Explained: Trump's promise to end birthright citizenship | FOX 13 Seattle

[@CaballeroMetalico]

Married for 10 years and still keeping the husband undocumented????

[@TellyTime36]

Wong Kim Ark era cases: - Plessy: Segregation upheld. - Williams: Voting discrimination OK. - Cumming: Closed Black, kept white school. - Lone Wolf: Congress can break treaties. **Wong Kim Ark**: Confirmed U.S. birthright citizenship.

[@jefegarpez6505]

Felonies

[@jaydoggwaazaap3809]

Scamming the system that's why which is a criminal activity Out Out Out.

[@jaydoggwaazaap3809]

Scamming the system that's why which is criminal activity Out Out Out.

[@hesuschrist9527]

If illegal aliens aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, they are not subject to US laws. They have committed no crime

[@tanzanable]

This report is INCORRECT! The 14th Amendment PROHIBITS citizenship for children born in the USA to foreign nationals who are NOT subject to USA jurisdiction. At least one parent must be subject to the jurisdiction of the USA for their child to qualify for American citizenship at birth. Children born to foreign nationals on USA soil are legal citizens of their parents' nations. The Constitution would have to be amended to legally grant citizenship to children born in the USA to foreign nationals NOT subject to USA jurisdiction. "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." -US Constitution

[@billyhargrove1405]

That’s bs. Please stop lying

[@oibeanboi6929]

@@billyhargrove1405he’s not lying. Please stop spreading misinformation. Many other countries do it already. It’s not controversial.

[@billyhargrove1405]

@@oibeanboi6929 no sweaty. Once you’re born on American soil you are a U.S. citizen. That’s it. Can trump supporters please use what very few brain cells they have.

[@billyhargrove1405]

@@oibeanboi6929 another lying trump supporter. Takes five seconds to google

[@billyhargrove1405]

@@oibeanboi6929 another person saying bs

[@queenbeaute9967]

Why are folks acting like America is the only country in the world and what does she mean" continue to fight ".. should of continued to fight for ur home country for better life

[@reynaldodizon6563]

Here in Los Angeles Area, a lot of pregnant Chinese that are living on boarding house and once their children are born here, they come back in China and their child is consider US citizen even they are only tourist.

[@chonchan12]

I remember there was a federal raid in Orange County on similar boarding houses many years ago.

[@bernadettesnagg1084]

all this mess has got to stop.

[@Kruize_Kontrhl_Band_Live]

@@reynaldodizon6563 nah - that aint right - that's got to stop immediately of not sooner.

[@realalbertan]

Well the loophole is fuck an American guy who's on holidays and make sure you have a digital copy of his ID and fly over have his baby and boom American born with an American dad

[@huart250]

This is probably partly why they wanted to end birthright citizenship

[@Kruize_Kontrhl_Band_Live]

did i get this right? is she on TV talking about her “illegal” husband? tell me i’m wrong . . .

[@διαβόητο23φάντασμα]

Many years she said

[@justmyownpersonalopinion]

😂😂​@@διαβόητο23φάντασμα

[@missbrowniejay]

Um Melania?

[@vernonwillis9975]

@@Kruize_Kontrhl_Band_Live It wouldn't do any good. MAGA cultists are often wrong. But never in doubt.

[@SuzzieQue-i9k]

Right how long have they been married? How did they get a marriage license. Meaning he should be grandfathered in..

You can join him in his country. Duh!

[@Conquissstador]

Yes, be scared if you are a criminal.

[@mtc-j9i]

It gets taken advantage of big time. People literally fly here pregnant in order to give birth and then fly back home. Then they get their children free rides to American colleges when it’s time. I wouldn’t have believed it until I worked in a bank in a very international well to do district, and people would brag about it to me. Mostly mideasterners, Indians, some Asians, and Nigerians. The poor immigrants cross the border on foot pregnant and give birth….them then they get free everything because they give birth to an American child (free prenatal care, free hospital stay for giving birth, free WIC, free headstart daycare, free Medicaid…). Coming across the border pregnant is literally a free ride and a passport. That’s not how birthright citizenship was designed lol. It needs to end.

[@angljck61]

My friend was brought here in 1972 from Peru. Her mom became a US citizen but Roxanna got deported after she had 5 US citizen kids and is still married to a US citizen. She was deported after she graduated in 1988 and worked til 2004. They deported her.

[@jojo.pg24]

Amen. Come here the right way or don’t

[@Youtube_dont_delete_my_comment]

@@jojo.pg24on a boat called mayflower?

[@marcreginvea328]

Exactly! What is the point of laws of there are no consequences to people who do not abide by the law.

[@gloryholdofficial]

@@angljck61you have to be leaving out massive details she most likely got busted for some sort of tax fraud this happens a lot they have kids and file tax claims when they aren’t citizens and didn’t pay any taxes it happened to two of my Colombian coworkers

[@pamelapeterson2987]

If you are not a native American, you are here because of birthright citizenship.

[@ElizabethMBoyd]

You really know nothing most Americans are decendants of native Americans, my family goes back over 15 generation to the founders I have 7 different native lines, no you don't need to have native blood you need to not have come ilegal, and your parents shouldn't have come here iligaly

[@nikonkwame]

Or slavery type sht

[@Cahluvca]

No, American Freedmen are not immigrants

[@Delimon007]

You do realize that has already been amended and ratified right? Maybe go read the constitution sometime?

[@rickreallylikedthevideobut7899]

@@Delimon007 You mean like the 28th amendment Bidet talked about? Lol!! Maybe bidumb should go read the constitution sometime?

[@chodkowski01]

Loved ones? Didn’t they leave families to migrate to America?

[@Anthonycapone8146]

So really Trump is reuniting their families!

[@chrisford2464]

@@Anthonycapone8146 him first, since his immigrant german parents had him over here... or at least I think he was... He might have been born in germany and they just lied about it...

[@Anthonycapone8146]

@@chrisford2464 I think you're confusing that with Obama? I'm pretty sure they said Obama wasn't born here! You might be a little slow, so I'll try to explain it. It's not going back in history, it's for future illegal aliens, or "anchor babies"! Let me know if that was too hard to comprehend. You're welcome

[@YightLagami-zt4mv]

@@chrisford2464cool story bro

[@clareeastgate2753]

@@Anthonycapone8146yes 🙌

[@missjackiierdz]

Birthright citizenship needs to be amended with clarity. My cousin and my friend both has children who were born in the states. Both are currently living in mexico. They both have dual citizenship today. Birthright citizenship doesnt scare them due to they are born here but the parents are using them to come to the states as an excuse to stay illegally or their other kids. People need to stop using excuses and stop using children to sneak in. Point blank

[@dontaewoods79]

Exactly it’s amendment abuse

[@TonyTinker-hc3zq]

I think it should be that you shouldn't be a citizen unless you are born in the us and at least one of your parents is either a citizen or in the states legally on a work permit or had permanent residency

[@missjackiierdz]

@TonyTinker-hc3zq they have visiting visas since most people on the border trade often. Most of us there has family from both sides. In this case, their visas were factually legal and both of them didnt live in the states at the moment. They happened to give birth since most of us have some sort of family who is there. They are work visas, but yes, on visas with permission to go in and out of the USA. So yeah, I agree. They just need to amend it or create clauses that identifies the birthright citizenship

[@jessen960]

​@@TonyTinker-hc3zqthats dumb, wouldnt it be better if they were born and raised here for a good time as a kid??

[@shivaghuge6585]

Thank you trump ! Our Indian experts will come back and work in India...

[@lindacalderon6417]

Good

[@elenagaroti]

That’s better

[@Jrookus]

They won't lmao, India will still be a shithole. This will just harm Americans and fundamentally threaten the very fabric of our society by changing what it means to be American without doing anything to improve American's qol

[@TellyTime36]

Wong Kim Ark era cases: - Plessy: Segregation upheld. - Williams: Voting discrimination OK. - Cumming: Closed Black, kept white school. - Lone Wolf: Congress can break treaties. **Wong Kim Ark**: Confirmed U.S. birthright citizenship.

[@Wootwoot-g2o]

Bye Felicia

[@fazbell]

Birthright citizenship is right there in the Constitution. It will take more than Trump to change that.

[@TanyaOsterman-hw9wv]

Yes, it will take the other branches and he has control over them. That means NONE of us will be citizens!

[@LisaGreenfield-Lesly]

He will do it! No doubt!

[@alooga555]

Good thing Trump Republicans controls both congressional houses.

[@blackcoffee.]

@@LisaGreenfield-Lesly If not the US is sunk.

[@Capdub]

Nope no where in the constitution is birthright citizenship stated sorry lib

[@KathyWhitson-g9z]

Get them out period

[@mayakoka6878]

Make that make sense?? Illegal is illegal.

[@dontaewoods79]

She just put a red dot on her husbands back.. congrats

[@kar241]

if you were born here, you are safe. if you crossed into a country illegally, you are leaving.

[@TellyTime36]

Wong Kim Ark era cases: - Plessy: Segregation upheld. - Williams: Voting discrimination OK. - Cumming: Closed Black, kept white school. - Lone Wolf: Congress can break treaties. **Wong Kim Ark**: Confirmed U.S. birthright citizenship.

[@JuanCastro-r4r]

Jus sanguinis Most European countries grant citizenship based on the citizenship of their parents. For example, a child born in Slovenia is a Slovenian citizen if either parent is a Slovenian citizen. Jus soli Some European countries grant citizenship based on the country of birth, but with restrictions. For example, in Portugal, it's relatively easy to obtain citizenship by birth.

[@kerynl.sanchez9891]

True, my nephew was born in Germany but his parents are not citizens, so he was registered with the Canadian embassy 🤷‍♀️

[@jennifersun8417]

how is her husband married to an American citizen for many years and still doesn't have a legal statues??? make it make sense.....

[@psst143]

RIGHTTTTTT that’s why they gotta go. They just want to reap the benefits of this country without being a citizen.

[@poohbear4126]

They don’t don’t reap none of the right the older immigrants are not like the ones that are coming in now they did not get none of the right and definitely can’t use any of the systems in place they work of the books and have to do everything in cash the ppl who get the advantage is us that hire them and don’t pay them the same as Americans to make more money for our bottom line and there is a lot of ppl like me child of a person that did not have papers did 23 year in special forces 3 Purple Heart that would put me in that category so while I went fought for this while some of yall lazy ass in titled bunz are complaining about losing something they never had or never will get because they just lazy some of these immigrants surpass us because the work their asses of and embrace life and make it happen stop being ignorant and look at the laws and what damage it will do more than good and by the way I did vote for trump this is just not a smart move

[@sadrachramirez7530]

@@psst143what Benefits? They pay Taxes, even social security and and get nothing Back in 2022 reported 96 billions of dollar were pay by immigrants in which they don’t get shit back

[@xMeikax]

if you enter the country illegally there's no path for citizenship for you. You need to be able to enter legally to get citizenship from marriage. they could have gone to Mexico and get married, and then he could have gotten a visa or green card. But if they got married in the US he cannot apply for a Green card.

[@iglesiasco]

@@xMeikax I know some families who did not have to leave the country, they did however had to pay a fine for overstaying visa and/or crossing illegally.

[@BonstersBar]

How is her husband able to work in the US without proper documentation?

[@woodyssnake8562]

Under the table tax free

[@jsanders2004]

Thank you trump! We're tired of freeloaders

[@EmmaTheresa-nl8rs]

It was in gesture only. Trump knows that he can't do it.

[@bloodkeper12]

Yeah like 70% percent of the us military man and women should be deported so that our standing army be 100,000 maybe ???🤷

[@b.w.9244]

Then get rid of red states!

[@soar1091]

Thats would be most of his cabinet & almost all of the trumpers

[@tracyabernathy4591]

Here here time for them too go home.

[@finnappleyard]

If your husband has been here for so many years, why have you not taken care of his status?

[@Full-Stack-Fernando]

All the people saying “oh the party’s over” “people finally can’t take advantage” both of my parents have passed the citizenship test, I have passed my citizenship test and I have been living here my entire life since the age of 1 and it took 19 years for the government to let me take the test, both of my siblings are birthright citizens our entire lives are built in America so if their citizenship is revoked and they get deported I don’t think it’s fair that they should have to wait almost 20 years to come back to their childhood home where they graduated from high school or in my sisters case currently is in high school despite both of my parents being naturalized citizens. For example your child grew up here went to school here works here but you happen to be from another country and even though you’re a citizen YOU took the test you passed but they still have to get deported

[@vernonwillis9975]

Nobody's citizenship is going to be revoked. Trump is full of 💩

[@dabphoegryph4849]

big difference in your case as your parents are using the legal means to stay. the ones exploiting it for resources need to go. children of illegals should not be given automatic citizenship unless a relative they reside with is a citizen or goes through what your parents did. its that simple.

[@avo.avocado]

The executive action only applies to people born 30 days after its past bro…

[@vernonwillis9975]

@avo.avocado It doesn't apply to anyone because it's un- constitutional as heII.

[@elenagaroti]

You’re legally staying. It only applies to those that aren’t there legally. Idk how that’s so hard to understand

[@agearhart1]

Breaking the law is breaking the law

[@Goddish]

Trump broke the law and didn’t go to jail, make it make sense you dumbass 😂

[@Wendy-wy4si]

If they were planning to be here long term, then how come they haven’t been working to become a citizen? The party is over..

[@JMTAYLOR-mv2ww]

🙌🏻

[@gayvin5286]

@@JMTAYLOR-mv2wwBecause if you look up how backed up to list is you would know it's backed up as far back as 2010

[@jellyflowerr]

Most all of them are tho. It takes years to get an appointment.

[@EseEsKaliman]

I don't think you understand how long it takes to become a citizen, the wait is usually 6-10 years if you're lucky, and most of the time you'll get a work permit but then you'll still have to wait.

[@JMTAYLOR-mv2ww]

@ incorrect. No one here legally with court appts while being deported illegally enter you must leave. My Mother in law passed the citizenship test with pride and she is a Vietnamese immigrant with a FIRST GRADE Reading level. I don’t believe in excuses after watching her dedication. No excusess. She came legally. Our First Lady came legally. Stop enabling breaking our laws

[@normietwiceremoved]

Being on the news isn't gonna help.

[@danielgouge4639]

For real

[@marconoahu2]

I don’t think that lawyer showcased in this report even read the EO. It’s not cut and dried and no where does it say citizenship would be revoked retroactively. She’s wrong on what the meaning of Subject to the laws. This issue is going to SCOTUS.

[@DIAMONDGIRL57]

Not happening.

[@thomasjohnson3793]

If this is true and it's been many years how many years has he not paid into social security? How many years has he not paid taxes? How many years has he not given back to the country? Hes trying to live in other than taking in the sense a job American money American food American water American infrastructure American doctors lawyers how. Much has an individual taken and not given back believe me every dollar I spend in this country is taxed.

[@BobbyLuke-f9o]

Keep reading their parents must be citizens bye bye get the HELL OUT😊

[@mohanrao6]

One of the friendliest people in the world are Americans better than Europeans and Aussies but the polticians are same all over the world,looking for votes to stay in power.when I was small I imagined all Whites are law abiding,kind and clean no corruption unlike Indian polticians who are known corrupt but now after grown up I know all are same it is the scale what matters.

[@catbreath8361]

"Continue to defy?" That is why Trump won.

[@jefegarpez6505]

He has a criminal record thats why she cant fix his legal status

[@shanechyba9976]

It comes down to this you need to follow the law when coming into the country not breaking it

[@KathyWhitson-g9z]

If you’re not a criminal why u boo - whoing?

[@IntriguedwithTyler]

Birthright Citizenship should definitely be banned!! Unless atleast one parents of the child is a citizen

[@jeancharlespajuelo1342]

Ohh hell nah

[@TellyTime36]

Wong Kim Ark era cases: - Plessy: Segregation upheld. - Williams: Voting discrimination OK. - Cumming: Closed Black, kept white school. - Lone Wolf: Congress can break treaties. **Wong Kim Ark**: Confirmed U.S. birthright citizenship.

[@Bullshitdetector11]

Do you not know that America is based on birthright citizenship? No angloamerican living here came from here. We are all immigrants

[@Lefthandside11]

You don’t get to pick and choose what parts of the constitution you want to uphold

[@FrancisDavid-r6b]

Ok let's go further end dual citizenship that's an afront to patriotism dual allegiances call your senator

[@russiantroubleyakutsk1612]

You don’t need to reinterpret the constitution. Birthright citizenship doesn’t apply to children born to diplomats or hostile foreign invaders. Illegal aliens could just be deemed a hostile invading force and then birthright citizenship won’t apply.

[@dramigo3024]

so an illegal who comes into this country just to work and provide to their family while also paying the massive amounts of taxes here are hostile to you? just how much of a racism scum are you?

[@Anthonycastle4647]

The 1898 case that is often cited as establishing birth right citizenship parents were permanent residents, second if that case established citizenship than why were Native American not U.S. citizens until 1924 when Congress passed a law to make it so, lastly illegal immigrants even though the men have to sign up for the draft are not actually subject to it, none we're drafted dearing Vietnam war for example. Now I could be wrong.

[@Truth-g7k]

​@Anthonycastle4647 both parents were Chinese immigrants and the son was born here in USA. Upheld birthright citizenship due to 14th amendment. Just because trump is talking about it and people are listening doesn't mean this hasn't happen many years in the past. Same result citizenship is granted. Plus you can't undue what is legal in the past.

[@charliefoxtrot7219]

@Fox13 Seattle, The US Constitution gives birth right citizenship to people legally in the US. Read SCOTUS decisions before spouting iff misinformation.

[@TellyTime36]

Wong Kim Ark era cases: - Plessy: Segregation upheld. - Williams: Voting discrimination OK. - Cumming: Closed Black, kept white school. - Lone Wolf: Congress can break treaties. **Wong Kim Ark**: Confirmed U.S. birthright citizenship.

[@Lefthandside11]

Where does it say that in the constitution? Does it also say anything about automatic weapons?

[@charliefoxtrot7219]

@@Lefthandside11 SCOTUS has ruled on that in the late 1800s and applied that. Lower Federal courts, like the 9th Circus, blatantly misuse their positions for political reasons. They should be impeached. Surely you've read that.

[@charliefoxtrot7219]

@@TellyTime36 You should include. The Southern Democratic states created and enforced Jim Crowe laws. They also openly violated SCOTUS anti discrimination decisions. Eisenhower had to send in US Marshalls to enforce those decisions. SCOTUS will make the ruling. The amendment and and Scotus decision says it all. Like shall not be infringed. Your side likes to whine about that also.

[@aolvaar8792]

@@TellyTime36 READ, Wong Kim Ark, His parents were LEGAL residents of the USA This was the point that SCOTUS upheld.

[@danielcooper2382]

Born in the US means LEGALLY born; NOT surreptitiously born or illegally born in the US.

[@Lefthandside11]

@@danielcooper2382and how do you know that? Where does the constitution state that?

[@jessemartinasalazar154]

If he did it the right way, you'd be fine.

[@cbeto765]

IM LOVING IT😘 THIS IS WHY THE AMERICAN VOTERS VOTED FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP... now go home ADIOS!!✌️

[@TellyTime36]

Wong Kim Ark era cases: - Plessy: Segregation upheld. - Williams: Voting discrimination OK. - Cumming: Closed Black, kept white school. - Lone Wolf: Congress can break treaties. **Wong Kim Ark**: Confirmed U.S. birthright citizenship.

[@divinelyindifferent]

Unless you’re Native American, you’re “American” because of birthright citizenship: “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.”

[@TraConCheung]

He can live and work legally in another country. She can move with him too

[@Winter-inAmeriKKa]

Roflmao the Hispanic community, helped give Trump the House, Congress & and Senate. They got they voted for, lol.

[@peggyelrod-9585]

Good President Trump

[@eb7027]

If she wants to be with him just move to Mexico 🇲🇽 and enjoy life with him.

[@TellyTime36]

Wong Kim Ark era cases: - Plessy: Segregation upheld. - Williams: Voting discrimination OK. - Cumming: Closed Black, kept white school. - Lone Wolf: Congress can break treaties. **Wong Kim Ark**: Confirmed U.S. birthright citizenship.

[@billyhargrove1405]

Can y’all go Back to Europe?

[@tessapersaud4292]

Why didn't this lady get her Green Card she live here many years so she is in fear now they were warn many months and they werr wasting time☹️

[@todddunn945]

Because she was born in Texas. Listen to the story.

[@bananausa9905]

She's born in Texas, her husband doesn't have a green card, for what reason we don't know

[@bananausa9905]

She's American by birth

[@namastewellness]

EXACTLY.

[@bernadettesnagg1084]

her husband has been here more than long enough to have a green card, so please...

[@dontaewoods79]

Its not like people are going to LOSE their citizenship . This only applies to ppl AFTER the effective date. By the way why is telling them her husband is illegal ?

[@jlmundo2]

He can’t 😂 he doesn’t have the right. Is up to congress and the states and Liberal states will not let him 😂 I voted Trump but he is wrong on this one. There is no way California, New York etc..

[@NJJOSHLYN]

Hes UNDOCUMENTED? DID I HEAR THAT CORRECTLY? WHY IS SHE ON TV telling😢😂

[@Fwaygo664]

Now why would she even say all that on TV..

[@studiotwopointeight]

With regard to the bounds and limits of constitutional birthright citizenship, Seattle federal district judge John Coughenour has done all of us a favor because it is high time that the federal judiciary issued a contemporary opinion on the limits of birthright citizenship. The TRO just granted by John Coughenour is only a tiny first step in a legal process that, now started, seems likely to last for several years and ultimately result in a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Naïve people seem to think that the executive order that starts this litigation is just an idol gesture. I believe that it was cunningly initiated with full knowledge that the order's long term consequence will be a fresh U.S. Supreme Court interpretation of the bounds and limits of U.S. constitutional birthright citizenship. - Americans have observed, for the past few decades, federal litigation that attempts to limit other constitutional rights, about which the political middle left is vehement. For example, it is a hallmark of current middle left American politics to claim that the right to keep and bear firearms "shall not be infringed" doesn't really mean what its plain text clearly says it means, and therefore seek restrictions and prohibitions on second amendment firearm rights. - Given the logic the political left applies to the second amendment, birthright citizenship should not be absolute or unlimited either. The current administration's new executive order seeks to limit birthright citizenship to newborn children with at least one U.S. citizen, or permanent legal resident non-citizen, parent. Stated another way, pursuant to this new executive order, newborn children of illegal border crossers, or with two non-citizen parents, would not be entitled to birthright citizenship. Although the new executive order likely has limited endurance, once the federal courts have issued rulings on this controversy, those federal court rulings will be the undeniable permanent law of the land. - It is my impression that once the matter of these limits on birthright citizenship make it to the U.S. Supreme Court in a few years, given the current makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold the limits on birthright citizenship expressed in this new federal executive order. If the U.S. Supreme Court issues such a ruling, the recent practice of birthright tourism, in which pregnant foreign mothers travel to the U.S on tourist visas in the 9th month of their pregnancy so that their baby can be born in the U.S., will instantly grind to a screeching halt.

[@bradleydawson1819]

14th amendment was for former slaves

[@Cahluvca]

🎯

[@Unknownuser2u4u]

And many after benefitted that made this country what it is now with many of its citizens coming from immigrants parents including trumps kids. This law has allowed great progress and benefit to America as a Nation without it we wouldn't even have the Republicans we have and then some. Meaning this law impacts everyone of different political parties. The bigotry , selfishness, and hate must stop.

[@j.daniels1548]

American Freedmen is the federal designation. The Freedmen are non-immigrants and built the United States from scratch. The Freedmen and their descendants were never compensated for their labor by the United States government that enslaved them and kept them in bondage. It is a debt that is owed and long overdue.

[@jacquelinesampson7254]

@@Cahluvcafacts

[@Lefthandside11]

@@bradleydawson1819 so why does it say “all persons” and not “former slaves”?

[@Tigerbrotha12]

Good. Why do people have an issue with this. If you’re here illegally, you are breaking the law.

[@Lefthandside11]

@@Tigerbrotha12 why do people have such a big issue amending the 2nd amendment?

[@NewOrleansSeptember]

See the debate in Congress at the time including the comments by the co-author of the 14th amendment stating the children of illegals are not citizens per the 14th amendment.

[@gendoll5006]

This should be changed!! There are countries that don’t have birthright citizenship because they don’t want to encourage pregnant women and people in general to come here just to give birth on US soil so they automatically have a child that’s a citizen. Even if the constitution was amended, it would only affect births after that point. These people who were born here but their parents are illegals, aren’t going to be deported. Smh. You should only have birthright citizenship if at LEAST your parents were born here. You shouldn’t be able to come here illegally or even on a visa for work, school, vacation, etc. and be able to give birth and your baby now be an American citizen. Again… that’s not a given for all countries. Some countries have strict rules on citizenship status, even if you’re born there. And they should!

[@Lefthandside11]

@@gendoll5006 most countries have strict policies on guns and not a right to own one. Should we change that as well?

[@gendoll5006]

@ If it was as absolute as this unrestricted birthright citizenship, I’d say yes! But seeing as we already have restrictions on gun ownership, like age, passing a background check, waiting period, class certification, mental health check, etc.. Our rights should be amended over time, just like gun restrictions we should have birthright citizenship restrictions.

[@Law19157]

Why would Jurisdiction apply to foreign diplomats and not the people those same diplomats are from? I'm not convinced jurisdiction means foreign diplomats. We wouldn't even be having this conversation if illegal immigration wasn't a thing.

[@TellyTime36]

Wong Kim Ark era cases: - Plessy: Segregation upheld. - Williams: Voting discrimination OK. - Cumming: Closed Black, kept white school. - Lone Wolf: Congress can break treaties. **Wong Kim Ark**: Confirmed U.S. birthright citizenship.

[@cyndimoring9389]

Constitutional 14th Amendment “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.”

[@ejarridcw]

He is gonna win this. Seeing that lady whose husband is here illegally and has been for years play victim like that was actually sickening.

[@EmmaTheresa-nl8rs]

Not unless you rewrite the constitution! Sorry. If you ever go for a passport you are asked to provide a birth certificate that says that you were born here. The passport is your citizenship. Those rules would have to change. Also "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" -- any immigrant in jail for committing a crime would have to be released if they are NOT subject to the jurisdiction thereof. If they can commit a crime and be prosecuted, you can't say their child doesn't have citizenship if born here.

[@Vai-5555]

⁠@@EmmaTheresa-nl8rs did you know that native Americans aren’t given citizenship based off this amendment either? The only reason Indians have citizenship is the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. Indians are subject to federal laws, yet their status precluded them from citizenship….

[@NB-nh2sf]

They never understand how this doesn't help their cause. It makes Americans and legal migrants angry

[@NB-nh2sf]

​@@EmmaTheresa-nl8rsthe law never protected illegal aliens expats h1-b holders. It'll hod up in court

[@alfredomares8]

“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”.

[@Dojayou]

He said CRIMINAL not all immigrants

[@Funny-t3z1y]

He already shat on the 14th amendment by running for president.

[@jeffboggs4382]

HOW IS YOUR KID A CITIZEN IF YOUR NOT SUPPOSED TO BE HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE !

[@PonianYouTube]

If someone is born in the United States, they are granted immediate citizenship via the 14th amendment.

[@jeffboggs4382]

DO PEOPLE ABUSE THE 14TH AMENDMENT ?

[@ChickenWhisper-z3y]

STOP LYING MEDIA. We'll he should have never come in illegally

[@Serenity-x5p]

Get over it, come here legally or get out

[@McGriff99]

People understandably feel that this loophole should be closed but fail to remember that conservative judges have been insisting on plain textualism and originalism for decades and the text here is essentially interpretable in only one plain way: born here then you are a citizen. Surely they could have a conceived of a scenario where this approach would come back to bite Americans in the rear end and could have made their prior rulings more flexible to accommodate changing times. But they didn't. No they have to live with the consequences.

[@ahanna4396]

It's hard to have compassion for those people

[@tracyabernathy4591]

Agree especially when they tucked off us made the cost of living skyrocket where we can't afford it where Americans have become homless poverty and have been forced too work for very low pay cause these people work for nothing they need too go.

[@famf6234]

I agree to abolish the 14th amendment to protect the IS Citizenry and domain!

[@SuzzieQue-i9k]

They should be terrified. That's why I don't understand why she's isn't anonymous..

[@psst143]

Because she’s slow asf.

[@rlswims]

Go home

[@ewa2761]

US has no jurisdiction on other countries, it clearly says in the 14th amendment. Person born or naturalized in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the US. Puerto Rico is a different country but US has jurisdiction on it, therefore its citizens are US citizens. US doesn’t consider illegals/tourist/foreign student/foreign worker as their subject, their legal term is alien (foreigner). In order for you to be a US subject, you can’t be deported, and clearly aliens whether of legal and illegal status can be deported.

[@srinivassc6281]

Trump knows that law. He is not blind of past verdicts.

[@bellpaleale]

What change to the Constitution? It’s an interpretation of what’s already there that’s at question.

[@Melissa.L.A]

All Congress has to do is add a few words to section 1 in the 14th amendment. The new sentence shall read "all people born or naturalized by the citizens of the united states, in the United States...." This will define the amendment and not change it

[@jacobchakko438]

The Supreme Court Weighs In The U.S. Supreme Court has shed some light on the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the years that followed the passage of the 14th Amendment. The first definition from the Supreme Court appeared in 1873 in the Slaughter-House Cases, a series of cases not dealing specifically with birthright citizenship. Here, the Court explained: “The phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”52 This interpretation is consistent with Sen. Howard’s floor statement on the scope of jurisdiction, discussed above, as not including foreigners, or aliens, or children born to foreign government officials. Even the dissenting justices agreed with this restrictive interpretation. The Supreme Court addressed “subject to the jurisdiction” again in 1884 in Elk v. Wilkins, a case that focused on the citizenship of an American Indian who had been born into a tribe but had later severed his tribal ties. Here, the Court emphasized that a person not born into U.S. citizenship could not make himself “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States without the consent of the United States. According to the Court: “no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent.”53 Specifically, the Court held that although the plaintiff was born in the United States, he was not granted U.S. citizenship through any treaty or statute and was consequently not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the 14th Amendment. The Court defined the jurisdictional requirement of the Citizenship Clause as requiring a person to be: “…not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”54 The Court also explained that Indians born in tribes geographically located within the United States are “no more ‘born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’…than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within” the United States “or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.”55 This holding is clearly damaging to those who argue the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to children born to illegal aliens because an illegal alien is certainly a subject of a foreign government. A child born to such an individual is not, according to the Elk Court, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Additionally, this holding is consistent with the interpretation of Sen. Howard’s floor statement that the 14th Amendment denies citizenship not only to children born to parents who are visiting foreign diplomats, but also to children born to foreigners, generally. Another Supreme Court holding that is often cited is the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark which held that Wong Kim Ark, a child born in the United States to legal resident Chinese immigrants, was a birthright U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment. According to the Court: “[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 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.”56 (emphasis added) The Court gave little weight to the consensualist attitudes shown in the Congressional Globe floor statements and based its decision instead on a theory that the 14th Amendment was simply a codification of English common law, citing the English jurists William Blackstone and Edward Coke. Given the Wong Kim Ark Court’s reliance on English common law, it is worth observing that Justice Story, who years earlier held that U.S. citizenship law derives from English common law, wrote the following in his famous Conflict of Laws treatise: “A reasonable qualification of the [English birthright citizenship] rule would seem to be that it should not apply to children of parents who were in itinere in the country, or who were abiding there for temporary purposes, as for health or curiosity, or occasional business.”57 In concluding that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the Citizenship Clause should be very broadly construed, the Court in Wong Kim Ark held that it simply means the same thing as “within the jurisdiction,” a phrase found in the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment: “It is impossible to construe the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the opening sentence [of the 14th Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words ‘within its jurisdiction,’ in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons ‘within the jurisdiction’ of one of the States of the Union are not ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’”58 Setting aside some of its own earlier commentary, the Court surmised that the “real object” of the Citizenship Clause “would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words… two classes of cases - children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State.”59 The strongly worded dissent reiterated much of the earlier precedent, explaining: “To be ‘completely subject’ to the political jurisdiction of the United States is to be in no respect or degree subject to the political jurisdiction of any other government. “Now I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country, but are forbidden by its system of government, as well as by its positive laws, from doing so, and are not permitted to acquire another citizenship by the laws of the country into which they come, must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country. … The Fourteenth Amendment was not designed to accord citizenship to persons so situated and to cut off the legislative power from dealing with the subject. … It is not to be admitted that the children of persons so situated become citizens by the accident of birth.”60

[@trialleadgen334]

He should end it immediately. No other developed or under developed country allows it

[@P.90.603]

😂 You literally lied. Most countries have birthright citizenship, but have some restrictions.

[@Delimon007]

@@P.90.603 Which ones? Edit: And FYI, we are specifically talking about NONCITIZENS having birthright citizenship, NOT citizens.

[@P.90.603]

@ I apologize...I'm wrong. Still, the US is different...we don't live by "well, other countries do it".

[@wendelltroyer]

Belize does

[@jlmundo2]

He can’t 😂 he doesn’t have the right. Is up to congress and the states and Liberal states will not let him 😂 I voted Trump but he is wrong on this one.

[@roberthowey7848]

When it comes to birthright citizenship: according to the Constitution of the United States the only ones that have the right to birthright citizenship are the ethnic groups that are Caucasian and black, as of January 2025 the Constitution has never been changed to include any other ethnic group. After the civil war and because of the slave trade the black ethnic group were added to the Constitution and have all the rights that the Constitution of the United States gives. I'm sorry no other ethnic group has been added since then. And because of this the second amendment of the right to bear arms only gives 2 ethnic groups that right they are the Caucasian ethnic group and the black ethnic group. No other ethnic group has a right to bear arms according to the Constitution of the United States of America nor do they have the first amendment rights of freedom of speech and so on. Nor do they have the right to go to the highest court in the land, the supreme Court of the United States unless they are of the ethnic group Caucasian or black. No other ethnic group has been added to the Constitution of the United States and as of January 2025 only those two ethnic groups have constitutional rights in the United States, no are there ethnic group has constitutional rights in the United States. Now individual State constitutional law is different and most of them do include all ethnic groups but when it comes to birthright citizenship only two ethnic groups have that right because an individual state cannot give that right to an individual.

[@CristobalMarin-c5d]

Who is this left wing FOX news reporter. You're Fired!

[@Thinkythinkerton]

Laws change all the time, but this one cannot be retroactive Cannot be retroactive Will not be retroactive

[@tankbeast8480]

No where else has it I wonder why

[@DanBurrington-v7j]

What about anchor baby baron ?

[@elizabethfrownfelter2531]

You must have fallen out of the coconut tree😂

[@mimi2613]

Melania is here legally

[@jenniferlewis9198]

@@mimi2613 I don’t think people know the difference between illegal and legal immigrants.😂

[@JMTAYLOR-mv2ww]

@@DanBurrington-v7j 😂 you need to educate yourself

[@JMTAYLOR-mv2ww]

@@jenniferlewis9198 🙌🏻

[@LouisCapps-p3z]

Why didn't these people file for citizenship years ago. The show ended. Drawl the curtains.😮

[@jellyflowerr]

They did! It takes years to get your appointment.

[@TechSyndicate83]

​@jellyflowerr not all of em 💁‍♂️

[@lali3262]

The tried! Republicans kept making laws to delay the process for decades

[@jellyflowerr]

@@TechSyndicate83 legit most all of them do tho. Give me a source that proves otherwise?

[@Delimon007]

@@jellyflowerr Which is why you get in line and wait unless you have circumstances that says you cannot. Having "harsh economic circumstances" is not one of those reasons. Sorry not sorry.

[@Cal-fr9mw]

If you didn’t do it the legal way it sucks but countries have laws and if you came here illegally, you broke them

[@user-te7wr8uz6c]

Wasn't this put in for former slaves and their children? I don't think they meant if you can squeak under the fence before giving birth you're in.

[@NB-nh2sf]

Yes. It was for Black Americans who helped create the country defended it in every war but were denied rights. It certainly was not for border jumpers and birth tourists.

[@TheSpartan3669]

​@@NB-nh2sfWhere does it say that in the Constitution?

[@paranoidhumanoid]

If you read closely the updates to the H-1B program and the summaries of them on major immigration firm websites, there are more favorable changes to this visa than ever before, including expanding eligibility into other industries and facilitating more rapid transfers for F-1 students to H1-B. This is actually better than how the program was during the Obama and Biden Admins. 😂

[@EseEsKaliman]

We need to fix our immigration policies that are so inefficient but both parties do not care about actually fixing things, they care about doing things that make it look like they're doing something just to keep people content, just like changing the gulf of mexico to the gulf of america or making the national bird an eagle. Since both parties are controlled by corporations/conglomerates, the cheap immigrant labor will never go away because it is not in their interests to end it. The People's pride for their parties is what is making us slowly descent into an oligarchy, and it has been happening since the 1900s with the Rockefellers, J.P Morgans etc. but since most people are choosing to be blind and prideful so they don't have to admit their parties are corrupt, nothing will change.

[@EmmaTheresa-nl8rs]

Exactly. Very well put. And you are right. Nothing will change.

[@Unknownuser2u4u]

They r too busy playing the point the finger game than swallowing their pride and ACTUALLY finding middle ground to the broken system we have. Many Americans want a faster way for illegal immigrants that have been here long always payed taxes never asked for anything and have no criminal record to be able to get legal status in America faster but both sides are too busy pointing fingers and being prideful that nothing ever gets fixed

[@dantechang8556]

I read the 14th amendment and his Executive order. He is clarifying the section "jurisdiction thereof" He is NOT taking the 14th amendment out and he makes a good case.

[@Anthonian1972]

No need to change constitution. Just implement a questionnaire requiring tourist/visitor visa applicants to answer if they are currently pregnant and expecting to deliver their child during the period of time they are requesting to stay in US territory. If they are not then they can be approved.

[@wilhelmenns791]

Does that count for Canadian as well ?

[@DarshanPatel-zr5bc]

lol he said to change definitions not constitutional 🤣 - definitions can be anything

[@SuzzieQue-i9k]

People here over ten years without a deport order should be least of their concerns. Unless they have violent tendencies but they already said they would ne lienent on those with out criminal record's..

[@Aireck174]

"The Amendment 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," - The senator who wrote the citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment, Jacob Howard of Michigan

[@chrisford2464]

so anyone not Native American... gotcha cha...

[@k.c3592]

people please, you don't know the restrictions of immigrantion laws and expenses it takes for someone become legal to this country, you never know their case. He can be the one that he can't be legalize due to how he enter to this country and time (ex:year/decade/ presidential term has different laws and restrictions). Even if his wife is a us citizen/ green card the government makes it long and difficult journey to be legalized in this country. Maybe she already is in the process for her husband to get papers, but taking a lot of time due to us government laws. My dad had to wait 15 years to be legalized in this country and my mom 20 years, until president Obama change the immigration laws in order for my parents to become residents of the US!

[@grassy4104]

NO! I CANT LIVE IN A COUNTRY WITHOUT LATINAS

[@Cartier214]

We need our jobs back.

[@JosephRichards-o3f]

No change to the constitution would be necessary as there is no such idea is found in the Constitution. Senator Hammond of Michigan who introduced the amendment, never intended for it to be used as it came to be used as. The intent was to ensure citizenship to recently freed slaves as the 13th amendment did not specify this issue.

[@toncho8981]

You are correct. It was not meant to be used as it has been used.

[@GavinHurt-s9h]

Correct

[@b.w.9244]

@@toncho8981 It is being used as written. Read it.

[@Unknownuser2u4u]

They just mad it went in directions they never fathomend, and their racist selfish minds can't handle it. America is a very wealthy country with alot of land etc. The entitled brats just don't like to share and are greedy asf

[@Delimon007]

Literally. Just look at when something was written and the times to understand its use. It was originally intended to declare America as its own country and give those born here from those who are already citizens citizenship. The proof is that it was drafted after England's laws, and this is how their common law worked.

[@dougiequick1]

I am anti Trump all the way but I DO NOT think an illegal immigrant popping accross the border just so their baby becomes is a citizen is AT ALL okay! The only exception I might go for is tit for tat that is IF the immigrant is from a country that allows the same....I HATE one way thing with other countries I HATE that citizens of country that refuse to allow Americans to buy and own property can come HERE and buy and own US property THAT is sheer BS! At the very least we should never afford other countries privleges they refuse US,...PERIOD

[@Unknownuser2u4u]

Whinning cause u don't get entitled treatment abroad doesn't make it right to be selfish In everyone's country cause it's not UR country u didn't buy it u don't own it it's Everyone's country America is a pot of many cultures and ppl the only real Americans are the Natives. Everyone else are wetbacks n border jumpers. All ppl of many Nations came together in America to make it what it is today, every drop in the bucket counts regardless of whether they were the architects or the builders. America needs to stay for everyone and a free democratic country For liberty and justice FOR ALL!.!.! it's what makes it Great

[@shanechyba9976]

Look it comes down to this don't break the law if you are breaking the law to come in this country that is not allowed point-blank if your parents broke the law to bring you to this country that is illegal and should not be allowed

[@s.at1978]

Does it apply to previous birthright citizenship or on the effective date only?

[@redscorpion9325]

No only applies to Babies born from Feb.20,2025 and so on,it was stated on the Paperwork,I don’t why People think its possible to strip a person from their citizenship because of birth right because if that was the case,USA would be damn! near empty

[@jessemarschewski470]

When that was written in the Constitution, we didn't have an illegal immigration problem meaning overpopulation. Also they were talking about if u were a legal citizen ur children would have legal status. Not giving protection to illegals or noncitizens to take advantage of.

[@Delimon007]

Yup, just had a lawyer explain it and it doesn't make sense as when you look at the past context, it means someone who is already a citizen of the country ie. someone who is beholden to the country. It is the same manner of speaking that the English law had at the time and mirrors it. Why isn't birthright citizenship for noncitizens a thing in the EU then? We all know why.