How Trump Is Planning to End Birthright Citizenship | WSJ

[@wsj]

Trump sows fear among migrants with shock-and-awe deportation campaign: on.wsj.com/40S9e7f

[@inframatic]

Legal immigrants have nothing to fear, and all of us see how you clipped Trump’s speech to just say ‘birthright’

[@tomfullery9710]

WSJ sows fear by misrepresenting the truth. For example, not distinguishing between legal and illegal migrants.

[@jasonj1376]

Illegals should be in fear, as any wh break the law.

[@Sam-yf4kt]

Illegals - that was a convenient omission

[@BEHEMONAUT]

Change "trump" to "media" and you've got a super accurate comment

[@jorgecruz1235]

The fact that these clowns made the argument that we can’t have gun control because of the 2nd amendment and yet will gladly disregard the 14th amendment of the constitution

[@DudleySchmedlap-s6i]

Comparing the 2nd and the 14th Amendments is a non-sequitur.

[@CornG4397]

the 2nd amendment is a founding document of the united states, the 14th amendment was passed in 1868. Not a fair comparison

[@ashwinanil7150]

@@CornG4397 both part of the constitution, you don't pick and choose what part of the constitution you like, if you are a democracy that is.

[@Semper_Iratus]

Hey hey ho ho anchor babies have got to go.

[@Carterblanche598]

@@DudleySchmedlap-s6iNo it’s not because both amendments are in the constitution if you didnt know

[@hugomeza2910]

Owning a gun is so sacred because it’s written in the constitution, but then birth right citizenship is also in the constitution, why can’t they respect that?

[@danielmakinde-v9k]

using your argument, do illegal immigrant have access to purchase weapons in the US legally?

[@cedricbenoit1563]

​@@danielmakinde-v9kthat's not the point he made. He's saying you respect the constitution entirely or you dont. There should be no in between. You May not like a law but u dont have to change it. 4 years ago we all heard about how sacred the constitution was, and it was the most beautiful thing ever written. Now he wants to change because he does not like a law.

[@jackknife4547]

LEAVE

[@TheRadioAteMyTV]

You are not following what is going on, Trump is defending the 14th amendment. It is in that amendment where it says, "not under the jurisdiction". It's those who ignore that who are giving disrespect.

[@Toramt]

@@TheRadioAteMyTV Are you saying that no US court has jurisdiction to prosecute those people? They can't be arrested / jailed for crimes, only deported?

[@Collector3476]

As WSJ said, Trump can’t directly change the constitution with an executive order. The only way to change the constitution is through a constitutional amendment proposed by Congress or by a constitutional convention called by the states. The process of amending the constitution is lengthy and time consuming because our founding fathers wanted a constitutional amendment to be supported by everyone within the country. They also done it to prevent the Constitution from being changed frequently because they feared that it would end up being a disaster because it could have led to instability.

[@josemaiz1651]

Trump is anti American

[@HusseinDoha]

No. He can refuse to issue any recognition to children of illegals born in the country. Then a challenge to read the constitution correctly will lead to a Supreme Court decision. - the right to gun possession is in the constitution but it doesn’t include ailens. -- Birthrate citizenship by soil was done to give all slaves citizenship. That’s it. If children of Ambassadors who are born in US are not citizens, then same logic applies to illegal ailens. Calling it ending “Birthright” is a misnomer. Citizenship will continue to be bestowed to anyone at the moment of birth, so long they have one parent who is a citizen (which is what happens in every country in the world) but citizenship for birth on soil will be restricted to lawful permanent ailens (who they are on official pipeline to be naturalized).

[@AndrewBurbo-zw6pf]

he is not changing the constitution, he is challenging the meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

[@waldothewalrus294]

​@@AndrewBurbo-zw6pfan argument that, still, is on shaky ground

[@LG-ky6lo]

@@AndrewBurbo-zw6pf he’ll do it. His voters who outweigh the others want this.

[@Lolifail01]

Amazing how they treat the 2nd Amendment as absolute while acting like the 14th is just a suggestion.

[@cullendonaldson6452]

Well that’s because it is

[@bigheadrhino]

@@cullendonaldson6452”A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. “. This is a weird sentence that can be interpreted as the right to bear arms are within the context of maintaining a militia, for the defense of the United States aka the National Guard. It’s all one sentence. If it was purely the right to bear arms it would have left out the Militia part and “well regulated” at that. That being said it could still be interpreted as everyone having their own guns that they can bring along if they are called upon to defend the freedom of the state.

[@travian821]

They want the 2nd to be "absolute" even tho in isnt in practice(arguably). If the same is applied to the 14th.... who knows

[@frankjonestba]

But why would Americans want people who aren't legally residing in the United states have babies and automatically become Americans -when their parents aren't?! It seems very logical to me, as an Australian, that tourists shouldn't automatically get some sort of citizenship advantage just because they give birth in Australia. Please explain... Like please.

[@ThingsRemainUnassigned]

​@@frankjonestbaif you are born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e. you are not family of a foreign diplomat or an occupying enemy combatant), you are a US citizen. That's it.

[@aadityathapa4582]

Rich billionaires telling poor people that it’s other poor people that are hurting their quality of life and not them

[@foxytheyt819]

Exactly the United States has been widely considered to have exploited Central and South American countries through various means, including military interventions, political influence, and economic manipulation, often prioritizing American business interests over the sovereignty and well-being of Latin American nations, particularly during the "Banana Wars" era of the early 20th century; this practice is often referred to as US imperialism in the region. And now they want them to return to a home where there is nothing left. This has been a common them throughout the major world powers.

[@lucasm4299]

Class consciousness. Poor vs the Oligarchy

[@eustab.anas-mann9510]

Not _just_ other poor people, even poorer people in a precarious legal situation.

[@eustab.anas-mann9510]

The billionaires told the working class (who's wealth they've been siphoning off for decades): "hey, working class, life is so unfair right, no real increase in wages for decades!? That's the fault of those people below you, kick down! Kick down *hard!"*

[@DoctorMeanBear]

Those poor people can live better in their own country

[@BillyBobJoeSnr]

Two of my brothers support Tr*MP but neither would have American citizenship if this was enforced. It would be funny if their citizenship was revoked.

[@danielmakinde-v9k]

its not retroactive

[@JustSomePerson8]

It was made for slaves back in the 1800s that's the only reason it exists. You don't lose your citizenship

[@JM-kv2kn]

You need to change with the times. If an exaggerate amount of people are doing this in this present time, not when they were born, a reaction towards that issue will take place

[@Censortubes]

@@BillyBobJoeSnr bots don’t have family

[@BillyBobJoeSnr]

@@Censortubes That's a shame, I'm sure you could befriend a virus.

[@BP-1988]

When is Trump going to work on things like lowering the cost of living instead of taking about ending birthright citizenship, annexing Greenland, making Canada a state, and taking back the Panama Canal?

[@MrRapmaster19]

Never. That’s never been the goal of the GOP, and especially not Trump presently. His only goal is to sell America out to enrich himself and the billionaires that surround him. Very telling he had Musk, Zuck, and Bezos closer to him at his inauguration than his own cabinet members.

[@eltopo71]

It's Golf of America now.

[@wesleycarter4220]

If you are the ultra rich, he is. Trump doesn't care about the average American.

[@BP-1988]

@@eltopo71 I'm surprised that he didn't try to rename Denali Mt. Trump. No worries though, just like Cape Canaveral was named Cape Kennedy and then changed back to Cape Canaveral, gulfs and mountains can be renamed when he is 6 feet under.

[@lochnessspeedwerkz6557]

Never..hes golfing instead.

[@rafka2729]

trump should speed up the release of gta6

[@Odin31b]

He ain't Jesus..

[@bardsamok9221]

He's probably currently deporting half the GTA graphics department

[@Odin31b]

@@bardsamok9221 aiming for Obamas top score.. don't think he'll beat Barry's numbers.

[@regarded9702]

It's made in the UK

[@MyVlogTubes]

They are gonna say that they will delay it until trump is out like before😅

[@moncef2466]

Native Americans born on tribal lands have American citizenship under Indian Citizenship Act of 1924..

[@edwinmerrick1375]

For now, sure.

[@moncef2466]

@edwinmerrick1375 Forever, as long as the constitution is upheld and is not amended.

[@kevinledgister5252]

@@moncef2466 The Indian Citizenship Act was passed by Congress using its powers to legislate immigration and naturalization, not by changing the 14th Amendment. The Indians were naturalized by Congress and then any new offspring would be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

[@bloodystring]

People are forgetting that birthright citizenship also applies to many native Americans as well. What do they think happens if those tribes are no longer citizens? We can’t deport natives. This is a huge issue

[@kraugaming7557]

You are confused, it's not getting rid of birthright citizenship. It's about adding a clause that Illegal Immigrants birthright citizenships are not applied to their children. The same way birthright citizenship does not apply to foreign diplomats, an invading army, or a family from Korea visiting Disneyland as an example.

[@sayingso1983]

​@@kraugaming7557 does this apply to all European descent who colonized America from Europe as well?

[@kraugaming7557]

@@sayingso1983 It applies to all Europeans after 1886 going forward, not backwards. Colonization took place in the 17th century. Now if you want to say "Do Europeans have an easier time LEGALLY gaining U.S. citizenship and therefore their children become U.S. citizens?" Most likely yes, but it's still a legal process. Can't say the same for illegal border crossers since that is not a legal process. There are many immigrants that comes here the legal way through greencards, work visas, H1Bc, etc and gain U.S. citizenship down the line and therefore their children gain birthright citizenship.

[@ronbarter2381]

@@kraugaming7557 so good for me and not thee

[@ganymedehedgehog371]

The point is permanent residency. Native Americans are permanent residents so they would have no issue. It’s extremely obvious.

[@pedro80ds]

It’s interesting when it’s a law that they agree the Constitution is sacred. When it’s a law they don’t agree with then it’s stupid. 🤨 🤔🧐

[@stevenpeters1717]

Hmm that’s not true though. You clearly weren’t listening to what they were saying…

[@donaldazevedo5554]

@@stevenpeters1717 Basically they pick and choose how to interpret the constitution not simply based on the text but on their own personal bias of what they "want" to be the law. It's not a republican/democrat issue, it's just politics. I can't speak for the original poster of this. But for me, I don't care if it's republican or democrat, trying to bend the constitution to your personal aspirations or opinions of what is "right" is wrong. It doesn't help that the text in the constitution is often times half incomprehensible with ambiguous loaded language.

[@DudleySchmedlap-s6i]

@pedro80ds . . . The US Constitution is NOT "sacred". It is a flawed document, full of ambiguities. It is based on 18th century approaches to human rights, individual freedom and property rights, some of which in modern times are antiquated.

[@jeffmorris5802]

Both sides do that. The first amendment is pretty unambiguous, yet that doesn't prevent people on the Left from promoting govt censorship anyway.

[@chancellorasher9417]

@@DudleySchmedlap-s6iwell pretty much because politicians stops writing laws that actually is most relevant to todays society. Thus goes with the OPs point, when politicians benefit from it they are untouchable but if a change threatens them it’s deemed unconstitutional

[@normhagen1913]

This one will end up in SCOTUS and anyone suggesting otherwise is kidding themselves.

[@de_stroyed]

i think everyone knows that and it's even said in the video...

[@xoxo4385]

and i hope they uphold trumps actions.

[@AdmiralSnackbarz]

@@xoxo4385 NO

[@xoxo4385]

@@AdmiralSnackbarz Be a citizen to have your kid as a citizen, simple. Or at least be here legally to do it...

[@guiseppejacobs2357]

@@xoxo4385they won’t cuz it’s written in plain text in the constitution. Argument isn’t strong enough

[@georgehugh3455]

Building the Trump Tower, 1980: _"The documents contain testimony that Trump sought out the [undocumented/illegal] Polish workers when he saw them on another job, instigated the creation of the company that paid them and negotiated the hours they would work."_ - Time Magazine August 2016

[@NanaBeth1]

Wow-this is pure gold.

[@rokos.1239]

Trump wouldn't pay premium prices for American workers, he just wants cheap workforce.

[@mrg8077]

It’s not about being “illegal” or “undocumented”. It’s about their race/skin color. Clear as day for those with eyes to see.

[@dineshayyappan]

1:17 - It's easy to dismiss concerns, as VP Vance did, with "If you're not here permanently..." But I have been living and working legally in the U.S. on an H-1B visa for the past 12 years. By law, I am not a permanent resident, yet I have built a life here. Under Trump's executive order, my yet-to-be-born child due in April would not be granted birthright citizenship. Given the 150-year backlog for Indians in EB-2/EB-3, I will likely remain on H-1B throughout my career. Why should my child suffer along with me? Update/Edit: I appreciate the concerns and questions in the comments. However, I will no longer respond to discussions about why this is tough/hard, as it's difficult to repeatedly justify the pain. The struggle is real, and I encourage independent research for further inquiries. I don’t believe in playing the victim card (inspired by Munger’s wisdom), but it’s disheartening that the challenges faced by H-1B legal workers-especially those from India-receive so little attention.

[@DarshanPatel-zr5bc]

Why someone need to exploit other countries law that is not cool - if some one have cancer they cannot just rob bank

[@user-ej8rp1hj9n]

And the funny thing is, it doesn’t seem like they want to reform the immigration system, in order to actually make it viable, or reform the H1-B visa.. facepalm🥲

[@Mooskittl]

i think you should automatically be granted permanent resident after 10 years of H-1B

[@bdegrds]

You will most likely be dragged out of your home, put in a detention center and deported. Trump said he will do this by enacting the aliens and enemies act. Good luck.

[@lolllama1504]

@@Mooskittltrue!

[@legostud]

If this goes into effect, we could create a class of people who aren’t citizens of any country. Where do people without citizenship live?

[@amenajackson8133]

Exactly. It would be infringing on human rights.

[@angelmonroy3012]

i hate that the entire internet is basically just bots now omfg what is qardum

[@lawrencefrost9063]

You'll get used to it.

[@MrRapmaster19]

Look up Dead Internet Theory

[@angelmonroy3012]

@@MrRapmaster19 yep we’re pretty much there

[@chabotal3133]

@@angelmonroy3012 we're already there. Have you been on twitter recently? All bots. Even Meta is purposely putting bots on their platforms now with their "AI Users"

[@eltopo71]

It's Golf of America now.

[@Secret_Takodachi]

We already have a permanent underclass. They're called the American Working Class. And both parties have been negelcting their problems & struggles for decades.

[@willkelly9726]

This is the cringest thing I ever read

[@Xusemeh]

​@@willkelly9726So him speaking the truth is cringe?

[@jesuscortez2084]

JD Vance doesn't even make sense. He says if you dont fall under US jurisdiction then you are not a citizen. A person who does not fall under US jurisdiction would be a person who does not have to abide by US laws nor can be prosecuted by US laws. This throws that argument out the window because the only ones who would fall under this catagory would be those with imunity and diplomats of foreign countries. Moreover, he says that these people do not plan to be here permenantly yet them and their children spend their rest of their lives here working and paying taxes for benefits they will never receive.

[@sikeajax]

If you consider the children of an invading army as an analogy, it’s possible to label illegal occupying migrants as part of an invasion whose children are equally ineligible for citizenship.

[@ThingsRemainUnassigned]

​@sikeajax "occupying" has a very specific meaning, requiring persons in question to be trained enemy combatants of a foreign nation. Crossing a border into the US DOES NOT mean you are occupying the US.

[@badluck5647]

Under this definition, Marco Rubio should be stripped of his citizenship because his parents would are Cuban refugees

[@timothysmith9329]

Jurisdiction does not mean what you think it means. Foreigners are subjects of their government, and subject to their jurisdiction. They have allegiance to their country. Only those who have been vetted and legally entered the US with a permanent residence visa are under our jurisdiction, as well as our own citizens. Everyone else is not, especially not illegal aliens. The second definition of "jurisdiction" is "under the control". Tourists and other temporary visitors have consular protections from their governments.

[@ThingsRemainUnassigned]

​@timothysmith9329 To meet the criteria of birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment you must be (a) born on US soil and (b) under the jurisdiction of the US. Parents on US soil are under the jurisdiction of the US unless they meet specific criteria reserved for those with diplomatic immunity or are enemy combatants. "Allegiance" does not factor in outside of the context of these specific instances. It is clear as day.

[@knellycornnan5132]

This law has never really been that controversial till recently. And even now I don't think people really are that hardcore about changing it.

[@deathscythe257]

If the supreme court points out some loophole on the 14th amendment, which is as clear cut as it gets, they set a precedent for the same on the 2nd amendment

[@timothysmith9329]

it's not a loophole, the phrase "under the jurisdiction" has meaning. It has thus far been incorrectly interpreted. Read the amendment without it, and I think it will mean what you think it means. Read it again, and imagine why they would have added that phrase, and maybe you will understand the "loophole". Very different from "shall not be infringed". And yet we still have plenty of laws limiting and restricting what arms we can possess.

[@PoppinC-l3w]

The 2nd Amendment is written in absolute terms, while the 14th Amendment states it's subject to "discretion" of the US government. 14A was specifically for the children of enslaved. Even Native Americans had the "The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924" to be recognized by the US government as citizens meaning that even they didn't qualify under the 14th Amendment (1866), so how can others???

[@dylanm2000]

the second amendment is already infringed upon

[@CappaNabbage]

The 14th amendment has some loopholes for sure that need to be sealed up. Anchor babies for one, and the risk of Manchurian Presidential candidates for two.

[@AChillin01R]

@@PoppinC-l3w Really and the 2nd isnt lol. How about A well regulated Militia. Last i remember one person is not a well regulate Militia. That is something created by the State they live in.

[@P.90.603]

Fourteenth 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.

[@DudleySchmedlap-s6i]

@P.90.603 . . . What does "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean? How does one become subject to the jurisdiction?

[@SargentD4]

@@DudleySchmedlap-s6ithe amendments was written and passed in response to newly freed slaves and their children. It never covered illegals crossing the border

[@ekolteenarp]

@@DudleySchmedlap-s6i by physically setting foot in this country, you are therefore subject to its jurisdiction and laws, meaning you have entered into US' authority over these lands except for: a.) native tribal lands, b.) diplomats and c.) invading army, over which the federal/local govts. have no authority or jurisdiction whatsoever.

[@PamelaGibbs-t2q]

​@@ekolteenarpWell Said!😊

[@357twilson]

@@ekolteenarp the 2nd amendment gives the right to bear arms. Why then can’t illegal immigrants carry guns or purchase guns? Because the 2nd amendment does not apply to illegal immigrants. The same as the 14th amendment does not apply to illegal immigrants.

[@williamtell5365]

I've been an attorney for decades. I never thought an issue like this would seriously arise in my lifetime. Of course, a constitutional amendment could change this rule. But absent that, the rule is clear. If we have the US Supreme Court uphold the Trump adminstration on this, then we are lost as a country.

[@burgetttl]

lost as a country? do you think all other countries are lost as no one else besides a couple outliers grant citizenship through simply being born on the land. The laws current interpretation is open to be challenged especially with "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" If a child is a dependent would their subject to jurisdiction not coincide with the adult? also why would the framers even put that in there? If it is not meant to be exclusionary then you don't even need it to enforce the law as it currently being enforced.

[@williamtell5365]

@burgetttl a country that does not follow it's most fundamental laws is lost. Yes, lost.

[@burgetttl]

@ So then we are currently lost and trying to fix that by declaring the correct reading via SCOTUS. got it!

[@ThingsRemainUnassigned]

@@burgetttl You fundamentally do not understand what "jurisdiction" means and it shows!

[@burgetttl]

​@ Is the parent not subject to the jurisdiction of another country via through draft, prosecution, ect.. even if they are temporally working/residing in another country? What sense does it make for the dependent to have separate citizenship of the parent? Especially when the child does not have agency while an adolescent.

[@Derisvalda]

You work for 42yrs to have $2m in your retirement, Meanwhile some people are putting just $20k in a meme coin for just few months and now they are multi-millionaires I pray that anyone who reads this will be successful in life...

[@carolerobertson282]

Well explain thank you for bringing up this video Financial education is indeed required for more than 80% of the society in the country as very few are literate on the subject. The value of the US🇺🇲 dollar is declining due to inflation, but it is increasing in comparison to other currencies and commodities such as gold and real estate. I'm worried that rising inflation will cause my 550k in my retirement funds to lose value, But with the help of Mrs Katie Walters I hit 220k this week from my investment of 45k, I am truly grateful for all the knowledge and nuggets you have given me over the past few months.

[@Ethel_Callens]

I have been seeing so many recommendations about Mrs Katie Walters, she must be really good.

[@MulaAlvin]

How...? Am a newbie in crypto investment, please can you guide me through on how you made profit?

[@Gabbstrucker]

YES!!! That's exactly her name (Mrs Katie) so many people have recommended highly about her😊 and am just starting with her from Northern Ireland

[@bodhisbigadventurest]

The very first time we tried, we invested $2500, and after a week, we received $19,750. That really helped us a lot to pay up our bills.

[@DudeSanchez-d4b]

Senators Lyman Trumbull of Illinois and Jacob Howard of Ohio, the principal authors of the citizenship clauses in both the 1866 Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, both stated that "[s]ubject to the jurisdiction of the United States" means "[n]ot owing allegiance to anybody else." Does this apply to illegal immigrants or temporary visa holders? They are still citizens of other countries and therfore do not qualify under the 14 ammendment?

[@00XIXII0]

This is very dangerous because if it happened it can be the first step for them to create more radical laws such as saying that citizens from a particular background e.g. Black Americans, Asian American, Native American or Middle-Eastern American are not entitled to their citizenship because of some random and unlawful reason or accusation. Also, keep in mind that most of these children that he's talking about, have lived in the United States as Americans for their whole lives and know very little about their parent's homeland, culture and language.

[@hdlc4635]

The law was written to assure citizenship rights for newly emancipated Black Americans who were here for generations, not for foreigners in the third trimester to come across the border and have children with the same rights.

[@Lemon13-r4n]

The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” refers to being under the legal authority of the U.S. government, which generally applies to anyone physically present in the country, regardless of immigration status. This includes both documented and undocumented individuals, as well as U.S. citizens and lawful residents. If someone interprets this differently, it may be due to political agendas, a lack of understanding, or personal interests, but the legal meaning remains clear in its broad application to anyone within U.S. borders.

[@danielmakinde-v9k]

ahah, you omitted another important part, are citizens of states wherein they reside, so theres a residency requirement, the same way to naturalize you need to reside in the US

[@NWstockoperator]

​​@@danielmakinde-v9ktrue and jurisdiction of doesn't only mean subject to US laws as it applies to the 14th according to the framers. It means total allegiance to the US AND being subject to the law.

[@tesladrew2608]

​@@danielmakinde-v9kI think you are misreading the state part. The state part doesn't require anything, it grants them citizenship of the state they are born in (which doesn't really mean anything these days, but that's what it says)

[@NikkenickNikkenick]

The 14th amendment was originally meant for the children of slaves. The law itself is pretty clear though so I really don't think he can change it.

[@tarzan12345]

If those who are here illegally are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US (as the EO argues), then they can murder someone and can’t be prosecuted under US laws.

[@thefunhauszooscea253]

This is so disturbing on every level

[@speakmymindify]

Why?

[@lordpeanut3245]

@@speakmymindify Bro if you don't understand deporting kids who lived their own lives in america, grew up in american culture, and then have to be sent to a country where they most likely never been is not wrong on some level. I really dont have any words, learn to grow some empathy.

[@speakmymindify]

@ understand these children are the victims of a border war. Is it sad, yes. However if you are an America citizen our border needs closed, the illegals need removed (the parents choice) , we need a reset on safety in this country on many levels. Or explain your stance to Laken Riley’s mom.

[@lordpeanut3245]

@@speakmymindify I understand problems of bring in illegal immigrants causes, but I think you're missing the point. No one on either side wants there to be illegal immigrants, and the question of removing those immigrants is a different topic. The problem is that this only targets children born here. Children who didn't live in another country to go back to. Also because I feel this might be brought up, the idea of birthright citizenship being a motivator for people to come here is not that much as most people coming here don't intend to leave or leave their children behind.

[@4362mont]

It's not a battle, at this point; It's a clear matter of legal precedent backed up by the basic law of the land: the Constitution.

[@Censortubes]

Which says what? They don’t get it. Hahha

[@Sam-yf4kt]

A document written hundreds of years ago.. what’s the argument for US gun laws again? 😂

[@herbiehusker1889]

Subject to the jurisdiction thereof...

[@DudleySchmedlap-s6i]

@4362mont . . . Wow, what a naive statement. It's no wonder you don't have a law degree.

[@SlowGermanV8]

@@herbiehusker1889”Bear Arms” - you want Grizzly or black bear?

[@Sam82631]

His rationale is sound. You can’t just sneak into a different country and expect your children to get to have the benefits of that land when you aren’t willing to abide by their laws

[@tauntingeveryone7208]

But people are abiding by the laws. This is why they get citizenship because they have to abide by the laws that govern the land.

[@Saiya4779]

Birth tourism isn't people who are "sneaking in" it is people who are legally here, who took flights here, they didn't climb the walls on the southern border under cover of night. Birth Tourists stay at fancy hotels, they see the Statue of Liberty, they may even be here under student VISA's. They aren't breaking any laws. Americans do this too, they will go to Germany for example and stay long enough as a literal tourist to have a baby, in a much safer hospital than we have in the US, and the baby is a dual US/German citizen. Americans and Chinese are the two largest groups of birth tourists. Chinese Birth Tourists are often funded by the Chinese government.

[@Montesama314]

The kids are still subject to the jurisdiction they were born on. You don't get to just have power over people's lives while not affording them rights and protections, not without process.

[@PCRyder]

I always found it odd that two people can cross the border have unprotected sex and pop out a citizen of the USA while tens of thousands wait in line for due process just to be given an appointment for citizenship

[@BavidDigg]

Agreed there's a lot of odd things in the USA. But they should have to follow the standard process to change their constitution.

[@PoppinC-l3w]

@@BavidDigg The 14th Amendment was for the children of formerly enslaved. Even Native Americans needed the "The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924" to be recognized by the US government as citizens meaning that even they didn't qualify under the 14th Amendment (1866), so how can others???

[@BavidDigg]

@@PoppinC-l3w this video states exactly why, the Indians were built into the 14th amendment as an exception to the rule. If amendments can only directly apply to the exact conditions at the time of writing they are essentially useless as times have changed too much and we have no idea what the original authors would have thought of the modern world. Everything is permissible provided it doesn't specifically fit into the exact context of the 18th and 19th centuries.

[@kingj521]

Thank you.

[@thelmotreneman9701]

@@BavidDigg It is not about changing the constitution. It is interpreting the Constitution within the current context.

[@naturalLin]

I’m definitely against baby tourism. My dad’s rental had a tenant in LA. She turned the place into a baby incubator. Soon to be moms would fly there from China. They stayed there weeks before giving birth in America. Then leave after having their babies.

[@speakmymindify]

This has been going on for years!!! Shut it down!!!

[@Mark-yo5ue]

My kids were born abroad and did not receive automatic citizenship of that country. After 5 years they could apply for citizenship. Why shouldn’t the US adopt a similar approach. It would all but end the deplorable birth right tourism that exists today.

[@enjajajannah]

Because not everything has to be the same from your original country. If you have time to watch this youtube, you have time to educate yourself on the constitution. Our founding fathers signed all these rights in 1780.

[@Mark-yo5ue]

@ Birthright citizenship in the United States was established by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868.

[@danielbalcazar2006]

What about the kids that grew up and don’t have any one back in a country they have never been to, who also now have children in the states who have worked and payed taxes to America their entire lives? Not everything is so black and white.

[@Jeebus-un6zz]

I actually feel like the conservatives have a case to be made here if the people in question could be treated humanely. I don't think guaranteeing citizenship to the child of two illegal immigrants who just put themselves in the right place at the right time so they could circumvent the immigration process is reasonable. The problem is we can't approach this issue with any kind of bipartisan consensus where we'd be able to give undocumented people a reasonable path to citizenship while also forcing them to do everything above board and under the watchful eye of the embassy to ensure that people are being lawful and working out benefit the United States at least as much as their home country. I think most normal people want that middle road where citizenship is something given once people have demonstrated they can be trusted but also that until that time people can live here without being exploited.

[@FactHubREAL]

Because the US uses a quota system for green cards. You can have an approved green card application and be on a work visa for decades without a green card. If it had a system where after 5 years on a work visa and an approved green card petition you could get a green card that would be a different conversation

[@sp4nky66]

It's been fun watching the WSJ try to back away from this maniac they helped create

[@KeriterJonk-v2t]

They are owned by bezos

[@dfs-comedy]

@@KeriterJonk-v2t And Bezos is pwned by Trump.

[@andrewstran]

WSJ is owned by same guy as Fox News, not bezos

[@aliasoma]

@@KeriterJonk-v2t Not Bezos, Murdoch.

[@dfs-comedy]

@ Thanks for correcting.

[@andrewgodesky2563]

Always some judge or lawyer has to fight and stop what the majority of people want.

[@amenajackson8133]

The majority of people don't want to take away human rights from people. We want cheaper groceries, affordable healthcare and housing.

[@donnyjay4269]

If you’re born in America, you are American. It’s always been that way. Can someone explain why they think Trump is right about this?

[@sebastian2009xd]

He just wants to change the country to be more like Israel, DNA testing required for citizenship.

[@Janet1001-X]

Read 2:00 Supreme Court ruled in 1890s : at the time of birth, the parents must have PERMANENT DOMICILE or RESIDENCE in the US".

[@Cordycep1]

Just like slavery it took a civil war to end slavery so "All men" are not equal even though constitution say otherwise. Even then black could not vote until a century later.

[@airforcex9412]

⁠​⁠@@Janet1001-XSCOTUS did not say “must have.” They’re literally saying that even if you are subordinate to another jurisdiction (China) your children are US citizens because of the 14th amendment.

[@Janet1001-X]

@@airforcex9412 there's a "BUT" Clause in the ruling. The parents were LEGALLY RESIDING in the US at the time of his birth. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a landmark decision[4] of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that "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", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.

[@FrankRizzo-r2e]

This is not CHANGING the 14th Amendment. It's simply a re- interpretation of the amendment which has been followed differently over the years but legal scholars are not in agreement. When the Supreme Court interprets such a question they consider the Text and what the Intention was at the Time it was written then there's also the question of the meaning of 'Subject to the Jurisdication of the United States' which could mean Citizen of a different country. So there is no clear outcome of how this will be determined.

[@danielbalcazar2006]

If you can be place under detention for any reason then you’re subject to the jurisdiction of the country

[@danielbalcazar2006]

If it was meant to say citizen then why would they have even created the 14th amendment? There’d be no need for it.

[@FrankRizzo-r2e]

@@danielbalcazar2006 Legal experts have also said that being subject to the jurisdication of the US means the subject in question has no allegiance to any other country. The interpretation of how this all will pan out seems pretty unclear.

[@TheMoistBanana]

​@@FrankRizzo-r2enot true, birthright citizenship has been deemed to be given to anyone who was born on US soil and is NOT a child , of a diplomat. The legal status of their parents is not in question, do your research and look up the case of United States v Wong Kim Ark

[@FrankRizzo-r2e]

@@TheMoistBanana Deemed by Whom ? Some Interpret it that way others say it doesn't mean that at all. The US Supreme Court will determine the amendment by it's text and intentended purpose At The Time it was Written. Could go either way.

[@danhk977]

birth right citizenship is the worst piece of legislation. It just cheapens the concept of citizenship.

[@tamarockstar09]

The people should be able to vote on this not just the politicians

[@seshansmith7690]

There's so much case law on this already dating back to the 1800s and it always upholds

[@davidnealy6459]

There are in fact two previous cases prior to the 1898 case. And yes, they do not agree with the 1898 ruling which was made in direct conflict of what the framers of the 14th intended. Check the writings on the subject it is very clear.

[@Censortubes]

Nah it doesn’t and will be overturned

[@DudleySchmedlap-s6i]

@davidnealy6459 . . . What "case law"? Can you cite it? And what DID the "framers of the 14th" intend? Can you tell us? Of course you can't because you haven't read the case law, nor do you know what the framers intended. If you do, please share your superior knowledge.

[@davidnealy6459]

Sure thing Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.

[@davidnealy6459]

@ Also to the intent "Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country." There is more if you like national archives and general google search

[@beckyzaugg5343]

Citizenship must not be a gift.

[@Navampazart]

It's not though

[@amenajackson8133]

It is and will continue to be so.

[@johnnydoe9969]

So is he gonna challenge the 2nd amendment for felons ? The 2nd amendment says nothing about restricting felons from firearms. “Shall not be infringed”!!!🇺🇸

[@jasonj1376]

The courts have already started to restore felons who have completed their sentence to have firearms. They have also finally started to acknowledge 18 to 20 year olds are entitled to have handguns too.

[@Censortubes]

When you have no idea and cnn fills your mind. The courts have already reversed that kids.

[@Surelockohms]

"well regulated"

[@johnnydoe9969]

@@Surelockohmstell me ur definition of that

[@Censortubes]

@ means well working short bus.

[@mANEATEYUM22]

Is it a fact that people seeking citizenship go through an immigration process? If so why on earth would birthright citizenship be necessary? This is crazy.

[@AChillin01R]

Cause they were not born here. HELLLOOOOOOOO

[@Notatall270]

Aren’t both Trump and Vance children birthright citizens?

[@manny123957]

One of there parents was a citizen the other were legal migrants.

[@dazeja]

Where are all of his “but he’s just after immigrant criminals” supporters?

[@Isaacthemaniac]

they ignore this one

[@KarlNgn]

The people who are one H1B or student visas are here legally, why wouldn't their children born here be citizens? Granted they didn't over stayed their visas

[@tstcikhthys]

Because they're here on temporary visas nevertheless. Birth tourism is a thing. Plus, overstaying is a post-fact thing. If they have a kid while they're here legally and then overstay, are you gonna revoke the kid's citizenship after the fact?

[@fakeu2122]

@@tstcikhthys H1B or F1 (Students) are not part of birth tourism. They will stay in US, pay taxes for years. They are under the US jurisdiction.

[@tstcikhthys]

@fakeu2122 Everyone's under the US jurisdiction, and everyone pays taxes too (the visitors pay sales tax and property tax by proxy of the rent they pay to stay in the country). But the point is that they're temporary, so why would we be giving their kids citizenship? In fact, I would say even permanent residents' kids shouldn't get it, because we also have a Diversity Immigrant Visa Program that is a lottery for people to just get a green card directly. If at least one of the parents isn't a citizen, then the kids don't automatically become citizens; simple as that. The overwhelming majority of countries in the world work like this.

[@mobicrack1898]

The kid can be a country of origin citizen and stay with the parents as long as they have the visa, work in us, go through the process of permanent resident then citizenship. The kid will then automatically get a citizenship. Getting a kid is the new way of getting a citizenship for the people on visas. That is plain exploitation.

[@king199324]

This is ridiculous. A constitutional amendment is the only way.

[@timothysmith9329]

That is ridiculous. Laws are passed, executive orders are issued, and regulations are created all the time. Clearly you don't understand the law where congress absolutely has the authority to limit rights to some degree. The courts will decide if it's too much. But they generally defer to the elected representatives if it doesn't clearly cross the line. I'd say laws against hate speech go too far. But laws prohibiting inciting riots, threatening, causing mahem, etc. are legitimate limits. As is banning temporary or illegal aliens from being considered "under the jurisdiction":

[@loveanimals-0197]

All good except they shouldn't have included LEGAL H-1B holders into this. They should clearly define illegals, not all non-immigrants.

[@RaoVenu]

Agreed. Legal H1-B workers came to the US legally, have a SSN, follow local laws and also pay taxes

[@martinjohansson5181]

"These are not children who have ties to any other country" - Of course they do, their parents homecountry...

[@tstcikhthys]

Lol exactly. These people will say anything to play the heartstrings of people.

[@dqdq4083]

The constitution has never mattered to either side

[@jekfire13]

This article is extremely miss-leading. A person in the US on a temporary visa is not an immigrant but a non-immigrant. Because they are here TEMPORARILY. If you are here temporarily, why would it make sense to give a newborn child citizenship. What happens when the parents visa expires and they can’t renew it? They go back to their home country but what happens to the child? He goes with them and them has to pay taxes to a country he is not living in when he turns 18. It just doesn’t make sense. If you are a permanent resident though, which only means being here under a green card, you are considered an immigrant and then yes, it makes sense for kids to get it. Because you are not there temporarily anymore. The order does not ban immigrants (permanent residents under the US code), to not have citizenship at birth. But temporary or illigals aliens are not immigrants under the law.

[@theryansimba]

I know many friends coming over to the U.S. for birth tourism. They have birth tourism companies partnering up with hospitals and immigration lawyers. It costs about $20~30K cash. They bring back baby, and that baby gets to pay no tax in America but still gets all the benefit when they come back to the U.S. when they need to go to college with federal aid (well over $30K). And then they will most likely go back to their country afterward. I say we need to fix this.

[@baikeiast5255]

If you think about it that the entire history of America with the colonist going to Texas today but in the past belong to Mexico sending their people and clamming as their own land 😊😊😊😊

[@bhavanisharma6840]

Nail WSJ!

[@Semper_Iratus]

Our continued support. 🎉🎉🎉

[@SomeGuyFromUtah]

3:24 Most countries recognize citizenship based on parents citizenship, not where you're standing when the birth happens. If their parents are from another country, they have ties by birth to that country through their parents. I had a kid in Germany - he's American by Birthright. My German wife had a daughter in the USA - she's German by Birthright! (yes both mine)

[@Janet1001-X]

That's why at 2:00 Supreme Court ruled in 1890s : at the time of birth, the PARENTS must have PERMANENT DOMICILE or RESIDENCE in the US" to gain the birthright citizenship.

[@ThingsRemainUnassigned]

@@Janet1001-X That is NOT what they ruled. The majority opinion was that all persons born on US soil and subject to the jurisdiction of thereof are US citizens. In their ruling, jurisdiction applied at the time of birth regardless of the immigration status of the parents; exceptions applied only to those "who were born to foreign rulers or diplomats, born on foreign public ships, or born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory." An exception also applied to Native Americans who were considered sovereign and under the jurisdiction of their tribal lands, but the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 granted citizenship to them afterwards.

[@Janet1001-X]

@@ThingsRemainUnassigned there's a "BUT" Clause in the ruling. The parents were [LEGAL] PERMANENT RESIDENTS at the time of birth. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a landmark decision[4] of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that "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", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.

[@SomeGuyFromUtah]

@ThingsRemainUnassigned I just don't buy a scenario that gave more rights to people here illegally than the native Americans. The people here illegally are subject to the jurisdiction of wherever they came from. Think of jurisdiction as a synonym for nation or kingdom... subjects of the kingdom, meaning citizens. The comments the senators made when writing the amendment support that interpretation.

[@ThingsRemainUnassigned]

​@alma09876 The court had remarked during the proceeding that Wong Kim Ark’s parents had at the time “a permanent domicil and residence in the United States,” but SCOTUS did not CONDITION their ruling on this fact in their interpretation of the 14th amendment, they did not make any distinction between legal or non-legal residence. Even so, undocumented immigrants that reside in the US are under the jurisdiction of the US and any child born on US soil would therefore be a US citizen.

[@JK-gu3tl]

14th amendment was for ex slaves.

[@TheMoistBanana]

not true, birthright citizenship has been deemed to be given to anyone who was born on US soil and is NOT a child , of a diplomat. The legal status of their parents is not in question, do your research and look up the case of United States v Wong Kim Ark

[@JK-gu3tl]

@TheMoistBanana the same Supreme Court that gave us Plessy v Ferguson? Woof....

[@RK-bz7hb]

Bro this would only affect people trying to have anchor babies. Why are people trying to oppose this I don’t understand!

[@Adushka1976]

Exactly! They just try to scare people with confusing misinformation! it will go in effect only for new born not to citizen anchor babies. The native americans will not lose anything!

[@itsjammbi]

Circus show

[@Gajaraj-ek5ir]

Much better that Trump shills Qardun than some memecoin as this coin has actual utility

[@elbozo5723]

Beep boop beep boop 🤖

[@haleyisfabulous]

These videos are so helpful in understanding the legal history, as well as what’s required for these things to pass. Thank you! And please keep making these!

[@hubertpierre9507]

Meanwhile, the people in the US are led by Elon, born in South Africa, who entered the US on a wrong visa and bought himself into the white house 😂

[@tstcikhthys]

What is a "wrong visa"? And a "right visa"?

[@Kokis286]

@@tstcikhthysI have no idea about the musk thing but a “wrong visa” would be something like getting a tourist visa and once your in USA work under the table

[@sharonkaysnowton]

@@Kokis286 Or like Melania Trump getting a "Einstein VISA" six months after the birth of Barron, her "anchor baby", and then she married the Donald. Her's is a "wrong visa", cause she ain't no Einstein.

[@tstcikhthys]

@ OK, but Musk didn't do that. He had no reason to.

[@benjaminthame4174]

All five eyes countries need this law!

[@dylanaxelrod1221]

It is insane to think they intended for this provision to apply to millions of invaders. No country on earth would allow that. L take.

[@skrillyon]

One commentator pointed out that the current Supreme Court is a "traditionalist" court and that is where those in favor of the way the 14th Amendment is currently interpreted might not like the outcome. If you bother to read the 8 pages of debate about the 14th Amendment at that time, the authors clearly pointed out whom they were talking about.

[@TheMoistBanana]

not true, birthright citizenship has been deemed to be given to anyone who was born on US soil and is NOT a child , of a diplomat. The legal status of their parents is not in question, do your research and look up the case of United States v Wong Kim Ark

[@Rainsoakedcoat]

That doesn't matter to originalists because they evaluate based on the original intent instead of years of precedent. They are the only court allowed to do that

[@dgpsf]

I agree the legal case is tenuous at best. However, the fact that we’re basically the only country dumb enough to grant birthright citizenship makes me feel like we are being taken advantage of. Honestly when it comes to people on valid visas I think the kid should be able to apply for citizenship. People here illegally though…

[@EJBradley]

The US is one of 33 countries with birthright citizenship. Almost every country in North and South America have birthright citizenship. I agree that the system can be abused, but let’s at least get our facts straight

[@chrism3790]

@@EJBradley How many of those 33 countries extend that right to illegal immigrants as well? I'm not a troll, I'm genuinely curious.

[@EJBradley]

@ All of them. Plenty of other countries offer restricted birthright citizenship, but the vast majority of countries in the Americas have no restrictions. Some countries are adding restrictions (like Colombia and Dominican Republic), but the US rules are inline with the rules in Mexico, Canada, and most other countries in the Americas. These rules were put in place when the colonial powers were attempting to entice people to colonize the New World. They are foundation rules in our countries for that reason. Whether or not we should keep them moving forward is a valid discussion for us to have. The issue with Trump is not what he’s doing but rather how he’s doing it. I think a referendum would make sense instead of a president unilaterally trying to change the rules. If you’re interested in learning more, the technical term for birthright citizenship is jus soli (right of soil) and the alternative is jus sanguinis (right of blood).

[@blarstone9322]

There have been instances where children Russian oligarchs were born in the U.S. and thereby became U.S. citizens through birthright citizenship. Miami has become a hotspot for Russian birth tourism, where wealthy Russians including those connected to oligarchs or political elites, travel to the U.S. to have their children born there. Companies specialize in helping these individuals navigate the process, including securing tourist visas and arranging for medical care and accommodations. Even if Russian oligarchs who support Putin, and have kids in the U.S, the kids will get U.S citizenship, because of political views of the parents are not a determining factor.

[@CHAD-RYAN]

But they were here legally. Not illegally.

[@blarstone9322]

@CHAD-RYAN they were still able to fake travel reasons, and utilize elite medical services to avoid detection. This is also practiced by some Chinese Communist Party linked figures have also been suspected of engaging in birth tourism to circumvent U.S. immigration laws. Federal investigations have uncovered criminal networks facilitating birth tourism, particularly in Los Angeles and Miami, where maternity tourism companies have engaged in visa fraud, tax evasion, and money laundering.

[@jammedhands]

It’s almost as if you have enough money, you can get around certain laws. Nah, that’s crazy talk on my part 🤡

[@blarstone9322]

@CHAD-RYAN but they're still committing visa fraud. Especially when applying for B1/B2 tourist visa then give birth in the U.S

​@@CHAD-RYAN Being here legally is not the same as being a legal US citizen. That's why birthright needs to stop...and I am a democrat. If one of the parents is not a US citizen, neither is their child born here. Period

[@meredithxhafa593]

If they are abusive to the u.s. children and mother ... get out.

[@TheRadioAteMyTV]

For that guy at the end to say if "Americans will believe in the rule of law" is laughable, and should have made his segments hit the cutting room floor. There's a point where people stop calling you hypocrite and just recognize you are lying.

[@tamilusa3399]

Update the 14th amendment to give US citizenship to the children of citizen parents or permanent residents. Because, other countries people are misusing our constitution.

[@danielbalcazar2006]

If the parents are citizens then there’s no need to add anything extra they would automatically be citizens dummy

[@johnwilletts3984]

From U.K.: Ashamed to admit it, but Trump’s Mother was British. If this change in the law results in him being deported, please don’t send him here.

[@sharonkaysnowton]

Trumps' mother was Irish, not British, so he would have to go to Ireland.

[@TheSergepena]

That's not true, those kids are citizens of the country their parents are, that's how it works.

[@imaristotle]

what is so hard about fixing the naturalization process, these ppl would 1000% want to come to america legally but if you have the chance of that taking 15 years why the fucc would you do that, you wouldnt, and why would you want to “deter migrants from coming” you dont want diversity? why would someone not want diversity unless they’re racist…. “protecting the value and meaning of american citizenship” someone moving to another country just have a kid then later try to gain their citizenship because the kid is 18 shows you how valuable it is. people want to be legal citizens, its just not the people trump wants

[@amazon4716]

Legal bloodline only. It doesn't discriminate against any race. Been waiting for this for another 4 years after trump loss. Let's go and not disappoint the people

[@meharoofryanmarakkar4515]

do you think all those children born in the US to foreign parents are loyal to the nation?

[@samiraalighieri]

You’re definitely not, your parents are most certainly foreign, and if not them, your grandparents. I don’t need a foreigner talking about American politics..

[@meharoofryanmarakkar4515]

@samiraalighieri America is a country built by Europeans not by samira Ali's community lol

[@aarifahmad2316]

I am in Qardun with everything

[@viktorschwarz273]

As a non US citizen, I don't understand what the huge issue is. Most of the countries work like that, in the sense that you do not get automatic citizenship by being born in those countries. This change in the constitution will not make the US some kind of fascist dystopia, as some people try to present, just a more normal country.

[@blakekaveny]

The thing is the president has no power to change the constitution with an executive order. That’s what the issue is.

[@KO_Diosrichemiel]

Wow just stunned, no idea what is going on anymore.

[@Discotexsta]

Its not for Americans...you guys just once don't get it🙄 and you're being FEAR MONGERED. AGAIN

[@SardarJi-nz1wg]

Qardun has two of the largest Tesla shareholders already; most likely something is coming

[@DudleySchmedlap-s6i]

@SardarJi-nz1wg . . . Yes Sardar, something IS coming . . . Losses.

[@anaaguirre6140]

His son Barron will also lose his citizenship if he does that 😂

[@l0newlf52]

No. The executive order is not retroactive so he wouldn't be affected.

[@huynguyen7572]

Liar, Trump law only applies to parents who come here illegally.

[@jeffrylouis6048]

@@l0newlf52 If it is retroactive even Donald cant be a citizen.

[@theinternetsavedmylife]

You guys are so dumb. Donald Trump is a US citizen so his son is a US citizen. Juls Sanguini, ever heard of it?

[@anaaguirre6140]

@ his mother is an immigrant too, and that is what he is targeting

[@Adushka1976]

Matt Platkin, are you ok? if you go for 15 years to work in Germany and have kids there, what citizenship will they have? Exactly, stop confusing people! if Turkish parents have a baby in Germany or Netherlands it's will have Turkish citizenship!

[@dj-bn1fj]

So when a military couple have a child overseas in a non military hospital are they a birthright citizen?

[@davidpollack517]

So can we also remove other Constitutional Amendments, such as the 2A, or maybe the Right to Free Speech. You cannot just cherry pick which ones you like and which ones you don't. The Constitution is a document in whole, not just the ones you may agree with.

[@undertone2472]

Trump would gladly remove the first amendment for people he considers disloyal. I imagine we will see an executive order for that also. Slowly he will erode the Constitution.

[@roguectgarbeled2872]

Many trump supporters also want to get rid of separation of church and state. Which state religion shall we have? How about we choose the national religion to be "Pastafarians," who believe the universe is controlled by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Because if we have a national religion, it can only be one. No Christians, Baptists, no Catholics, no Jews, no Hindus no Muslims, just Pastafarians. Roger Williams founded RI and Providence plantations to accept all religions. Which is why Newport RI has the first Synagogue in the country. The pilgrims came to America to escape religious persecution. Because they did not want to be members of the Church of England. So we have a king, a state religion, a state-run media headed y Bezos (WAPO) and Musk (Twitter). Let's just do away with the entire constitution. It is what trump and his supporters want.

[@PROVOCATEURSK]

You can´t just make laws after you betray your king, duh.

[@burgetttl]

who is cherry picking? The left is/trying to implement their reading of the law. 14th - "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (is being ignored) and 2nd "shall not be infringed" (is being ignored)

[@ashishgupta9962]

So what Trump is saying is that legal immigrants are not subject to US jurisdiction and therefore, there is no need for legal immigrants to pay taxes to the US government. Just for reference, Indian diaspora makes 1% of the US population but pays 6% of the taxes (which is ~$300B). So no need now! Thanks Trump! 🎉

[@burgetttl]

Almost no country does this as this is just a crude interpretation of the law that was written for slave at the time. "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" If a child is a dependent would their subject to jurisdiction not coincide with the adult? also why would the framers even put that in there? If it is not meant to be exclusionary then you don't even need it to enforce the law as it currently being enforced.

[@sjk_88]

@@burgetttldid you watch the video? Subject to jurisdiction is present to exclude - diplomats, Native American tribes and invading army (American laws don’t apply to them); to everyone else American law applies as soon as they set foot in the USA.

[@timothysmith9329]

That's not at all what it means. Legal immigrants who are in the country temporarily absolutely will pay taxes, and then leave. But they should not be able to produce US citizens because they are not permanent residents or citizens. They are subjects of their respective countries. Have allegiance to their country. And are under the jurisdiction of their country. Of course everyone in the US borders is subject to US law, and our courts also have judicial jurisdiction. This has more to do with whether or not they followed our laws entering the country, and whether that is with a temporary visa or permanent residency. Only permanent residents and citizens should be able to produce US citizens.

[@abuhijjra]

The children born to illegal immigrants can automatically get citizenship in their parent’s country. These children will not be stateless.

[@tstcikhthys]

Exactly. I'm not sure where this "they'd be stateless" nonsense is coming from. Must be another political talking point.

[@rockymaxiful]

If a French ambassador commits murder in the United States he cannot be arrested or prosecuted without the permission of his government. He is not subject to our judicial system. If his son commits murder he can be prosecuted no matter where he was born, even though being born in the United States does not confer citizenship to him. Secondly, hundreds of thousands of children born in the United States after the 14th Amendment was passed did not qualify for citizenship because their parents were American Indians and were deemed subjects of a foreign sovereignty (their tribe). It took two acts of congress to confer citizenship on all American Indians. Clearly the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not mean what this reporter claims it does.

[@AndrewDavis1]

Birthright citizenship is in the constitution so it would require a constitutional amendment to change. The asinine argument that it only applied to slaves is BS, if that was the case the 14th amendment would have been written as such.

[@Tonesnob72]

we don’t have to change it we just have to understand it most American don’t understand the language. here is what the actual language means Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means that a person is fully under the legal authority of a particular governing body, in this context referring to the United States, meaning they are subject to its laws and owe allegiance to no other country; this phrase is most commonly found in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution regarding citizenship by birth. To "owe allegiance to another country" means to be legally bound by a duty of loyalty and obedience to that country's government, essentially pledging your faithfulness and commitment to uphold its laws and interest as a citizen of that nation. So you cant be a citizen of another country for the 14th amendment to apply as you owe allegiance to whatever country your a citizen of.

[@CL-nj3zs]

If he claims that undocs are not subject to us jurisdiction then why is he enforcing US laws on them? Why is the US gov make them pay taxes when they work? Those 2 reasons right there are subjecting undocs to US jurisdiction. He's gonna lose big time. What a waste of tax payers money. Why isnt doge stopping this nonsense?

[@Jeebus-un6zz]

I assume you're being rhetorical but if anyone thinks DOGE has anything to do with government efficiency I don't think they understand how propaganda works. It's transparently an excuse to give Elon Musk access to government data and a big stick with which to bully dissenters in government who opposed Trump's fascist policies.

[@Hunterxii]

I don't agree with birthright citizenship. You shouldn't be allowed to fly here to pop out your kid and automatically it's american or canadian. No, if you are here and a citizen no problem.

[@Hunterxii]

But at the same time.2nd ammendment is ironclad according to them so the 14th should be as well

[@MissionControlTet]

@@Hunterxii To me both of those amendments are absurd. Both Reps and Dems are on blame for cherrypicking

[@didforlove]

so if someone is already born here and a us citizen they lose it or is this after the law comes into effect ?

[@ZippyDooDa435]

@@didforlove It's not retroactive, use your brain.

[@didforlove]

@ ok sorry

[@BreynerAndresCastroCastillo]

This is how we live in Australia, God bless America.

[@CampsitePyro]

This is probably a good idea

[@nareshahir8333]

Musk's Qardun announcement is coming soon. Easyest money if you get in on the ICO

[@thebrownbadger]

The only reason I don't want to support this is that I don't want this to set a precedence to overturn / alternatively interpret the constitution in the future. Both democrats & republicans could abuse this tactic. Originalist all the way, the US constitution comes first. Just stick to deportation, end the green card lottery program, and create more stringent immigration laws. The rest will ratify itself.

[@sudhirmohite7021]

Several clips surfacing about Bezos and Trump talking about $Qardun at the inaguration even with mike tyson 😂

[@DudleySchmedlap-s6i]

@sudhirmohite7021 . . . . Oooooo, Mike Tyson . . . Well, it MUST be good if old Iron Mike endorses it --after all, he has a PhD in economics, doesn't he?

[@RandomHandle120]

The smug coming from the pro-birthright citizenship lawyer. I want to see his face when he inevitably loses the case lol

[@NSankeerthUrkec]

I don't like any of this but he is a man of his word

[@madhubhardwaj1215]

$Qardun put in everything and sell after launch

[@AndreaDoesYoga]

Interesting points, I'm curious to see how this unfolds 🧐

[@AndyFahey]

This is how you start a totalitarian regime. Identify a common external emeny and make it a reason to ignore laws. Textbook.

[@steeltalon2317]

I'm just grateful there is a Supreme Court that can interpret the 14th Amendment and the President's executive order.