Trump's call to end Birthright Citizenship: Legal or Impossible?

[@audiijim1582]

My husband was born in Okinawa Japan both parents were US Citizens in the military my husband was never considered a Japanese Citizen even though he was born there.

[@lindaadams4815]

Asian don't give citizenship.

[@garyoakham9723]

Under trump your husband wouldn’t even be American either.

[@marlynosmillo2775]

Thank you very much for your very important topic. God bless you more.

[@AntiGlobalist-o1s]

*Supreme Court of the United States Elk v. Wilkins* (1884) "children of aliens, ... 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.''

[@garyoakham9723]

Do you even know the facts of that case. A native America was born on tribal land who later left to live on non tribal land was denied us citizenship. The people who were here prior to the us was denied by the us because being born on the land they came from is not enough Let’s expand it. All slave descendants should be stripped of their citizenship. All descendants of immigrants should be stripped as well. Because by your logic nobody can have citizenship if their ancestors weren’t American including people who were here prior to 1776. So you a nonamerican lecturing others in case law that apparently you have no right to

[@jabaltariq4606]

@@garyoakham9723 Since you know so much about textual analysis, tell us about United States vs. Wong SIng Ark, 1898. Read the text carefully and tell us about the status of his parents when he was born.

[@garyoakham9723]

@@jabaltariq4606what you want to detain people and put them in hard labor? Supreme Court ruled in Wong that foreigners have rights. You can detain them but you can’t deport them until their rights are adjudicated. So instead of letting them get jobs in the meantime you’re going to detain them and feed them and take care of them? Tell me which costs more

[@peaceandllov]

@@garyoakham9723 It’s a fake quote anyway

[@BT-hk2co]

“Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.” Elk v Wilkins.

[@ceuser3555]

No unless they amend the constitution. I think he is saying this because they realize their shortcoming of enforcing current immigration law and those who exploit these flaws end up with legal status.

[@jabaltariq4606]

I find it interesting that the narrator failed to tell the viewers what caused Congress to write the 13, 14th and 15th Amendment. Tell us why Clause 1 of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution was drafted in the first place.

[@btrueeth]

Once they (visitors and those foreigners) are on US soil, aren't they subject to US jurisdiction?

[@silverscrew]

When the U.S. Constitution was written the authors did not know that a few centuries later it'd only take a few hours to get to the American shores from e.g. Europe/Asia. Hence they did not think that fast travel would create birth-right citizenship tourism. Leaving the homeland was a lifetime event for almost all and was usually one way. It took several months by boat to get to the U.S. from Europe/Asia etc. So putting the statement in the Constitution saying that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen was not thoroughly thought through at the time of drafting. They simply could not. The 14th Amendment is obsolete (outdated). It is taken advantage of by many.

[@garyoakham9723]

What’s your point? The authors couldn’t comprehend the internet, television, or any other modern technology. Does that mean you have no right to speech unless it existed in 1776? The government should be allowed to throw you in jail if you preach against them online? Home owners back then were white free men. Not women, minorities, or any other nonwhite groups including Italians and mixed races. In fact the constitution back then only applied to the federal government. State governments can take away all your rights. No speech, no religion, no trial, no jury, nothing until the 14th amendment was passed So going by your logic I should call the cops on you

[@olamidelemusayileka1179]

Thank you jacob You leads others follows

[@yingweilee496]

You have no clue about laws, right? He will end by reinterpreting the constitution. This means that there is no legal basis nor precedent for granting citizenship to illegal immigrants. The 14h amendment says “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” which means complete jurisdiction and not just geographical jurisdiction.. This has never been addressed by the supreme court (only on legal residents)…and check the historcal debates when this was created and the declaration of independence.. ‘cause it abolished the English common law practices including the birthright citizenship (subjectship under the king’s law), meaning there must be a consent from the state.. So, yes, Trump can absolutely do it… the other option is that he could ask the congress to define “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” by statute.. which the same constitution gives this power to the congress..

[@user-ml8dm9fz6l]

if true, then Dr Oz, Ramaswamy, Barron Trump, Donald Trump, etc gotta get the F* out

[@CandiceMMartinez]

​@user-ml8dm9fz6l All children of legal immigrants.

[@coodi_16]

Thank you 🙏 brother

[@robertsonanselm1083]

Will Trump being elected slow down the process of visa at the NVC

[@SonicClod]

Damn I hope not. I asked my lawyer about it and she said I doubt Trump will have an impact on your case since it’s already at the NVC.

[@robertsonanselm1083]

Thanks good to know

[@vladig7006]

Trump ain’t playing..

[@lisamaron7139]

Let's see what he actually can get done compared to what he wants to get done in his 4 years the only good thing about his second term is that he can never have another one

[@garyoakham9723]

Yes he’s invading our allies and giving billionaires tax breaks. Oh tax god you voted for this man

[@Nicknevarezjr]

Thank you for your legal analysis. He spews rhetoric and his minions follow. :/

[@TeranRealtor]

VERY poor legal analysis. He is wrong, but he didn't even defend his wrong position well.

[@Thutmosis7]

I don’t think he have the power to. It would need congressional support and there are not enough votes to do it.

[@robertsmith8782]

Let’s end it!!!!

[@TimeMachine7773]

It is not constitutional. It's a faulty interpretation.

[@naominunez7577]

He should not do that

[@axi271]

Yes, it’s very possible! You must read the actual 14th amendment that states what persons were eligible i.e persons born on US soil before 1868 who are of the are of the racial classification negro or of white. Congressional enactments that were passed in companion with the 14th amendment can be revoked by executive orders. I guess foreigners should have aligned with black Americans instead of discriminate against them!

[@jefflin8873]

@@axi271 wow! Your constitution is very weak! Less power than an executive order. I as a second amendment support hope that is not the case. Otherwise, a president can ban guns at his liking.

[@beverleytheglobalcaregiverforu]

You are very suspect by not explaining the 14th Amendment to your viewers .

[@Padq]

He can't its in the constitution

[@TeranRealtor]

And Roe v Wade is settled law. And there are zero gun laws in the USA, because it's in the Constitution.

[@NobleOne9999]

There a reason America is the only country with birthright citizenship an it had everything to do with continued slavery the 14th amendment was added to constitution wasnt originally there.

[@funstory4024]

Thats wrong brasil .Argentina. Portugal só many more

[@skrzatino]

Only Colombia and couple of Caribbean nations don't have birthright citizenship in western hemisphere

[@NobleOne9999]

@skrzatino there's pretty much no country you can be born in an become a citizen just simply by being born there.

[@skrzatino]

@@NobleOne9999 The following countries have unrestricted birthright citizenship: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chad, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Lesotho, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, the United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

[@NobleOne9999]

@skrzatino the question your not answering is why these have it? An why now trump wants to end it? Why was it added to constitution

[@wilhelmenns791]

It’s not a good idea

[@doomlord3668]

is this legal... kzbin.info/www/bejne/mWWxenmwfJ2Bmbc

[@mariamasey2292]

❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️🫂🫂🫂

[@mariamasey2292]

You are the best ❤❤❤❤🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉

[@daosoyrasavong3056]

THAT RIGHT IT HAS T0 PASS SENATER AN C0NGRESS G00D LUCK TRUMP

[@sabrinaswazy]

IMPOSSIBLE