Why Does the U.S. Have Birthright Citizenship? | United States v. Wong Kim Ark
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 авг 2024
- I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: amzn.to/45Wzhur or visit www.iammrbeat.....
In episode 41 of Supreme Court Briefs, a man born in the United States is denied entry into the country after his parents are forced out of the country. But wait, doesn't the 14th Amendment guarantee him birthright citizenship? Or does it?
Patreon: / iammrbeat
Donate on Paypal: www.paypal.me/...
Mr. Beat's band: electricneedler...
Mr. Beat on Twitter: / beatmastermatt
Mr. Beat on Facebook: / iammrbeat
Music by Something and the Whatevers: somethingandth...
Produced by Matt Beat. All images by Matt Beat, found in the public domain, or used under fair use guidelines.
Check out cool primary sources here:
www.oyez.org/c...
Other sources used:
encyclopedia.de...
www.washington...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
www.washington...
www.politico.c...
papers.ssrn.co...
Photo credits:
Franco Folini
Ken Lund
#supremecourtbriefs #scotus #apgov
San Francisco
1868, or 1871...or perhaps 1873.
Wong Kim Ark is born. His parents are Wong Si Ping and Wee Lee, both immigrants from China and not United States citizens. According to the Naturalization Law of 1802, the two could never become citizens because they weren’t “white.” Whatever the heck that means.
Due to the Chinese Exclusion Act discriminating against them, the Wongs moved back to China, when Kim Ark was 9. But a few years later, Kim Ark came right back to California because he wanted to make much more money. This was not a problem for Kim Ark because, since he was born in San Francisco, he was automatically an American citizen thanks to the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.
In 1890, Wong went to China to visit his parents, and he came back home to the United States with no problem. However, four years later when he went back to China to visit them, he was denied re-entry upon his return. He was like “dude, I live here.” They were like, “nope, not anymore. You’re not a citizen.” During the five months when Wong fought for re-entry into the country, U.S. Customs kept him confined on different ships just off the coast of San Francisco.
Fortunately for Wong, he got support from an organization called the Chinese Six Companies to help him fight for his citizenship. It went to federal district court. So let’s break out that 14th Amendment, shall we? So there’s the Citizenship Clause of it, and what they focused on the most was different interpretations of this phrase here: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Does that cover when a child is born in the U.S. to parents who both are not citizens? Wong’s lawyers argued yes. The United States had been waiting to test out the Citizenship Clause for awhile, and here was their chance. Henry Foote, a former Confederate soldier, represented the United States, calling Wong a “accidental citizen,” not the term you usually hear today, which is “anchor baby.”
On January 3, 1896, the district judge sided with Wong, declaring him a citizen since he was born in the United States. The U.S. government appealed the decision directly to the Supreme Court because...well...they could, and the Court heard oral arguments on March 5, 1897. Soooo, COULD the government deny citizenship to people born in the United States in any circumstance?
The Court said “no.” In a 6-2 decision, they ruled in favor of Wong, declaring that any child born in the country to parents of a foreign country is automatically a citizen. UNLESS...the parents are foreign diplomats, or the person is born on a public ship, or the parents are nationals of a foreign enemy country that is trying to take over the United States. But yeah, you’re born here? You a citizen, buddy! The Court relied on English common law tradition just as much as they relied on the 14th Amendment for this one. Leading the dissent was Chief Justice Melville Fuller, joined by justice John Harlan. They both argued that the history of American citizenship broke with the tradition of English common law after it declared independence in 1776. In particular, they wondered about the part of the citizenship clause that said “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available!
Amazon: amzn.to/3Jj3ZnS
Bookshop (a collection of indie publishers): bookshop.org/books/the-power-of-and-frustration-with-our-supreme-court-100-supreme-court-cases-you-should-know-about-with-mr-beat/9781684810680
Barnes and Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-matt-beat/1142323504?ean=9781684810680
Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+power+of+our+supreme+court&crid=3R59T7TQ6WKI3&sprefix=the+power+of+our+supreme+courth%2Caps%2C381&ref=nb_sb_noss
Mango: mango.bz/books/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-2523-b
Target: www.target.com/p/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-paperback/-/A-86273023
Walmart: www.walmart.com/ip/The-Power-of-Our-Supreme-Court-How-the-Supreme-Court-Cases-Shape-Democracy-Paperback-9781684810680/688487495
Chapters Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-power-of-our-supreme/9781684810680-item.html?ikwid=The+Power+of+Our+Supreme+Court&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0#algoliaQueryId=eab3e89ad34051a62471614d72966b7e
1930s are a rough time to decide you’d like to live in china permanently
Exactly! But I suspect he wouldn’t be treated extremely terribly by the government or the Japanese since he is a US citizen.
Exactly they we don’t racist and treated him so badly that he really moved back to China in the 1930s...fuck poor guy.
I thought the exact same thing 😨
@@nathanli3024 If you were in Nanking in 1937 and you looked Chinese, I would think the invading Japanese troops didn’t really take a lot of time to check your personal documents. You were bayoneted on the spot…
@@nathanli3024 uh oh nah bro sorry to break it to you he’d be treated terribly by the Japanese regardless
Great video. Really shows that the 14th Amendment matters more than just giving citizenship to former slaves. Can't wait for the next one.
Thanks buddy! :D
Exactly! Take that, Trumptards!
Ireland does I know I am Irish but I can be a citizen there I think cause my father is born there though I am American he isn't
@@nerddragon2222 as long as just one of your parents or grandparents were born in Ireland with Irisih citizenship then you can become citizen yourself, this also counts for people with Italian ancestry trying to get an italian citizenship.
Deny children born here citizenship, make their existence in the only country they've ever known a crime? Make them a criminals for the circumstances of their birth, deny them the protections of the law? Disallow them from becoming successful law abiding citizens?
That would be terrible for these people and our country.
I can only hope that our country will resist the urge to take away Constitutional rights on a whim whenever it becomes politically expedient.
You eloquently make very good points.
Illegals should not be here in the first place hence why they are called illegals. Also IDC about this stupid kid, it's his parents fault he is in this mess and just because his parents decided to break the law doesn't mean their illegal child should be given citizenship
@@AdamSmith-gs2dv You are confusing modern immigration law with past immigration law
@@AdamSmith-gs2dv how are you gonna hate someone for something they have no control of. fucking retard
It's one thing if it refers to someone who has spent their entire life the country. But what about someone who was born there and left after a few months, only to claim citizenship as adult without having any connection to the US?
My cousin's parents briefly lived in the US for 1.5 years for work. My cousin was born there and lived his first year in the country. As a result he was given an american citizenship. His slightly older brother who wasn't born there did not. Since then he has had no relation to the US and certanly doesn't identfy as an american. Despite this he still holds an american citizenship as an adult. Should it really be considered his natural unalienable right to claim an American citizenship for the rest of his life due to the fact that his parents happened to spend some time there when he was born?
"A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China *but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China,* becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
His parents were *not* "foriegn diplomats", they were *not* "nationals of an enemy nation", they owned their *own* business, and their "permanent domicile and residence" has been the U.S. for 20 years. Therefore Wong's parents were in fact naturalized citizens that whole time; therefore making Wong a natural born citizen.
They were legal residents but not citizens. They themselves weren't born in the U.S., and they never went through the naturalization process. You can't just gain citizenship automatically after a certain period of time like some kind of national squatter's rights.
While the reason they couldn't become naturalized citizens was incredibly racist, it still doesn't change the fact that they were never U.S. citizens.
@@Compucles Correct. However, according to this SCOTUS ruling, naturalization may be done automatically by a statute, i.e., without any effort on the part of the individual, or it may involve an application or a motion and approval by legal authorities.
@@Compuclesit is entirely jus soli to Wing at least, even in modern interpretation of it, their parents just happen to live a hard time with the Chinese Exclusion act buzzing out words that quite literally excludes their citizenship right
His parents were not naturalized. At that time, only white men, their wives, and former slaves could be naturalized.
@@AlamoOriginal Modern interpretation is wrong. If you study the blueprint to the 14th amendment, like the Civil Rights Act of 1866, U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, and English common law Calvin’s Case, Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, which is also a requirement for citizenship, born or naturalized, would meet a different interpretation. This is why, like in the original comment, the justices pointed out the activity of his parents. His parents did not meet any exemptions that would deem Wong Kim Ark ineligible for citizenship. The whole point was to make sure that his parents’, at the time of his birth, occupation in the U.S. did not violate any Federal laws and were not working as foreign ambassadors. If they were here illegally, as discussed in Calvin’s Case which was used to define natural born, Wong Kim Ark would not be a citizen and his family would’ve most likely been deported. So, there’s two parts. Either Jus Soli or Jus Sanguinis would have to take place, and must be subject to the jurisdiction thereof, to acquire citizenship.
Video Suggestion: Mr. Beat and MrBeast Compared
the majority of my relatives from my fathers side came to the United states after WW2 from Germany , and my moms side from thailand after the vietnam war , my brother and sister were born in Thailand on american military bases .
i think if you are born on american territory you are an American, im glad my relatives who were not born on american soil all went through and are going through the legal processes to gain their citizenship's
Thanks for sharing that. :D
Sorry to say but military bases outside the US and its territories are not considered for the birthright clause. Much like how a stepchild can not inherit us citizenship from their step parent.
Germanistik citizenship isn't that bad either :'D
Great video and an important decision. Birth right citizenship, in my opinion, is one of the defining features of America and I'm glad it is. Neither my wife, nor I were born in the USA but I'm happy that any children we have would be citizens and I'm very happy for them to be Americans.... although I still think baseball is a poor man's cricket.
Yes, do have some American children. We need more nice, smart, and funny people in this country! And I always assumed cricket was a poor man's baseball. I guess I was wrong. :D
@@iammrbeat I'm not sure about the nice, smart, funny part. They might take after me.
Baseball was british invention and our PM in the early eighties John Major's father played baseball
I believe that one of the factors in their decision was that that his parents were, at the time of his birth, considered permanent residents and registered to work. I'm not sure how this applies to tourists, and then then there's the matter of people who are not legal residents of the United States. You also have to take into consideration the prior ruling in Elk v. Wilkins that Native Americans born in the Unites States were not considered to be part of the jurisdiction of the United States. This was later solved half a century later in an act of Congress.
It does seem to be an important distinction
If it mattered that the parents were residents, then it would have been written and mentioned aswell in the constitution but doesnt, just simply being born on this soil is enough to become citizen
Jus soli doesn’t apply to alien enemies. Any alien that infringes on the rights of the sovereign and has a child at such time, while in the dominion of the sovereign, that child is not a subject to that sovereign. That’s common law Calvin’s Case which is used to help make the final decision in Wong Kim Ark’s case. Subject means a person who has the right to be in the country. It’s the Kings language, which many of our laws are written. A person born or naturalized, and has a right to be within the jurisdiction, is a citizen.
Do you agree with the Court's decision? If you are born in a country should you automatically be a citizen of that country?
Mr. Beat Well, lots of people born in a country are a citizen, but not some. (I am pretty sure)
By the logic shown in this decision, former UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson (who was born in America) would technically be a US citizen. However, he wouldn't be able to run for president as he has not lived in the country for the minimum of 14 years
As long as your parents entered the country legally. I don’t think it should be extended to people who illegally entered the US, because legally they shouldn’t even be here.
Though I find it unfair that the US and Canada are the only western countries that still have this.
As long as Wong Kim Ark's parents were here legally, I agree with the decision. I still don't think this settles the case for children of illegal immigrants though. Any court cases on that?
Dude I don’t even like you having to be made a citizen of the state your born in. Like say your parents are Georgians and you were born in Alabama they should be able to choose whether your a georgia baby or an Alabama baby.
the U.S.A's Birthright Citizenship is one of the most socially and legislatively progressive things the U.S did.
besides the U.S Canada and Australia, most first world developed nations don't have Birthright Citizenship...that's one issue the U.S is way more advanced on compared the rest of the world.
It worked great for Western world immigration now its often used as a weapon from people escaping the third world
@@TheBigtazzy its no weapon it is a blessing protecting the rights of the unborn.
@@TheBigtazzy How dare we help people who need it the most
France also has the "right of soil", wherein any child born on French soil is granted French citizenship.
@zama202 The Constitution means we don't care what the rest of the world means
The ending to this Mr. Wong story doesn't sit right with me he had every right to be a citizen yet kept being denied being a true citizen because of racism and this eventually culminated with him giving up being an American that doesn't sit right with me Many people are citizens because of him but he has been forgotten by most people
Many people became citizens because of the vision of the framers of the Constitution
@@kennethkho7165 the 14th amendment was an addition to the constitution after the framers of the constitution died.
Everyone knows that the wests modern-day attitude towards Asians has barely changed since then.
Many people became citizens due to the misapplication of the 14th amendment.
Another excellent video by Mr.Beast.
Again, he is my son. I gave him Harry Truman's "S" for his birthday.
kinda ironic that a former confederate represented the us
I do always wonder why at the end of videos Mr Beat says "I'll see you for the next supreme court case, jury" when supreme court cases don't have a jury.
Anyone can be on a jury, though. :)
Well done as usual, Mr. Beat. Suggestion for a follow-up video; something about Angel Island, the "Ellis Island" of the West Coast. Like Ellis Island, but with less Fival-esque nostalgia and more blatant racism and medical quarentine practices that would be considered civl rights violations today.
Thanks for the kind words and suggestion. I know very little about Angel Island, but I'm looking forward to researching it.
My position is that as long as an immigrant is legal in the US (by tourist visa or anything else) and they have a child, that that child should be awarded citizenship. We should give leeway but be firm.
That's a perfectly reasonable position.
Jurisdiction is the extent of the power to make legal decisions and judgments. An illegal alien, the legal term for an illegal immigrant, is not able to fulfill this definition as they have no legal authority and they have broken the law. We have thousands of people who are currently waiting, like my parents did, to be approved for citizenship by the Department of state. If we want to start handing out US citizenship should we not start with the people who have actually proven themselves to be contributing members of society?
@@woodchuck003 So jurisdiction means the ability to punish someone for breaking the law. Would you argue that illegal immigrants aren't subject to US jurisdiction and therefore are exempt from the law? Or do you think that any non-citizen who breaks any law has no rights under the Constitution whatsoever?
@@rokusloef4071 I think you just read what you wanted to read. I never said jurisdiction is the ability to arrest somebody. A simple example would be anybody who is illegal citizen has the ability to enter into a work contract legally. Do you normally enter conversation with people based off a strawman?
@@woodchuck003 No, I was asking because I don't want to misrepresent your position. So to clarify, what does it mean to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? More specifically, is someone who is in the United States without proper documentation (e.g. overstaying their visa) _not_ subject to its jurisdiction?
We got Marbury vs Madison next y'all
Family tradition says that when my great-grandma came to the US from China, her mother went into labor as soon as she stepped onto America soil, not with my great-grandma, but her youngest sibling. That child was granted citizenship upon birth and made it easier for the rest of the family to gain citizenship. So, I am grateful for Mr. Wong even though America at the time wasn’t.
Wow literal anchor baby. Not insult by the way
Mr. Yeet
You know
I'm also a natural born US citizen. My parents moved from South Africa to the US for ten years and had me and my sister in the US, and later moved back to South Africa, but me and ny sister are still US citizens.
See this is the kind of thing civics classes (wherever they're still taught) don't discuss. I never thought about why this is a thing, but now I know. Thanks Mr. Beat!
How many pairs of briefs do you have American?! GEEZ!
LOTS of briefs. Binders full of briefs. And closets full of briefs.
Thank you Mr. Kim Ark
I think it’s Mr. Wong. In China the surname comes before the given name.
Ut oh. He is singing!
♪ BOOORRRNNNN IN DA U-S-AYUH! ♪
My favorite case, cause that's why I'm a citizen of the greatest country on Earth!
You're a Canadian citizen to?
Glad to hear you’re a citizen of the great and prosperous Democratic Republic of the Congo
Yup because there’s nothing better than being discriminated just because you look different.
@@saskcom2400 i like it down in canada, its nice to stop by a tim hortons when i go down there :D
If you are a citizen of the greatest country on Earth...what does this American piece of legislation got to do with you?
Babies aren't heavy enough to be used as anchors. Believe me I've tried.
That was a dark joke.
@@iammrbeat as long as you laugh that's what matters.
Here in Brazil, the Constitution is a lot more clear about the exceptions for ius soli citizenship, which are the same you stated in America. That's a measure more countries should adopt.
Following English Common Law tradition? Makes sense, since the OG United States was a British colony.
I've heard of Philippine lawyers using American precedents in their cases, because Philippine law had so much in common with US law.
Matthew Tolentino
makes sense since the philippines was an american colony 😂😂😂
Your band is fun, looks like you are getting the best out of being in a band. Good for you
You forgot to mention that wong parents were not illegal they had legal papers to be in USA to do business.
True.
who cares
Back in the days there was not distinction between legal or legal , so most probably that most Chinese didn't have a paper that's says is legal it was the time of Chinese exclusion, so most probably wong parents didn't have the paper that's says they are legal residents
I taught about this case back in October after President Trump was considering a Birthright citizenship ban with the discussion question, "Can President Trump execute an order limiting birthright citizenship? How might this be resisted?" In this lecture, I discussed the vocabulary terms:
judicial activism
judicial restraint
precedent
jus soli
jus sanguinis
Executive Order
Birthright Citizenship
anchor baby
13, 14 and 15th Amendments
My large focus was on jus soli, jus sanguinis, and the 14th Amendment.
I also discussed the following SCOTUS cases:
1844 Lynch v Clarke ***
1857 Dred v Scott
1884 Elk v Wilkins
1982 Plyler v Doe
From what we understood, US v Wong Kim Ark overturned 1844 Lynch v Clarke. This case may be a good follow up to this case,
Appreciate you following through on what happened to him after the decision.
Judging by the vocal tones used, I deduce that Mr.Beat opposes the effort to repeal birthright citizenship
lol meh...I kind of go back and forth on this one, because there is a lot of gray area.
Christian: are you somehow implying that a teacher should adopt a stance that is openly skeptical of established law? I certainly support his right to do so, if he so chooses, but he should, at no time, suffer any abuse for adopting a position in line with currently established law, particularly when the law sides with the rights of the individual and overturning the law would mean restricting the rights of the individual in favor of some nebulous, theoretical benefit only to citizens in general and no specific, per-instance benefit.
Mr. Beat: I support your right to hold whatever opinion you want, but, for me, they're is no gray area for exactly the reason I outline above: reversing current law means restricting individuals with no clear benefit to existing citizens. Making changes like that scares me.
Not that it should matter, but I am a natural-born citizen and so are my parents.
@@EricMathiasen clarification I thought Mr.beat supports birthright citizenship, because of the vocal tones he used
Nobody is attempting to repeal birthright citizenship, simply redefine it to exclude the children of those in the US illegally.
"subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was an intentional clause, which replaced the initial "not subject to foreign power" clause. the idea is that there is nothing preventing dual allegiance, except the risk of conflicting allegianc when the us is at war.
I wouldn't be a US citizen if we didn't have birthright citizenship! Both my parents were born in Turkey, I was born in Ohio :P
Well that's awesome.
Same! My parents came from Mexico, my siblings and I are born and raised in Delaware
Born in the USA is a very accurate song for this
No one chooses where they are born
I read a article on this Supreme Court Case and You have birthrights which I agree with the supreme court's decision
Cause it's in the Constitution.
I literally own my life to this case! When my biological mom snuck in illegally she was pregnant with me. I had a lot of medical problems so I had to be cared for and instead of taking me to Mexico-notice I didn't say "back"- I could stay in the United States( where I was born) instead of having to go to Mexico which had inadequate healthcare. Finally because of this case I was allowed to stay in the United States and was eventually adopted by my wonderful mother!
Does that mean that King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand was a US citizen? (He was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts.)
I personally think the decision was calculated just right. Birthright citizenship is incredibly important for an immigrant-destination country like the US, but at the same time, those few exceptions to the rule are perfectly reasonable (though I'd imagine there have some disappointed diplomat babies).
KhAnubis how is this fair for children of foreign diplomats? That is not reasonable at all, what do babies have to do with it?
Another well made video. Great decision by the court.
Thank you so much for this video, very informative!
How the heck is a grown person under the same jurisdiction as his parents?? That's foolishness!!!
Important point. People talking about birthright citizenship today are talking about citizenship being applied to children of Illegal immigrants. This case you cited, his parents had legal residency here. They were legally allowed within the United States just not as citizens for the reasons you stated. This is similar to someone getting a green card today and having children here. So my father has a green card as he is from Cuba, so this case protects my birthright citizenship as he is a permanent legal resident. But that doesn't strictly mean it can apply to anyone who say crosses the border, pops one out and then tries to claim they are now a citizen.
People are asking for clarification on the 14th amendment to see whether or not it can be applied to the children of illegal immigrants who shouldn't be here in the first place as we have never had a specific supreme court ruling or case in that specific circumstance.
From what I can tell, from the research I gathered, on what the supreme court's interpretation of the 14th amendment, from all these years, is that it does in fact *only* apply to people who are a citizen of this country by what the laws have defined what a citizen is.
So if you meet the criteria of what the law stipulates to what a citizen is and you fulfill the majority of that criteria, then you are a naturalized citizen and therefore your children will become birthright citizens.
Interesting case, to be sure. One or two wrinkles ... the District Court ruled in January of 1896, it went straight to the Supremes, without passing "Go" or appellate courts, but wasn't heard until March of 1897. I hope you didn't think that political considerations in Supreme Court cases were strictly a modern invention ... the intervening 1896 election surely had something to do with the delay, given how red-hot an issue this case was in California (which persisted so long that California didn't ratify the 14th Amendment until 1959). Also unusual was the position of the United States ... they were appealing the lower court's ruling that he was a citizen. The Solicitor General, Holmes Conrad, a holdover from the Grover Cleveland administration, a former Confederate officer and unreconstructed Lost Causer, actually proclaimed in oral argument that the 14th Amendment should be ignored because it was adopted by Southern states under duress!
I am an American citizen because of this case.
My mom isn't a us citizen. I was born here in the us as a Chinese American.
The U.S. Supreme Court Building shown in this video didn't exist until the 1930s.
President During this time: William McKinley
Chief Justice: Melville Fuller
Argued March 5, & 8, 1897
Decided March 28, 1898
Case Duration: 388 Days
Decision: 6-2 in favor of Wong Kim Ark (White, Gray, Shiras, Peckham, Brewer, Brown. Fuller, Harlan for US.)
You should definitely take a look at Trump Vs Hawaii, it's a bit difficult to find any non biased videos on this topic
Excellent Video. Perhaps you may consider another case. I still don't understand Aronow v. United States. Could you do a video on this?
Mr Beat you should make a video on Furman V Georgia and Georgia v Gregg
Ok
I’m like 50 videos in, love it, but after getting to know you: ‘white, whatever that means,’ was awesome
please do Warren v. District of Columbia next
I like your videos in general and this one specifically, but do have one quibble with this one:
Toward the end, where you display the votes of the Supreme Court justices, you list one side as "For Wong Kim Ark" and the other as "For the U.S.A."
I know that court cases against the Federal Government are officially listed as "Plaintiff v. The United States," but that's in an official capacity. More informally, it could be argued that Wong, in trying to expand individual rights, was truly "for the People," and that the U.S. government is ultimately made up of the People, so, in many cases the Federal government is only standing up for the Attorney General's interpretation of a law, and not for the People or, at least not particularly, the People of the United States.
It's a subtle distinction, and it would require addition discussion to explain, but it's possible worth explaining for key Supreme Court cases where a citizen (or possible citizen) is seeking protection of their rights against actions by some part of the Federal Government being defended by the office of the Attorney General. I think it's important that your students, and viewers in general, understand that in such cases "the U.S.A." is merely a convention for addressing one side of a court case, and doesn't necessarily mean that the side labeled as "the United States" are correct, let alone actually acting in the interest of United States' citizens.
Just a thought and something you could consider for future Supreme Court videos.
I don't understand United States v. Ju Toy could have been decided against Ju. He was a US citizen by birth but was denied equal protection under immigration law. His case seems similar to this one.
That's interesting the Harlan dissented here
I'm surprised John Harlan sided against Wong.
dissenting justice Melville looks like the lorax
By anchor baby you mean American citizen right??
Trump, like all of us can’t make everybody happy....great show... I watch your Chanel all the time. We don’t march in lockstep, we can disagree (electoral college). But always watch. Keep up the good work.
I agree 100%
My view: This is the ultimate no-brainer. If you were born in the US, you are a US citizen. (The only exceptions are if both your parents are non-citizens who are not truly subject to the jurisdiction of the US, e.g. foreign diplomats.)
Proud to call Wong a fellow American.
Marbury V. Madison I Assume?
Why yes. mwhahahahahahaha
There is a thing called accidental American. It's when a person isn't aware that they were US citizens their whole lives. Imagine their surprise.
Born in the USA! I wanna fight some Viet Kong! And I....forgot the lyrics! Butt by daddy in the USA!
0:31 because 2 Wongs don't make a white
Wait the same Harlan who dissented in Plessy v. Fergusson, dissented here? Hmmm. Humans are complicated.
My frend was born in the U.S.A. but has never went there
But...huh?
@@iammrbeat i mean his parents went there on a business trip and he was born at that time but since then he hasn't gone there
Oh I see. Well it appears your friend is a citizen. Does he want to live here?
@@iammrbeat no he doesn't have any family or anyone so he is staying in Egypt ( we live in Egypt)
@@iammrbeat by the way i have a suggestion whay dont you do a video on current cases that the supreme court are going to make a decision on and explain both sides of the argument
The fourteenth amendment was drafted with a specific purpose, to grant citizenship to former slaves. You can look at statements of the people who wrote it and people who were alive at the time. The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant not a citizen of another country as the former slaves did not have citizenship from any other country. It the phrase didn't mean anything then it wouldn't have been included. The interpretation of the clause has changed since then but that is the original reason and intent of the amendment.
you all now mr and mrs beat. I need to make a comment..I love you two...this story hits oooo close to my family from the potota famin...my great granpa had t join the union 1863 to become an american citizen...jesus he signed his name withj an X...please tell ua why an X was sooo impportantant...freak Im old miss and mrs beat....cheeeers
I was born 3 mnths prematurely whilst my parents had a holiday in France
I'm not sure if France has _jus soli_ citizenship.
(3:35) So do you see the island of Taiwan as part of the Republic of China🇹🇼 or People's Republic of China🇨🇳?🤔
At that time it was part of China
@@ghostofabulletproducciones5748
It was not! It was Japanese until the end of WWII.
Saying their nazis sounds counterintuitive when it was inspire by naze oprrssuon
So two Wongs wouldn't make a white back then either?
Why exactly would President Trump disagree with this court decision?
Pretty interesting
You use modern Chinese map when talking about qing dynasty.
And you include Taiwan on it, I think I'm gonna throw up
I hope you get the help you need.
K
The Supreme Court of the United States never DECIDES anything. They examine factors they believe have bearing on a given case or set of cases and render OPINIONS as to how the laws and the Constitution should be interpreted regarding the case or cases. Laws and opinions are never sacrosanct and are always subject to review and reinterpretation.
If you study the true origins of the Constitution and the journals of its creation and its creators, the error of this SCOTUS opinion becomes obvious. The Court chose in this case, not only to base the majority opinion on English Common Law, but did so on the basis that the notes and journals of the framers of the Constitution, the authors of the 14th Amendment, were inadmissable because there was no one left alive who could bear direct witness to their authorship. When one considers that both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 were fought by Americans strictly for the purpose of overthrowing the authority of English Common Law with regard to Americans, the very thought that the Constitution was in any part based on English Common Law is insultingly absurd.
Yes! Made it in the video!
I am glad I'm a white Mexican. People do not know I'm Mexican until I start speaking.
Love this story... aren't we all aliens of this country one way or another... that's what makes us so great...or does it... hmm
We are all aliens to somewhere, for sure.
Jacob Howard's intent with the 14th was never to grant citizenship to foreign nationals as it does now. He even publicly said so. Unfortunately the courts didn't seem to take that into consideration.
great story
I agree that English common law has no place in any political or government branch of the government because the whole point of America is that we separated from the British and that's why we have a constitution
But the 14th amendment so clearly and blatantly protects people who were born in America as Citizens
Trump would definitely disagree with it.. except for making his wife a citizen.. and her parents... and that's about it unless anyone else he knows needs it.
Trump's a hypocrite
the dissent in this case made no logical case. If what he said is true then wouldn't anyone with family in another country be excluded therefor excluding most people in the us from being us citizens?
i think all of his descendants are entitled to Us citizenship now. let me check my ancestry once more.
Kim Ark means the golden goose.
goosecouple Goose in Chinese is 鵝
(é) Or ngo4 in Cantonese. Mandarin pronunciation of Kim Ark is Jin De (金德)
@@TheTimoprimo Kim Ark is in hokkien. Back in those days many people were named after animals, example lion, tiger, eagle, dog, duck. Actually, Kim Ark is Golden Duck in hokkien. ruclips.net/video/SFNhHoeNXgs/видео.html
also by my last name could you tell our story..we were persecuted for being french canadieian's senmd to the suth for not fightiing gainst our own... would loe to hear your sidek,k,i have my own..grat dialoge
So many forgotten minority heroes. Because of their bravery that’s why roads are easier for so many minorities now.
What's the problem with dreamers? If they're born in the US why they should be kicked out or denied citizenship?
The problem with birthright citizenship is it costs a lot of money and creates problems with birth tourism.
Just how big of problem is birth tourism? I haven't seen much hard data on that.
Mr. Beat, according to an estimate done by the center for immigration studies, anchor babies cost tax payers up to 2 billion annually. According to pew research, over 7 percent of babies born in the US are born to unauthorized immigrants. According to vice, one major hot spot for russian birth tourists is miami. In my personal opinion, I think that birthright citizenship should only apply to legal residents and not just anybody who found a way to get in while they were pregnant.
A Supreme Court W
Birth right citizenship needs to be examined.
We are a nation of immigrants. Even though some of my ancestors immigrated here in 1626 they still immigrated here. The law that you are a citizen if you are born here makes sense more here than any other nation on earth. Otherwise the only people who have a real right to be here are Native Americans (of which I have three in my ancestry) and everyone else can be kicked out by them.
Amen😊
None of your statement makes any sense.
@@BT-hk2co Your inability to comprehend simple concepts has no reflection on anything I said.
You said we’re a nation of immigrants. Your ancestors who came in 1626 and any born thereafter in North America are not immigrants to the United States, the nation, which was founded in 1776. Jus Soli has exemptions. Native Americans, as a whole, were not offered citizenship until 1924. So, what rights did they have that you speak of? The law, Jus Soli, is practiced in many many more countries than just the U.S. So, I disagree the United States is a nation of immigrants. The 13 Colonies also weren’t immigrants. They didn’t move to another country, since there wasn’t one. And they were still under British rule at that time. Which by definition may make them colonizers, not immigrants.
@@BT-hk2co The fact that you can't see how convoluted and twisted your own logic is makes a rational discussion with you impossible.
I realize how important the 14th Amendment is to American's like myself. I wish people that are US Citizens would not take their citizenship for granted. Through education and travel abroad I learned how I'm very grateful to be a US Citizen in this great country of ours. Even though sometimes we disagree with each other, at core, we are one nation. Liberal or Conservative this is one great country.
Where are the natural citizens of America ? Sigh...