived here since you were a baby and not be a citizen if you were born elsewhere. There are people that have lived here longer than me who are not citizens because of the hospital they were born in lol.
The statement that we are more of a country of settlers than immigrants...huh? I have NEVER met an American White person who can trace 100% of their ancestory to an early settlement like the Mayflower - and that's still immigration. My native American boyfriend however is truly not an immigrant, but I don't think these people like that any better.
It's just nonsense anyway. Everyone's ancestors migrated from somewhere. Even natives from this side of the planet came from Asia during the ice age.
@@XBluDiamondXbut what was their STATUS?!
Insert Good Place "You get why that's worse, right?" image...
There is not a single person on this planet whose ancestry goes back to American soil. Native Americans came here over a land bridge between Russia and Alaska. This argument could not possibly make less sense.
@@kendallwilson8892 there new are studies showing that modern day native Americans were likely not the first people here based on footprints found in New Mexico. Also the history of native Americans was of constant colonizing pillaging and land stealing. This idea of a unified Native American people is historically false.
The particularly insane thing is if this is retroactive. How many people can prove their grandparents or great-grandparents were here legally?
It would also strip basically all African-Americans of citizenship, given that this amendment was created explicitly to grant them citizenship. It would be insane, but the Republicans are willing to overturn interracial marriage so... who knows.
It'd also be an international crime to strip people of their citizenship if they have no alternative citizenship available, but that's never stopped an American president from doing something.
Not many. A lot of people like to talk about how their ancestors came here legally, but what they leave out is that doesn’t mean they came here with visas and passports, it means America didn’t require documentation for immigration back then. The ethic slur “WOP” is literally short for WithOut Papers to describe people who immigrated here without documentation.
I'm desperately trying to figure this out with a Mexican grandfather...
Funny thing: we can prove trumps ancestor came to the U.S. illegally, and if they made this retroactive, Trump would no longer be a natural-born citizen, and thus no longer eligible for presidency of the United States of America.
I know I can't! I don't even know how I'd go about doing such a thing!
Here in Britain kids are only citizens at birth if both the below are satisfied:
1) Born on British territory
and
2) At least one parent is a citizen (or has official right to remain).
If parents are undocumented etc. no citizenship can be claimed.
I think you guys could do with an amendment to something similar. Laws written generations ago should not be taken as gospel; they were drawn up in a different time under different circumstances.
That is why we all have Supreme Courts to review these issues.
Review is a good thing where laws may no longer be fit for purpose.
The truly frustrating thing is it doesn't matter if anything they want to do is legally allowed. They'll make it allowed and ignore the law.
And the supporters will cheer it on. Bizarre.
"But my lord... Is that... Legal?"
"I will make it legal."
@poeterritory They think anything done by the politicians they support won't hurt them. It's the "cheap eggs and tariffs" blindness.
@@bee-here Yep. They only care if it affects them. Which says more about them than Trump.
@ I think it's worse than that: they only care if they *think* it affects them, not realizing that a lot of the time, it affects them without them knowing it.
Hot take: The US government having the power to revoke someone’s citizenship is not really a good thing
Hey dummy this will take effect after the fact, it will not revoke citizenships because that would be a logistic nightmare 😂
@@Cabelcrod If that's the case, why didn't Trump just say that in response to the question about what will happen to families already here with US citizen children? His waffle was to suggest that they'd have to ship them all out in order to keep the family together. Not that anyone already here at the time is fine it will only affect new cases.
Agreed- I feel like this falls into the category (as with many of these extremist sorts’ policies) of things that could just as easily be used to attack almost anyone if the powers that be so desired it, never mind the atrocities to come of their stated intention off the bat. It just feels like the sort of a thing that, if pushed to its extreme (as if it’s not already extreme enough), could become another case of ‘leopards eating faces’.
@@tyrannicpuppy What are you talking about? His response was clear. If the family wants to stay together then the child goes with. Only the us citizen is allowed to stay. Which would mean the citizen chooses to separate from their family.
@@PinkFZeppelin Do I need to ramble it for it to be clear for you? If the change only affects new births made after the change, then every child of illegals already in the US is already a US citizen. So why would any of the existing families (those referenced in the question) have anything to worry about?
If it applies retroactively, how far back do they go? Coz all present US citizens are the children of immigrants at some point.
Like all Trump policies, there is no actual substance. He just says he's gonna do a thing but gives no specifics as to how it will work. Like the healthcare plan he's been working on for a decade but is still in the concept phase. One day we might actually hear what that plan is. But I doubt it will happen before he leaves office again. Given his present track record with it.
If Trump wants to end birth right citizenship then he should remove his son Barron first
All of his children except Tiffany
Removed his wife next.
Trump is a citizen so it wouldn't apply. His son is also a citizen by blood.
I was wondering the same thing. Melania gained her citizenship in July of 2006, and Barron was born in March of 2006.
@@azmidlyfi dont get it, what r u sayin
Thank you for the enlightening educational moment.I am beyond grateful that a judge apparently blocked the order for 14 days. That the Supreme Court is not universally expected to immediately declare this order unconstitutional, that is terrifying.Does anyone know to which authority, if any, a citizen may voice concerns that failing to dismiss the order will set an unimaginable precedent?
My brother once supported this idea saying your parents should have to be citizens for you to be a citizen. I said be careful what you wish for. I had done genealogy research for fun & learned our parents never had birth certificates. They were born at home by a midwife and nobody back in those days bothered to tell the government they just had a child. It was not required. No social security numbers back then either. That didn't come until 1936 and only if you were working, not stay at home moms. FYI non-citizen green card holders get a SS# too, so that they pay SS taxes. Not that anyone in our family needed a green card. He never mentioned THAT again. If you are younger ask yourself this; did your grandparents ever have a birth certificate? Does that invalidate your parents citizenship and therefore yours? What about your great grandparents? How far back does this have to go? How else can your PROVE you are a citizen to say get a passport for the first time except proof that you were born here? 🤔😯
I guess you convinced him, but that he changed his mind as soon as and purely because it benefited him, is kinda a cheap way to arrive at a conclusion about granting someone rights.
I don't really see how that matters. It's not the 50's anymore, everything is digitalised. People should not get birthright citizenship, you have citizenship, this is not relevant to you or your brother. Furthermore, whether they had a birth certificate or not, does not change the fact that they were legal citizens, unless of course they were immigrants.
This is irrelevant if your brother and you have documents. Also nobody is digging that far just to see if you have the correct paperwork so to speak
....my grandma parents have a birth certificate but it's more like a card my great grand mother had a certificate..although it was pretty much a paper with all necessary details but yes the usa still accepted that
Your story doesn't add up at all
Meanwhile my father escaped communist Asia by coming to America by signing every single piece of paperwork, filling out loads more paperwork, finding a Catholic American missionary to help him translate and even then he made sure to dot his Is and cross his t's to make sure he had social security, credit, a valid license, birth certificate etc. Sounds to me like your grandparents were just lazy and didn't put the work in to making sure they have citizenship.
Damn, Liz has been a SOLID addition to your Eagleteam®, Devin.
That was what 23min of dense information delivered pretty much without error, with distinct inflection and rhythm to keep the brainrot at bay. Not an easy thing to do, as we all know.
Well done, Liz. Mad respect.
The only thing I objected to was nely 2.5 mins of Trump. I had to skip that part 🤮
11:46 That was a _beautiful_ bit of politics by Sen. Padilla. He sets up the Nominee with a question that he knows the answer to AND that he knows _she_ won't admit in public, thus forcing her into a position where she has to either lie, say the quite part out loud, or claim that she needs to re-read a document that any nominee for Attorney General should already be _very_ familiar with. In all three cases, she's _screwed._
I don't know. Padilla is terminal blue...and it's not like senators are nonpartisan in this matter, especially when it comes to immigration issues. Bondi isn't going to lose anymore votes than before...
More of that from the Dems, please. That's how they chip away at this disaster.
How is she screwed? She will still be confirmed.
screwed? Trump wants her in the cabinet, and the GOP Senate in power will obey Trump. This is just political grandstanding by Democrats, accomplishing nothing.
Well that’s assuming sadly that these hearings are anything but performative because it would assume any member of the GOP held a form of ethics which they don’t.
Remember when this mattered: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!'"
It's an empty promise and always has been.
Just some artistic expression by an activist on a statue given by a foreign power.
Now it says "No Vacancies".
What movie was that? Die Hard?
That was because there was an enormous swath of land to be settled and they needed worker bees. Pretty words, brutal conditions.
@@MunchKING Lethal Weapon 4, 1998
I love how their favorite laws are completely unambiguous. Like how they go around wearing hats that say "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" but when it comes to the ones they _don't_ like, then it's all no no no, it's open to interpretation.
hypocrisy at its finest!
@@Dapper_Deanthe 14th amendment is not in the Bill of Rights. Furthermore, birthright citizenship was to solve the issue of Emancipation, not for foreign nationals to exploit it is it is now. It's an archaic law.
@@misaelfraga8196
It doesn't matter if it is in the Bill of Rights. The first 10 amendments aren't any more or less important than all the rest.
@ExestentialCrisis sorry but no. Those are the amendments the Founders establishment. The only true precedents.
Still on the constitution and has made america great as it is. @misaelfraga8196
Cool! If I’m not a citizen, I’m not paying taxes. Not my country, not my problem
Birthright citizens still pay taxes
@@erikburzinski8248 Yeah and they wouldn't be citizens anymore if Trump took it away. That was the point of OP's comment.
@ they so now, let's see the mental gymnastics needed to justify requiring a non-citizen paying taxes. This is going to be an interesting situation when all is said and done
My friend, non-citizens absolutely do pay taxes. People who make purchases, earn income, own property, etc. in the United States still have to pay taxes regardless of which country they are citizens of.
If you work in the US, you pay taxes in the US
If they get rid of it will they also get rid of the insane fees for people who actually WANT to get rid of their American citizenship? 👀
I don’t think laws mean anything anymore. At least for the oligarchs.
They are merely suggestions and guidelines.
"The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means" is going to be said a lot over the next 4 years. It is how they will get everything they want.
Just as a note, the Civil War came first. THEN the abolishment of slavery.
Thank you.
I agree with this videos content.
But I feel it should be Accurate.
Here's a thing most people don't realise. In the declaration of emancipation Lincoln abolished slavery in "states in rebellion ". Thus technically he did not abolish it in the Northern States that also had slavery.
(Yes, I know it's not the actual act to which you referred.)
@@ianhopping105 Right, abolishing slavery was done in one way for slave states, then later in another way for free states.
@@steelgunsuit NOTHING of which she stated is actually true, not just the part about Lincoln abolishing slavery and THEN a Civil War started. She IGNORED "AND UNDER THE JURISDICTION THEREOF" in her commentary. This means more than just personal jurisdiction which you get from just being here, otherwise their would ne no reason to mention jurisdiction. This means that you OWE NO ALLEGIANCE to any other power or potentate, which is more than just being here, you MUST be a US citizen or a LEGAL long term permanent resident as was extended under Wong.
@@ianhopping105 To correct you even further, the Emancipation Proclamation ONLY freed slaves that were in rebellious states and only those areas of the rebellious states that were NOT then under Union control, because it was a WAR MEASURE, it was deteremined that to ensure that it lasted that an amendment abolishing slavery was needed and the 13th amendment was passed in dec 1865
This is why there needs to be a law that requires the President to hold a law degree and a clean criminal background check. Why are lawyers required to pass the bar but the commander and chief is not?
I’d settle for requiring the President to meet the same criteria as a minimum wage job - clean background check, no felony convictions, and passing a drug test. Trump would fail all three.
is this a serious question? because the president is supposed to represent the average citizen. an average citizen does not need to have a law degree. the idea is that the average citizen should agree that a proposed law should pass. also, president has advisors and attorney general to consult. i can agree with having a clean criminal background though.
@@joegame4576 you wouldn't argue that a surgeon is meant to represent the average of their patients. I don't agree they should need a law degree either, but you want people able to do the job.
@@joegame4576 yea a definitely represents the average citizen in this country
@@Parmesan_Seeker yeah like i said, that's why the president is surrounded by (supposedly) highly qualified professionals to advise him on technical matters.
using your surgeon example, a surgeon doesn't represent patients when doing an actual surgery, but when deciding policies like who should be treated first, you should be representing an average patient. do you need to consult with doctors to make an informed decision? yes, but you don't have to be one. also, a president makes all kinds of policies, not just medical. that's why he has surgeon general, attorney general, secretary of this and that. the president is supposed to make the "right" decision, not an "expert" decision.
I am sure the current Supreme court wouldn't over turn long standing precedent on flawed legal logic.
I was legitimately born on Australian soil, in Western Australia, that makes me a bona fide Australian citizen, what I would like to ask Mr Trump is this "By what right have you to determine whether a person is a US citizen or not, when your mum was originally from Scotland, and your dad was originally a refugee from Germany? who made you God to say you can take away someone's US citizenship? no one." technically, the only way Mr Trump can change the US Constitution is if the US congress has a two-thirds majority vote.
trump is a cheap demagogue
Not just that, 75% of the states must also ratify.
2/3 vote by BOTH the house and the Senate AND 3/4 ratification by the states legislators.
becuse the y arnt us citezenship
They all play in each others buts😂
Nothing says "I'm a profoundly stupid racist" quite like "Well, if they have children here who grow up their entire lives as part of our culture and society....won't they be loyal to the origin countries of their birth parents?!?"
Literally terrified of infants. That shit belongs on The Onion, not Newsweek, and it's author deserves ridicule not consideration.
Why aren't their parents' citizens? Nothing stops them from earning citizenship when they grow up, either. My parents and I are migrants to the US. We all earned citizenship. Other countries don't just give it to you for being born on their land. Stop being naive.
@@lominero5 That has diddlysquat to do with anything OP said.
@@lominero5
What the shit do "other countries" have to do with anything? The US isn't other countries. It doesn't have to do what they do. (A principle which conservatives usually seem quite proud of!) There can be reasons that the US should do something the way "other countries" do it, but you have to actually say what those reasons are, it's not enough to just point out that "other countries do it". Countries don't all have to do all things the same way. And besides, as the video points out, the US is far from the only country with birthright citizenship! So if we were using your logic, it would be _just as accurate_ to say "other countries DO just give it to you for being born on their land, so the US should keep doing it too"!
Why is this such a far-fetched concept for you? There are even many third and fourth born generations where that applies to.
I agree with the statement, but ive also argued before with people who were born in another country, came here at a super early age and have spent 90% of their life here, still argue that their country of birth is their home.
When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty.
I think you don't know what tyranny means Skippy. Look it up you aren't using it correctly. I get it, you'd rather have the sycophant weaklings in charge to promote DEI and advancement based on race. Because you are probably a mediocrity.
Bars
@@mai4645 Thank Thomas Jefferson. Allegedly, he's the one who said it first.
What's your second amendment for again btw?
Dont see anyone rebelling. Infact, i see happy people.
Have any of you ever read the Civil Rights Act of 1866??
It was written by the same Congress who LATER condensed it into the Citizenship Clause.
"All persons born in the United States AND NOT SUBJECT TO ANY FOREIGN POWER (like say, Guatemala or Venezuela), EXcluding Indians not taxed, are citizens."
They were written right after the Civil War was fought over black slavery, right after the 13th Amendment abolished slavery, to ensure the Citizenship of freed slaves and THEIR children. It's just that simple. (Unless you're going to argue that the authors deliberately intended to exclude Native Americans but include illegal Mexicans...
Supreme Court Case US V Wong Kim ark: “The Supreme Court held in a 6-2 decision that a child born in the United States to parents of foreign decent is a citizen of the United States unless the parents are: 1) foreign diplomats, or 2) the child was born to parents who are nationals of an enemy nation that is engaged in a hostile occupation of the country’s territory. This follows classic English common law tradition and set down the most powerful precedent in favor of equality of citizenship in U.S. history.”
It's ridiculous that he thinks he can just rewrite a constitutional amendment to suit his whims. And that the supreme court may go along with such bold violations of the oath he will take to protect the constitution...
You do understand that the constitution was literally written to be edited?
I don't like the guy, but it's literally the point
Ehh.. the fact that it’s the 14th “amendment” means that it wasn’t in the original constitution either. That said only congress has the power to do so. Not the president.
@@moopert86 like Biden just trying to declare a new 28th constitutional amendment?
The supreme Court and Congress neither have the ability to modify the Constitution. Check your founders
We the people, we the power
Our founders certainly didn't give the power to a centralized authority
This is likely gonna baxkgire
Wait, if being born in the US isn’t enough, doesn't that mean Trump should lose citizenship? I mean birthright citizenship applies to a child whose parent is a citizen of U.S. or someone born on the soil.
Also, Trump's own mom is a scottish immigrant...
No, because his ancestors are from the white...sorry right countries.
What makes you think that logic has anything to do with this?
What the other guys said, it should also apply but wouldn't cus privilege
Barron and Melania are getting deported for sure 😆
@@dionh70 Well if you want to actually go back on the chain, his dad's parents were not citizens when they had Fred, so Fred was not a citizen, which means dj trump though born on US soil, would himself not be a citizen and ineligible to hold the office if he undoes birthright citizenship.
Let's be honest with ourselves, from this point on, "The Law" is what they say it is. There is no one left to hold them accountable by legal means. They have taken control of every arena that matters. And mark my words, they will never again let go of it willingly or peacefully. Y'all didn't just open the gates of hell, you jumped though.
The checks and balances of the arms of government no longer work
Glad I left.
While I agree with the sentiment, blaming the voting population in a country that actively does everything they can to stop people from voting (including people being able to get fired over taking time off to vote) isn't going to get us anywhere...
Good.
You can't give in to defeatism, there's value to fighting these fights even if we lose.
I am impressed with this channel. Love from Brazil
I like how he said "We're the only country doing birthright citizenship," when he signed it. Because we are besides those 32 other countries that do it. I've been waiting a decade for him to say something that's actually right.... still waiting apparently. 😎
Which countries?
@@JBharvey1984pretty much the Americas
@@JBharvey1984Mexico and most of South America
Most of the world actually. Just look up countries that practice jus soli, where you get citizenship if you get born through proper procedures and with a birth certificate. Immigrants are still capable of getting one but like Liz said in the vid, while it is in the countries' right to punish the offenders, the children are a victim of circumstance and should be granted the citizenship
Only 27.4% of countries in the world have laws regarding birthright citizenship if you go with the maximum count of 237 official countries. The large majority of the unrestricted countries (33) are in the Americas likely due to colonialism, and another 32 have restrictions on citizenship dependent on the status of the parents. Japan has a stipulation for those who do not have any type of citizenship. I wonder what drove that 🤔
Next thing you know you'll only be eligible for citizenship if you look a certain way... Good luck America!
Look a certain way, belong to a certain social class, and hold certain beliefs.
It did happen under some aspects of various Chinese Exclusion Acts, though in those cases, it was specifically targeting Chinese (and other Asians).
I mean he agrees with the German mustache man who started WW2. Someone get me out of this country.
@@nathenbutcool Impractical. That would most certainly be grounds for a civil disturbance.
@@nathenbutcool korematsu was never overturned
Only 1 state (Massachusetts) had zero slaves when the Constitution was written. The 3/5 compromise was thus really NOT between “slave states” and “free states” but rather between “states with a lot of slaves” and “states with relatively few slaves.” We really need to emphasize this because it isn’t as though the North was slave-free in 1790 since it wasn’t. Pretending that slavery was nonexistent in the North from the inception, which is what the whole “slave state” vs “free state” narrative tends to imply to people massively mischaracterizes just how illiberal and immoral the US was just about everywhere at the time of the Constitutional Convention.
We can't forget Manasseh Cutler declared that the Northwest Territory would have no slaves or else would have blood in 1787. Abolitionism was a big deal in new england (Vermont demanded that they be allowed to remain slave free before joining the US)
The North didn't really embrace chattel slavery in the same way as the South, and it was thought that barring the import of African slaves would eventually diminish the slave population over time to make the issue irrelevant. The North got hoodwinked; captive slaves breed just fine and it wasn't going to end on its own.
Really not sure what your point is here? What's the "... And therefore..."?
Hate to give Eastman credit but he’s not wrong about the 3/5 compromise blunting slaveholder influence. The abolitionists had a dilemma: they did not want the slave states padding their congressional representation numbers with their slave population while not treating them as human but also wanted the slaves counted as people. So the 3/5 compromise ended being the legislative equivalent of saying, “Fine! You get to use your slaves but not all of them!”
While technically correct 'they had slaves in the North'... most of the North was more or less anti-slavery but it wasn't enshrined in law and generally the treatment of the slaves and scale of that slavery was much less in the North.
I'm not trying to say, North good South bad but I just want to be sure people understand that there is a difference between 'yeh, a little bit' compared to 'it was the economy'.
Long time viewer. I have to say, Liz is a great orator! Thank you for all the content and analyses that you and your team complete!
I still remember back in november when my coworkers were saying I was overexaggerating when I said "if he gets elected I'm not an American anymore"
Stay safe
😂😂😂😂
Well he did say it would only apply "going forward" to future children of illegal aliens, so yes, you were exaggerating. As for whether you no longer wish to identify as an American after the change in government, that's really up to you.
The order is not retroactive. You got grandfathered in, stop complaining.
Same
Never underestimate the power of racism. There is a reason for this whole thing. To remove and takeover whats there. To also control whoever comes into the county. Let see how this works out if it happens.
Opening up migration to the rest of the world in the 60s was the most disastrous immigration disaster of all time, this is a return to form.
I mean, or we could just not let it happen. Then we dont ha e to worry about seeing how it works out
@@alexanderdumas870what part of this is a return to form ?
Wouldn't defining immigrants as "invading enemy combatants" and declaring "war" against them also constitute a declaration of war against the country or countries they are emigrating from?
Yes. Yes it would. This is his excuse for declaring war on whatever country he wants to.
Trump is immune from any consequences thanks to the SCOTUS so he can just do whatever, nothing matters anymore.
Listening to the speech yesterday there were a few things that stood out. 1. declaring a national emergency at the southern border, 2. categorizing cartels as terrorist organizations and also a mention of American being an expanding nation again and acquiring new territories. I'm concerned he's going to try some shit with Mexico.
@@barrykennedy8507 Not that Mexico could DO anything about it. So we'll soon likely see a lot of Reagan era interventions in other nations.
I'm curious. What if the parents of a person born in America are criminals? Should they still receive citizenship according to this amendment? I think that "jurisdiction" line is carrying a lot of weight... 🤔
Someone should tell him that law applies to him as well. I guarantee you he will explicitly make his overreach applying to brown people only or to exempt white people.
We’ve seen that it doesn’t. He’s allowed to pick his jurisdiction to be tried by sham judges who he put in power.
no law applies to Trump
And how would that happen? Love how you just put words in his mouth and make that the reason you hate him for
"No, only *those* immagrants!" The same way they ignore the fact Elon Musk wasn't born in the US...
@@jasper8293 How come you people act like legal and illegal immigration is the same thing?
Love that the immigrants who voted for Trump because they wanted to limit competition from their fellow countrymen in the American job market are also the ones getting kicked out first.
I'm not saying this is a good situation obviously, or even that it's fair, but the Lions Eating Faces Party coming for the faces of some of those who voted for them feels almost poetic.
Stay strong, folks!
you had the self awareness to add the caveat, you could have also had the self awareness to not gloat about people getting hurt
It's called karma. Don't get me wrong, I think Trump is delusional. And those you mentioned, who voted for them for the reason you mentioned, may well bear the fruits of Trump's delusional labour.
Always love seeing the seething contempt from the left against minorities who don't fall into line.
US citizens voted him into office, retroactive citizenship revocation is purely a deliberately dishonest interpretation of law precedence.
@@lgbtthefeministgamer4039 They voted for him. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Trump: *laughs* "Thank you for being so dumb."
Pushback @11:07, as someone who would be classified as African American/Black, parents and grandparents as Colored or American Negro, WE ARE NOT IMMIGRANTS. The African ancestors I have were forced here, the Indigenous side were re-classified as Negro. I AM NOT AN IMMIGRANT
Jus Soli Birthright Citizenship is nationality law (not immigration), existed as establ. common law pre-indep. Only thing 14th Amend. did was extend it to Black ppl then o/POCs instead of Whites only.
I dont get why would give this pushback. I mean do you want to be forced out again or what ?
With the exception of Native Americans, no one originated from North America. All of our ancestors cross the different periods throughout our American history. Anyone, not Native American, claiming their family originated from North America, and nowhere else, should really take a look at their family tree.
Now, Anyone involved in organized crime or has committed heinous crimes should be deported. America is heading into a war with the Mexican Cartels. Any known associates should be considered a threat. Protect all other immigrants and allow them to live their lives.
People, this war will soon be clear and present danger all Americans and our allies. We can't afford to be divided. Support and care for each other. The Drug and Human Trafficking must end.
Soooo if you are against Birthright citizenship then everyone minus Native Americans needs to leave.
Buuuuuuut what they really mean is; if you’re white you’re a citizen and you’re good. If you’re anything but white you’re questionable.
I’m so fed up with these bigots. All because a black man became president.
You know you can just apply for citizenship, right? It's not like you *have* to enter the USA illegally.
@Kanal-yh5xi That doesn't magically get rid of their points. Birthright is something that protects children, yet you who is presumably one who whines about protecting the children wants to annihilate it?
@@Kanal-yh5xi
Cool... Then return to the Crown. America is not all real nation by then.
Yeah I mean let’s be honest, statistically there are more Europeans on visa overstays than their are Mexicans who illegally crossed the border, and yet we all know who they’re talking about when they talk about illegal immigrants.
@@Kanal-yh5xithe US has some of the most tedious citizenship process though, it can take AWHILE before your accepted as a citizen if your considered to be of a foreign nation
Oh and god forbid your a child
I will never understand how this guy was even allowed to run for a second term. That he won is disgusting enough, but how was he even allowed to run?!
Agree, democracy is terrible
Ya I much prefer a one party system like China or Russia. No choice at all.
@mad9517 you can have choices without one of them being a convicted felon is all I am saying.
Because the Dems Darling Merrick Garland decided that letting a convicted felon run again "set a better precedent" than holding a former president accountable....
But hey, admitting something like _that_ would make it harder to call it "constructive" to look down on everyone around you...
He appointed a majority of the supreme Court. That's how.
It's also funny how it took them less than a week to decide TikTok but years to decide Trump
He's going to have to change his rhetoric on calling anyone "bad" a criminal since his immigrant wife is married to a natural born convicted felon... which I do believe, makes him a "criminal" who married an immigrant thereby making her a citizen. A "nice young lady" ... married to a criminal.
_"A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country to by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."_ - President Thomas Jefferson
My girlfriend of 4 years was born here and is every bit American as anyone else. To think racists want to send her to a third world country she has never been to is terrifying and disgusting. During Trump’s first term she faced so much hatred from emboldened white supremacists. I’m worried about what we’re going to have to deal with now.
It's time to elope I guess sorry man
If you love her: Marry her. Or does that not solve the right to stay in the US, if she is your wife? I'm not from the US so I do not know your laws.
Do whatever you can to stay together. Never let something like this get in the way of love.
@@ShadowwingMDno that’s right if they marry she can’t be deported
@@ShadowwingMDwut? She was born here so she is American. They trying to change that but that makes no sense. What makes an American if not a person born in America? You are where your lineage is I guess? But that makes no sense because no American is lineage from America unless Native American. So it makes no sense. Lol.
He makes absolutely no sense. How do you deport a legal citizen to another country, and why would that other country accept them? But this is what happens when a third of the nation can't get off their ass to vote and lets another third vote in an insane man with no respect for or understanding of the law.
It does make sense. There's no way someone can just enter a country illegally, then have children there, and everyone is now American. You could even come on a visiting visa, have kids, then boom. American. It's a loophole in the system. Citizenship should be by merit to non naturalized parents.
I didn't vote because i didn't like either candidate both sides need to put up good middle of the road candidates instead of the far fringes everytime
@@chronobretz9511 Same. Either you vote for one bad candidate, or you vote for the..... other bad candidate who we already had to suffer 4 years of.
@@chronobretz9511Your mommy must have always served your favorite food for dinner.
@@robertawalsh2995
no, but she sure didn't serve rotten apples with moldy peanut butter and a cup of lard.
There is also the case of Rio Rico, Texas, where a piece of Texas was treated by all as if it were Mexico. The land was later given to Mexico. However people who were born there before that happened later successfully argued that they were US citizens. That is a more recent precedent.
'Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive'. Will Shakespear, a true Englishman.
*le sigh*
Repeat after me. "Rules for thee, but not for me."
Rules for thee, but not for me
sooooo like biden and hunter?
@Gentleman.J.Daniels Oh buddy. Buddy, buddy. It’s all politicians homie, not just the ones you don’t like. We don’t live in the same world they do.
@@Gentleman.J.Daniels Biden literally commit any crimes. It’s the only reason his brother was charged of shit. Of which, what he did wasn’t that bad from what I could find out. Unlike Trump who literally has 30+ felony’s. They followed the rules. Even when Biden did pardon his brother, I think that’s more than justified considering that Trump does his absolute best in being an ass.
Was Barrons mother a legal immigrant when he was born ? No
Now, now, she is a former professional lady, have some respect.
trump was a legal citizen, so even with birthright citizenship barron would be a citizen
@@perkele9994 That's only if Donald is his biological father.
@@perkele9994uh no, cause apparently the mom wasn't a citizen, so it still wouldn't work, use your own rules man. If I can't be considered a citizen because I was born here, neither should baron.
@@perkele9994Eh, Obama’s mom being a US citizen didn’t stop Trump from claiming Obama wasn’t born as one.
"You can't take away my [insert constitutional right here]. It's a constitutional right!"
I better see that same energy for others' constitutional rights.
You won't though. The fascists have no shame, they don't care about consistency. It's a game to be won to them, not a set of rules to live by.
This is the country of "I got mine."
"You can't take away my right to come here illegally and be unable to remove because I had a child. It's a constitutional right"
@@griffinarcher2911I think it’s more nuanced than that, as we have the resources as a nation to accommodate those immigrants and help them, as many are desperate and need help, which we can offer if we are willing.
@ That doesn't make it any less illegal. Also, I would argue that we don't have enough resources given our healthcare, social security, homelessness etc. How could we go to the extent of ignoring the law like we are wealthy enough to take care of millions who come here when we don't even have enough to take care of ourselves.
One question: is there any ground for originalists to distort the interpretation? I do agree with your arguments but I would like to know more about the debates at the time the 14th was approved. Thanks!
00:59 that's generous of you to believe he thinks before speaking. Nope, he just wants to end birthright citizenship, post dated for the day after Baron Trump was born... but only if Baron does that one favor he asked for.
I read the EO. It's NOT retroactive, will be in effect 30 days from when signed, and won't apply to kids born to at least ONE American citizen.
If SCOTUS lets him end it I hope the masses really take action. If we can’t count on a clear and plain reading of the laws and constitution, we can only count on tyranny.
Let's be honest, like it or not 77m people voted for this. People get stuck in bubbles of their own beliefs and don't realize this isn't an accident, it was the entire point. I feel for these people but even I have to admit as a left leaning moderate that the border issue is a real problem. It is why I sit this election out.
@@TheJmac82They used the border issue to push for racist policies.
The border is an issue because the border states don't have enough capacity to take in migrants of this scale. That's it. There is no other good reason to deny them entry, especially those who are already citizens, even those that were born here from illegal immigrant parents. At that point, they have integrated into US society, and aren't burdening the resources used to handle the border crisis. If they are born in the US, they have already integrated enough to pay for the hospital fees, or moved deeper into the US, found a job etc. At that point, what exactly is the issue? Why target birthright citizenship here?
@@TheJmac82 The border issue has been perpetuated by wealthy elites and corporations so they can benefit from undocumented labor and now, it's fine they are using it as an excuse to take rights away from citizens? Are you sure that's the position you want to take?
@@TheJmac82 just because someone voted for trump does not mean that they agree with his every action. Also, if they end birthright citizenship, what’s stopping them from saying whatever marginalized group they dislike is no longer a citizen? What’s stopping them from saying any plainly written law clearly doesn’t mean what it says (like they already did with the immunity decision)?
It's a dictatorship. They'll just make dissenters "go away" (IYKWIM).
I'm waiting for the proposal so abjectly insane that the throw to Liz is met with 'No thanks, Devin' and then cut back.
🤣
You underestimate Liz's power!
LOL
I've studied history for 20 years. Have the student loans to prove it lol I've written family histories for about 15 years. Thank you so much for detailing the very important history behind this amendment. It has been horrifying watching people try to twist the meaning behind our laws and amendments. I honestly never thought I'd watch a leader reverse our history. It's wild.
The fact that the law might change because the president doesn't even know what it says is baffling
You'll take my 14th amendment after I use my 2nd Amendment.
This needs to be a bumper sticker or tshirt
lol. Get ready. They have to go back.
Feds so scared of you 😱
Damn right.
That this is even a conversation is 2025 mindboggling. Imaging looking back at this time periode in the future - "remember when we arguing about basic human rights?".
You do realise most countries don't have birthright citizenship. You inherit it from parents, not simply because popped out while on holiday.
@@davescott7680Americans who claim they want to be like Europe have zero idea how Europe works
We are legit living in a future dystopia from an 80's movie.
@@planescaped so that would mean Europe is a dystopia since they never had birthright citizenship?
@@davescott7680"most countries" also have a right to healthcare but sure. We'll go with the example of Europe for this one.
Just because the Supreme Court makes claims about the Constitution (such as claims about so-called "birth rights" and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof)," that does not mean that the claims are correct in respect to the original intended meaning or the understanding of those who drafted the Constitution's provisions.
We know the amendment was intended to grant citizenship to former slaves and the free Africans who were descendants of former slaves. So "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" needed to include people who were (1) not the children of U.S. citizens (2) potentially had parents who originated from or were a citizen foreign country (3) potentially born from parents who were living in the country as an illegal resident at the time of birth, which was the case for all runaway slaves after Dred Scott. It seems pretty clear the intended scope was birthright citizen regardless of whether a person's parents had a right to be in the US or not.