What is Birthright Citizenship And Why Is President Trump Trying To End It?

[@debbylou5729]

I was in school when they stopped teaching government and replaced it with ‘social studies’. The resulting ignorance is the result.

[@sandyjohnson5111]

You sound like you’re 3 days older than dirt. Social studies did not take away civics class. The word Social Studies simply encompasses a larger subject matter.

[@AprilFriday-de6vm]

Social studies is a broader course for younger students. All high school students have to take government to graduate, in all states I’ve worked in. Since the majority of legal scholars disagree with the premise of this video and believe that birthright citizenship is, in fact, guaranteed to everyone born on US soil except diplomats and their staffs, it’s unlikely that expanding class requirements would change the perception.

[@debbylou5729]

@ no, it isn’t. I have 4 kids and have moved 14 times to 10 states. Government has never been on the menu, much less a requirement. Why you would claim this is beyond comprehension

[@AprilFriday-de6vm]

@ because under common core, which a majority of states adopted, all students have to take US government to graduate. My state did away with common core, but still requires US Government to graduate. I can only speak to ID, NV, UT, CA, and OR, personally, but last I checked they all required US Government to graduate. Where do they not?

[@debbylou5729]

@ there’s your reason, right there. Common core. What do you think the quality of actually learning a reasonably well rounded understanding of US government would come from? I don’t know anyone who has even a passing understanding of why we have the Electoral College or why it’s crucial to our government. We are talking about 2 different things: a bare minimum of exposure vs actual learning

[@NedReck6967]

That goes for dual citizens who weren't even born here and they're serving in Congress.

[@garyK.45ACP]

There really is no such thing. The US does not recognize 'dual citizenship'. By US law, you are a US citizen or you are not a US citizen. There is, legally, no such thing as a 'dual citizen' in the USA. When a person becomes a US Citizen through naturalization, they take an oath swearing allegiance ONLY to the USA. NO US Citizen can claim 'dual citizenship' to avoid any obligations of a US citizen, such as registering for the draft or serving jury duty, filing tax returns. US Citizens can serve in Congress and they MUST be a US Citizen to be in congress, whether they are naturalized or citizens by birth they have the same rights and obligations. To have a legal process to citizenship, but deny various benefits to naturalized citizens would be stupid. To say "We want you to comply with our laws, and if you do we will deny you benefits' is moronic.

[@truther001]

These folks should be first to go but good luck with that.

[@TdT2211]

Bye muskisky!

[@replynotificationsdisabled]

Is Hawaii here? Alaska? Here's sorta subjective

[@josephteller9715]

Or wanting to serve as advisors to the President Elect, like Elon Musk, who BOUGHT his dual Citizenship?

[@AAWGASHTADS]

They also could not be tried or convicted of Treason because they owe their citizenship to other countries . If you can't be tried for crimes like Treason , Draft Evasion ( when there is a draft ) , etc. , and are not subject to Jury Duty etc . , you are quite obviously NOT a citizen of the United States.

[@thrlfwbbl8038]

> They also could not be tried or convicted of Treason because they owe their citizenship to other countries Of course not. If you are a US citizen than you are deemed to owe allegiance to the US and the state you reside in, regardless of your other citizenships.

[@jvanek8512]

I'd avoid the draft because I'm no one's property to be used as canon fodder and just as importantly I will not be drafted to fight for a country that exempts females from that same punishment.

[@davidf7572]

That's false, all males age 18-26 residing in the US must register for the selective service, aka the draft, including illegals.

[@katherinedemott298]

BS

[@rcnelson]

Which is why Julian Assange, who was not an American citizen, could never be tried or judged guilty of treason.

[@scuddyleblanc8637]

The authors of the 14th amendment never intended birthright citizenship. Their intent was to assure that children of freed slaves would be citizens of the US. This calcination was needed because Democrats claimed that the children of freed slaves were not citizens of the US.

[@AmericanActionReport]

I'm curious about your use of the word "calcination." Merriam Webster limits the definition to "to heat (something, such as inorganic materials) to a high temperature but without fusing in order to drive off volatile matter or to effect changes (such as oxidation or pulverization)." Are you using it as a metaphor for something?

[@HKim0072]

It’s based off old English common law: “jus soli”.

[@abetteryounow6484]

Democrats! Black Americans need to read your response!

[@Cmon-Man]

Yes, spot on. What is amazing to me is the lack of knowledge of the history of the Democrat party by those that vote for them.

[@kegginstructure]

We have to remember that the KKK was originally peopled by Democrats back in that era.

[@yayagazab4449]

Intentionally having anchor babies is deceitful & unethical. Illegal or undocumented immigrants should pay massive fines if they want to stay in the US & their travel privileges restricted. The US government can force dual nationals to give up their other citizenship, but some foreign countries don’t allow it. Also, the US govt should make English the official language of the land. Just make things simple & clear cut to end all of this ambiguity, confusion & madness.

[@ceciliajones1179]

I am with you. You are absolutely correct.

[@frankorobinson1540]

Nah just deport 😊

[@TdT2211]

So should you pay for what your grandparents did?

[@Shylara]

I guarantee that your ancestors were not indigenous to this country like mine were, so why don't you go ahead and see your way out too.

[@VALENCIA-d7f4q]

Exactly!!!

[@josron6088]

I remember reading about foreign Nationals mostly Chinese having their kids here so that kids can have dual citizenship. It's a free-for-all.

[@TdT2211]

That's exactly what your grandparents took advantage of but nothing to see here. Right?

[@ralphjessee2688]

California has many "baby mills".

[@josron6088]

@ralphjessee2688 California was primarily the state I was thinking about. Something similar was also happening in Canada.

[@dumdumbrown4225]

Please note, I want President Trump to remove Jus Solis - citizenship by birthright. That said, China doesn’t allow dual citizenship. Neither do the Netherlands, India and Japan. So kids of parents from those countries can’t have dual citizenship regardless of where they’re born - they would in one way or another lose their existing citizenship to gain American (or other) citizenship.

[@daryl4225]

So false on the dual citizenship statement for Chinese nationals. China does not allow dual citizenship. Taiwan does but they are not Chinese nationals, and they do this mainly to escape China in case they are invaded. Get your facts straight.

[@OpinionPiece901]

It's time to put a stop to this abuse & revoke citizenship given illegally.

[@Mar-lz5xn]

That sounds great. Find out where your ancestors came from and self-deport. According to the most recent US Census data, approximately 2.9% of the US population identifies as American Indian or Alaska Native. Most likely, you are an anchor baby, too!

[@joseanibalberrios2758]

Amen

[@sandyjohnson5111]

Let’s start with Elon and his 11 children. Elon was an illegal alien. Any child born before he legally becalmed a naturalized citizen needs sent back to South Africa.

[@frivera735]

What do you do with an individual who was born here form undocumented parents let’s say they are adults. Do you recommend they get deported ? And if so to what country ? Because they aren’t born in another country so who they even accept them? would you say starting today and going on forward ? Do both parents need to be born citizens ? Or does only the mother or the father ? How would you propose that is fixed ? what if the the adult already has a family would you deport the entire family ? what county would they have rights to then?

[@OpinionPiece901]

@frivera735 You're getting into the weeds of feelings. It's time to stop the bastardization of the 14th Amendment. If an invading any came in with pregnant women from their country, would their offspring be considered citizens?

[@JT.common_sense]

If you arrived illegally, you have committed a crime so are in country illegally.

[@TdT2211]

Let's Grandfather that one then. And apply it to everyone that wasn't here before 1492. You would like that. It would destroy the United States as you intend.

[@newvilla8115]

@@JT.common_sense you are on Mexican/Native land, anglos feel so entitled.

[@newvilla8115]

@@JT.common_sense MEXICANS HAVE THE HISTORICAL MORAL AND LEGAL RIGHT TO BE IN THE SOUTHWEST, NO MORE ANGLO ENTITLEMENT BS.

[@JT.common_sense]

@ The only land in the world given by God to anyone are the Jews. The rest has been plundered.

[@cu7204]

​@@newvilla8115exactly

[@remo1909]

It should not. If they are here illegally birthrights shall not be applied. People need to earn things.

[@kanderson4417]

If you are illegal and give birth how can your child be legal.?

[@bilindamueller3154]

No

[@leoavila915]

Wondering about that. I think as long as the baby is born in us soil the baby is a us citizen. I may be wrong and I may re watch the video serveral more times

[@ElenaShares]

@@leoavila915 But it is a wrong interpretation of the 14A because the words "subject something" were ignored... meaning if a baby of any diplomat is born on the US soil, it can not automatically become a US citizen, therefore, nor should any baby of any mother who is not a legal permanent resident, nor a student, nor a tourist, nor an illegal resident. Logical. Makes sense.

[@walterwhite1]

No all illegals need to be deported

[@ridethewave-k1l]

It's how we pick our president. If not then Elon Musk say could be president of America

[@genegroover3721]

Awesome job explaining the truth. Keep up the good work!

[@AnaSilva-to1sy]

Birthright Citizenship was a symbol of freedom.

[@AMERICANPATRIOT1945]

Finally, someone who understands what the 14A really says and means.

[@meahdahlgren6537]

Right ❤❤❤

[@TdT2211]

Interpreted like that Bible!

[@jackn8458]

They don’t. They are just telling you what you want to hear. These opinions have no legal weight. If you are born here then you are a citizen like it or not.

[@ThatBoomerDude56]

@@jackn8458 So you don't know how the law works. And you don't understand why courts make rulings.

[@jackn8458]

@boomer I get that there was no court ruling that changed birthright citizenship. If you are born here then you are a citizen. I don’t think I can simplify it more for you.

[@theoryofpersonality1420]

Because they entered the country illegally. It's not rocket science.

[@anthonycharles-d5i]

There is a reason "jurisdiction" was used and not "law."

[@tkorte101]

This is one of the most important facts that is buried by the Left.

[@blarstone9322]

Its also important to note that when 14th amendment was introduced native americans were not given citizenship because they were living on tribal lands were not considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States at that time, as they were regarded as members of sovereign nations. Native Americans were seen as belonging to their own tribal nations, which were considered separate political entities. The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was interpreted to exclude individuals who owed allegiance to another government, including tribal governments.

[@HKim0072]

Dude - newborn babies don't have any allegiances.

[@blarstone9322]

@HKim0072 I'm talking about the parents of the newborn babies, just like 14th amendment doesn't apply to babies from foreign diplomats and invading army

[@HKim0072]

@@blarstone9322 Are you saying that every foreign citizen is an agent / extension of that countries government? That's why diplomats are excluded.

[@blarstone9322]

@HKim0072 and foreign citizens are subject to their own nations, which were considered separate political entities. The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was interpreted to exclude individuals who owed allegiance to another government. If I pledge allegiance to the U.S and I travel abroad, does not make me an agent/extension of the U.S government, it means I pledge my allegiance to the U.S, this is the requirement when I gained my U.S citizenship The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was debated during drafting. The authors intended it to exclude certain groups, such as: -Children of foreign diplomats. -Members of Native American tribes under tribal sovereignty. -Foreign invaders or hostile occupying forces. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, was not originally designed with "birth tourism" in mind.

[@HKim0072]

@@blarstone9322 Wait, are you saying the Constitution shouldn't apply to current times because it's a modern era?

[@cwb2992]

It's obvious to anyone who actually reads the 14th amendment that one parent must be an American citizen to claim birthright citizenship.

[@TeranRealtor]

US citizen or green card holder.

[@cwb2992]

@TeranRealtor Not true, a green card holder is not a citizen.

[@deannasalem145]

​@TeranRealtor Yes exactly.

[@garyK.45ACP]

@@TeranRealtor correct.

[@garyK.45ACP]

"Anyone who actually reads the 14th amendment" is not how laws or amendments are interpreted. Fortunately, we have a Supreme Court to do that. Unfortunately the Supreme Court has never ruled on that. If Trump makes an Executive Order declaring that the 14th Amendment does NOT apply to the children of illegal aliens, it WILL be reviewed by the Supreme Court

[@jeremywheeler2122]

This video should go viral

[@Sparky-xk4vo]

I'll second that.

[@BLT-sr6zz]

If they aren't Americans because "they hold allegion" to another nation(s) despite them being born here. 1. Which nation(s) are those? 2. Why do you allow them so both serve in active duty combat roles for our military and also pay taxes? Seems like someone somewhere (The GOP) wants to have their cake and eat it too. They'll never question someones willingness to take lead for them, or hand them over money but once they serve their purpose they can be used as scapegoats. Lovely.

[@NaNa-rb7ou]

KZbin will bury it, under piles illegals loving propaganda garbage

[@EAZ36588]

"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." If the only reason they are here is because of a violation of the law that doesn't sound like they're 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' but rather in direct violation and therefore no Birthright citizenship for children born in the US if the mom is in the country illegally when she gave birth.

[@BuffaloDoctor]

If I rob a bank and pass the money to my kid, the kid doesn't get to keep the money...

[@MichaelGallien-xw4ju]

Then he's a accomplice, they gonna put him in juvy 😂😂

[@dampam4273]

@@MichaelGallien-xw4ju lol

[@darkplainsdrifter3499]

I think that's his point! Children of illegals don't get to enjoy the fruits of this country simply having been born here fraudulently.

[@Jon.......]

Regardless of this "controversial" issue, chain migration needs to end. ALL people wanting to come the USA must be vetted and judged on their own qualifications. Their relations to immigrants already here must NOT be a consideration.

[@davidb2206]

Also, no person with DUAL PASSPORTS should receive a security clearance in the United States, nor hold any position that requires one, nor be allowed to serve in Congress.

[@theoryofpersonality1420]

Absolutely

[@JenniferNIsbet-n6d]

People with dual citizenships should also not be able to vote in both countries. Pick a country!

[@user3567tgyhzz]

INCORRECT. I worked in defense contracts in the US as a Canadian citizen. I had a security clearance. Would I recommend that if the person was from Iran, Pakistan, or say, "Palestine" for example? No.

[@user3567tgyhzz]

You obviously got brainwashed on this subject with all the "Palestine" propaganda.

[@user3567tgyhzz]

@@JenniferNIsbet-n6d That makes sense. I think one chooses depending on where they reside most of the time.

[@user-dn9vd9xg9p]

We have to do something write some dang laws! If anyone works in a public hospital, ERs are full of them popping out babes. And we have them on medicaid, full benefits to mom and babe, before they are discharged, because if they verbally say they have worked in the U.S. a certain number of work semesters "verbally" (with no proof) they are getting them on medicaid FULL benefits.

[@cypressbutane4575]

Elon Musk has 400 billion dollars.

[@JescaML]

They refuse to follow the 14th amendment stupid there doesn’t need to be new laws. It’s what naturalization means. A parent must be naturalized or natural born for a child to have birthright citizenship

[@JescaML]

@@cypressbutane4575 he is a naturalized citizen dingbat

[@Freeland-Farm]

I like creamy italian salad dressing​@@cypressbutane4575

[@CarlEdward-g5p]

@cypressbutane4575 And?

[@racheljustrachel2732]

Time to correct the real meaning to birth right citizenship

[@MAXIMUSMINIMALIST]

Correcting it means not only stopping it going forward but it also means deporting all of the dreamers and Trump doesn't have the balls to do that because he's weak.

[@playfair6468]

Amen! Make it right!

[@mitchellmelbon3328]

We are 50 years too late on this but better late than never, hopefully they can get that taken care of through the supreme Court and so it doesn't happen going forward

[@1940limited]

John Roberts will be a problem, guaranteed.

[@barbarastam5271]

You just want fewer brown people here. Tell me, many US citizens born of undocumented people speak only English and this is the only country they have known. Why is cruelty the calling card of MAGA? Your enemies are the billionaires and millionaires, not poor people.

[@jimwright9866]

@@barbarastam5271 Billionaires own the democrat party and want more democrat voters so they can have total control. Cruelty has nothing to do with it. It is only smoke screen for socialist wishers to gain sympathy

[@TeranRealtor]

Executive Order on Jan 20. 2025, to correct the incorrect application of the 14A. Yes, there will be lawsuits. I hope it makes it through SCOTUS quickly so that the next Democomunist president doesn't take his pen (as did Biden) and un-do all the good that Trump does in the next four years.

[@actionjksn]

If the supreme Court fixes this problem then I think it needs to be completely retroactive. In other words any foreigners who are posing as American citizens just because their foreign parents happened to be here when they were born should have their American birth certificates revoked. Then they could be administered a proper birth certificate from their real home country, which would be something other than American.

[@sagorsch]

U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark 1898 supreme court decision states that the citizen birthright for white children born in the USA to non citizen immigrants should also apply to non white children.

[@MiracleFound]

3 of my great-grandmothers were never naturalized, so can I parlay that into getting my whole family deported to Norway?

[@nvrancher]

Native Americans had to wait until the 1926 Indian Citizenship Act to be allowed citizenship in their own lands.

[@Kylesmith-t6l]

It wasn't their land because they didn't believe in ownership of land.

[@TheSmartLawyer]

When you lose the battle there are consequences

[@nvrancher]

@@Kylesmith-t6l so is a America only the land of property owners, renters need not apply? Your brain must rattle around in your head like a BB in a railroad box car.

[@nvrancher]

@@TheSmartLawyer you don't win very many court cases, do you.

[@shirleycordes5239]

What a wonderful truthful message. I didn't think that ot applied to illegals, or those that come here and still have allegiance to another country. .President Trump should be told all of this information. This practice really needs to stop.....

[@gerryyakovleff8606]

US citizenship and all its privileges has been granted to the hundreds of thousands of Chinese & other foreigners whose MOTHERS travelled to Saipan (US Territory) for their birth - birth tourism! Thousands a year for the past decade!

[@quintrankid8045]

Saipan? Is that one of the US states?

[@gerryyakovleff8606]

@ No. It is a US Territory in the Northern Marianna Islands- those born there are considered USA citizens - like Guam and US Tonga & Samoa & Puerto Rico. Many people do not know about Saipan’s birthing hospital businesses! But those children are raised in Communist China and then sent to the USA -

[@JamesFAFOCreel]

You have to be a citizen for your children to get birth right citizenship

[@jayg6434]

I have heard many foreign nationals come in as tourists to have their babies for citizenship!

[@libra7.063]

Exactly! Other countries follow that concept. We should too.

[@alphathefirstone1222]

correct.. It really simple. If both parents are not citizens then their child brought here or born here not a citizens..

[@jetmoon11]

No way, the US is a country of immigrants you idiots

[@leoavila915]

It’s a good topic . Both parents became citizens after I was born. All my papers say am an American citizen. I voted served in the military I hope to be an American citizen. 38 years living here do you know where I stand ethically?

[@susanrogers6815]

You've just explained why Kamala Harris isn't eligible for POTUS as neither of her parents were American citizens at the time of her birth. Both her parents were simply here on student visas, her mother from India and her father from Jamaica. Had she been born in any other country she wouldn't even be a US citizen, certainly not a "Natural Born Citizen" as required by the Constitution. If we consider Kamala eligible, all those "Birth Tourism" babies, whose moms came here to steal citizenship for them and are now being raised in Communist China, are also. Now, let's look at Barack Obama. His mother was an American citizen, but his father was a British citizen. Under "British Common Law", a child born in a foreign country to a British citizen is itself a British citizen. Also, when Kenya gained independence from Great Britain, Obama Sir and Jr. also became citizens of Kenya. Americans seem to think other countries don't have their own citizenship laws. So, Kamala nor Obama were eligible for POTUS. This begs to question, why are Democrats pushing ineligible candidates on the American people, and why have Republicans allowed it?

[@joebidet2050]

Well Obama was born to us citizen mother But agree with rest of post

[@johnnyretires]

Do Ted Cruz now

[@susanrogers6815]

@@johnnyretires Ted isn't eligible to be POTUS because he was born in Canada. Even had he been born in the States, his Cuban father prevents him from being a "Natural Born Citizen".

[@susanrogers6815]

@@joebidet2050 Yes, he was, but, as when a child born in a foreign country to an American inherits US citizenship, a child born in the States to a foreigner inherits citizenship from their parent. Americans seem not to understand that not all foreigners want their American born child to be a US citizen. It's rings a bit of arrogance. Not only was Obama born with dual citizenship, US and British, his father's Kenyan citizenship was also passed to him. If this was acceptable, the Framers wouldn't have required the president to be a "Natural Born Citizen", they would have just said Citizen. With the NBC requirement, the Framers wouldn't to make sure the US President had no loyalty to any other country. Certainly not Great Britain. They would never have thought someone with dual citizenship as eligible.

[@quintrankid8045]

@@susanrogers6815 Isn't natural born citizen language lifted from Blackstone's natural born subject? Surely that would make both Harris and Obama natural born citizens.

[@Dark_Knight_100]

The fact that our citizenship has been conferred on millions of undeserving foreigners is disturbing. Thank you for explaining this. It is time we take our sovereignty back!

[@jonathand9793]

This country is in such bad shape. Can it even be fixed?

[@josron6088]

Nope its far too corrupt.

[@kegginstructure]

Yes, but only by meeting resistance with resolve.

[@thesoundsmith]

No, your kind forbids it. They PROFIT from your ignorance and racism.

[@TdT2211]

Yes. But it will take more respect for life itself.

[@TdT2211]

​@@josron6088we must reopen mental institutions.

[@tomr9661]

Not going to read all 1,239 comments. I'll wait two months to see how the Supreme Court interprets it when Trump and the Justice Dept brings it up before them, that I'll read.

[@andrewgordon235]

40 years old and this is literally the first I'm hearing of this. I think this country just makes it up as it goes or just ignores laws it doesn't like. This is what happens when lawyers and bankers are allowed to run a country.

[@ThatBoomerDude56]

Wrong. The actual immigration practice is run based upon very old legal precedent. If you don't like the laws, then have them explicitly changed.

[@user3567tgyhzz]

The difference is that some laws are never enforced...especially among certain groups. The Democrats were planning for another major Amnesty...

[@user3567tgyhzz]

@@ThatBoomerDude56 True, but what we've seen the last few years were not from laws on the books but from executive actions made by the president (for the most part). Open borders are not on the books.

[@airhabairhab]

Wrong, if they wanted it to mean “complete political jurisdiction” then they should have written it that way. As it stands anyone except Diplomats are under the jurisdiction and subject to of American judicial and legal codes. You literally wouldn’t be “illegal” if you weren’t!

[@patrickday4206]

good to know you believe that foreigners are not subject to our juristiction and may commit crimes without worrying about going to jail.

[@quintrankid8045]

Before you know it they'll be explaining what being a sovereign citizen is a real thing.

[@patrickday4206]

@quintrankid8045 they are a real thing they are judges prosecutors politicians and cops

[@Jon.Morimoto]

​@@quintrankid8045 I upvoted your reply even though some of your other messages have been bizarre and poorly-reasoned. What's your real intent? Are you just trying to stir things up by making points from all directions?

[@nhiupham639]

Most of the world does not have birthright citizenship. True, just remember also that most of the world does not have a constitutional right to bear arms.

[@patcunningham6170]

Bravo, and thanks to Heritage for publishing this argument in a way that any thinking person should be able to comprehend.

[@quintrankid8045]

Now all they have to do is convince the Judiciary.

[@user-fx2oo3bi9c]

That mean european colonies have no right in American land .

[@luisacleaves9592]

No birthright citizenship, period.

[@RubenYbarra-y2v]

Only American Natives period.

[@MrBadjohn69]

SORRY! The Courts don't agree with you.

[@trainsplanesandotherthings5187]

Yeah... Tell that to the Native American Indians when you all Illegally showed up on the Mayflower..

[@trainsplanesandotherthings5187]

Yeah... Tell that to the Native American Indians when you all Illegally showed up on the Mayflower, slaughtered them and took their land..

[@Nano172-r4o]

Wong Kim Ark V. United States

[@bokesnmokes]

Wrong. Try again. Actually, don't. Just be quiet. Go learn something.

[@maty5152]

Per AI: The Heritage Foundation's position on birthright citizenship is at odds with the Supreme Court's decision in Wong Kim Ark, which established a legal precedent for the principle that all persons born in the United States are citizens, regardless of their parents' immigration status. It's worth noting that the Heritage Foundation is a politically conservative organization, and their position on birthright citizenship may be influenced by their broader political agenda. Some critics argue that the Foundation's opposition to birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants is motivated by a desire to restrict immigration and limit the rights of undocumented immigrants. Regardless of the motivations behind the Heritage Foundation's position, it's clear that the legal precedent established by Wong Kim Ark provides strong support for the idea that all persons born in the United States are entitled to birthright citizenship, regardless of their parents' immigration status.

[@darkplainsdrifter3499]

AI can be trained to support whatever position the user wishes it to. The Constitution for the USA is the supreme law of this land, not a dodgy ChatGPT word salad.

[@ralphjessee2688]

AMEN!!!

[@holyspiritandkevin8441]

This is a big change I'm looking for over the next two years.

[@TdT2211]

You might put a dent but since they won't actually fix anything, it will be expensive for sure.

[@TeranRealtor]

Two years? How the government applies the 14A will be corrected by executive order on the afternoon of January 20. 2025.

[@holyspiritandkevin8441]

@@TeranRealtor But it will be challenged in court like the travel ban. Then maybe 2-3 years later it will be at the Supreme Court. That will be a big deal. In the meantime, judges will put injunctions against the executive order being enforced and all that again.

[@BadMonkeyMike]

No,it should not be changed. If a child is born to a mother and father who are not a US citizen then the child should not be a US citizen. The child needs at least 1 of it's patents to be a UC citizen for it to be a US citizen

[@HKim0072]

Monkey - you are talking about old Roman law, "jus sanguinis". The US adopted old British common law, "jus soli". That's what the Constitution says.

[@robertjaeger8934]

Technically nobody is legal unless you are native American lol

[@patrickday4206]

@@HKim0072 someone with a brain on here. thumbs up. Them arguing no Jurisdiction then claiming jurisdiction to deport is dumbfounding. but yes if born on a ship in a harbor from ireland that might apply.

[@HKim0072]

@@patrickday4206 They are using the diplomat example which is fine because diplomats have diplomatic immunity and laws don't apply to them. If you travel to the US, you have the protection of due process. And, are subject to the laws of the US as well. Breaking a law does not negate anything. Dunno, in my simpleton mind, that means jurisdiction .

[@patrickday4206]

@@HKim0072 yes which makes them citizens

[@pablom2706]

I’m Mexican and I know a lot of Mexicans that were born in the USA but never lived there just to have dual nationality “just in case” they want to move or work there. That’s cheating and I’m totally against it. Just imagine what would happen if they all decided to move there at the same time, it would be total chaos.

[@77eternalsunshine]

Yep. And this is how it is done by other countries, too. Babies born to Americans living in foreign countries are American, not citizens of where they are born.

[@madkhaliqfarhan]

By the same logic, babies born to Malaysians living in the US are Malaysians! They shouldn't be called Americans!

[@Scar-jg4bn]

@madkhaliqfarhan agreed. That's literally the point. A dog born in a stable isn't a horse.

[@getlost3346]

Well even children born to foreign parents legal and illegal in the USA, who are not US citizens, by foreign constitutions, the child is citizen of foreign nation.

[@garyK.45ACP]

Trump needs to make an Executive Order declaring so, and let it work through the courts, eventually to the Supreme Court.

[@herbderbler1585]

It'll never make it to SCOTUS before his term is up, and the next president can simply end anything created by EO. With luck Trump will be followed by another America-First Republican, but the pendulum has been pushed to full swing, so the odds are good we'll end up with a Democrat in 2028. People have short memories and they're easily inflamed by the propaganda merchants.

[@TdT2211]

Let's Grandfather it in baby!

[@garyK.45ACP]

@@TdT2211 That would, most likely, not be possible. Even IF the Supreme Court noted in their ruling that the 14th Amendment _never applied_ to illegal aliens. The immigration status of parents is not noted on birth certificates, so it would be impossible to enforce if it was made retroactive. However, going forward, the parents would have to prove that they are citizens (birth certificate or passport) in order to receive a US birth certificate.

[@TdT2211]

@garyK.45ACP oh ye of little faith! Someone just made up this law, why can't we just make up another? Oh, right, it doesn't benefit the "correct citizen".

[@quintrankid8045]

@@TdT2211 It's not just a law. It's part of the COTUS. The SCOTUS gets to say what it means and if the states want to change that they can pass another Amendment. But again, it's not just a law.

[@Smokr]

AGREED That should be changed... retroactive and actively. Immediately.

[@jvanek8512]

if even the Supreme Court overturned it, they won't make it retroactively. It would be too disruptive because you'd have to revoke the citizenship of every descendant who shouldn't have gotten it for like a 100+ years. Cause a huge mess. Who knows maybe someone in your family history wasn't here legally.

[@childfreesingleandatheist8899]

You need to understand that no law or constitutional amendment should ever be made retroactively.

[@quintrankid8045]

@@childfreesingleandatheist8899 I agree, but IIRC the courts have upheld ex post facto tax laws.

[@saneasthenextguy196]

To be fair if you are going to start quibbling over phrasing then someone could suggest re-examining what "a well-regulated militia" in the Second Amendment was intended to mean.

[@aquariandawn4750]

You're doing the thing of comparing apples to oranges we are not discussing the Second Amendment. If we were having a discussion about shoplifting we wouldn't compare it to domestic violence. And of course the wording is important. Let's say that I borrow money off of you and I tell you that I will pay you off on a Friday... notice I didn't say I will pay you off this Friday or next Friday all I did was say I will pay you off on a Friday. You would then agree that the wording is important. By the way do you want to lend me some money?

[@saneasthenextguy196]

@@aquariandawn4750 I am not comparing one amendment to another, obviously you don't understand what I am saying, and that is this: if you want to apply a strict sematic analysis to one amendment then you cannot object to someone doing the same to other amendments (you can of course, but that would be hypocrisy).

[@aquariandawn4750]

@saneasthenextguy196 nothing wrong with strict wording it keeps things in line. Now are you willing to loan me $500 and I promise to pay you back on a Friday?

[@actionjksn]

If we're going to do that then owning unregistered machine guns would not be illegal. The founders were pretty clear on what a militia is and that is an American man with a gun who proclaims himself to be a militia man. If you are an American and you want to launch an orbital rocket in another country you still have to comply by the rules of the FAA and get a launch license from the FAA. The reason is because as an American you are under the jurisdiction of the American government. A foreigner can go to another country and does not have to get a launch license from the FAA. That is because the Foreigner is not under the jurisdiction of the United States. The 14th amendment clearly states that if you have a child in the United States that child is an American only if you are under the jurisdiction of the United States. If an American goes to a foreign country that allows sex with minors that American will be charged with a crime if he comes back to America after doing that, because it is a crime in America. The reason is because Americans are under the jurisdiction of the United States government. if a foreigner just walks across our border they are not under the jurisdiction of the United States and would not be charged if they did those same things. If you are an illegal alien from Guatemala you could go back to Guatemala and launched rockets without getting a launch license from the FAA. This is because you are not under the jurisdiction of the United States if you are an illegal alien from Guatemala, or wherever. There is sufficient records of what the founding fathers meant by a militia man. It is not another word for being in the national guard.

[@johnnyretires]

@@actionjksn. question. The militia man being well regulated and all, explain his chain of command to the US armed forces.

[@Huertoenmipatio]

But the first Ilegal Eliens were from Europe

[@ms.v8616]

Wow, this is like WOW. Everyone should see this.

[@ditpook]

Quite simply this country should not only insist on allegiance to THIS country but should not allow dual citizenship with any other country. I thought this was already in place (except for Israel). Go further by not allowing property ownership in foreign lands so you can jump back and forth as you please.

[@randallstephens1680]

This should be able to be easily resolved in the courts. It just requires someone with standing and/or the power to prosecute to bring a case.

[@bobjohnson4512]

We arrest, try, convict, and sentence people every day who are here illegally. How much more can a person be under our jurisdiction. People with diplomatic immunity can not be arrested or tried for anything. They are not under our jurisdiction. Their children, if born in the US, do not become citizens.

[@PapaBear-k4k]

They need to stop issuing social security numbers at birth - including citizens. There isn't really a legal requirement to do that; nor for a citizen to even have one.

[@user-dn9vd9xg9p]

@PapaBear-k4k that will never happen. Medicaid/welfare office references SS# to set up benefits or if one is on SSDI.

[@PapaBear-k4k]

@user-dn9vd9xg9p Yep, and they'll continue issuing SSNs regardless of citizenship of the parents. I'm just saying what should happen.

[@us4freedomforever]

Read the document 'Social Security cards for non-citizens'. Due to manipulation by democrats and immigrant advocates it states that Social Security cards can only be issued to illegals that need them as a requirement to receive federal benefits. Huge loophole

[@user-dn9vd9xg9p]

@us4freedomforever spread all over fed regs also that It is discriminatory to even ask about citizenship or nationality to receive any govt benefit funded $$

[@Commenter-s3e]

As a naturalized US citizen...this makes perfect sense! I support President Trump!

[@rmv15-ff8pe]

This has been abused for so long! All past presidents did nothing on this major problem! This is the reason so many have children here because of this birthright situation, so they qualify for benefits!

[@ibuguru]

ALL children have birthright citizenship in their parents' country of citizenship. Keep families together. Children born to NON-citizens of the US are citizens of their parents' country. Take them home with you, or be deported together if a parent is not legally present.

[@jeteagle1457]

Thank You !! Someone is finally shining the truth on this .

[@terrencerogan7881]

Good Luck! I agree with this interpretation. But this is what will happen. When Trump institutes this policy. It will immediately be challenged in the courts, ending up in the Supreme Court. John Roberts will cower, and there will be at least one defector.

[@sjb3460]

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU HAVE WON THE JACKPOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@bilindamueller3154]

Its NOT AN IN TERPRETARION!!!! ITS THE LAW!!!

[@quintrankid8045]

@@bilindamueller3154 LOL

[@arkitectoor]

If you change the interpretation, you can't reteoactively invalidate already issued citizenships. That would be immoral and illegal.

[@Jon.Morimoto]

Your message is serious and logical. Unfortunately, this comment section is full of mouth-foamers demanding retroactive change. They're all about anger and the temporary ecstacy it brings.

[@allib9742]

Trump will get it done

[@briguy9915]

Why didn't he during his first term?

[@TdT2211]

​@@briguy9915 he got the hamburger done! Tf?

[@beentheredonethat814]

@@briguy9915 Are you really that ignorant?

[@TheNucaKola]

@@beentheredonethat814they clearly are

[@legendofman12]

It will take more than 4 years. Who after trump

[@bernardomagana2873]

Subject to the jurisdiction means any territory owned by the United States. This would include Puerto Rico, Guam, Marshall Island and other territories. They are granted birthright citizens until taken away by congress.

[@luddity]

But they don't get to vote. Taxation without representation.

[@rcnelson]

They don't have full citizenship but are somewhere in a gray area. What that means is still being disputed. What we do know is that the America politicians who created this mess were morons.

[@BrianChen-r9b]

Hahaha you wish idiot

[@BrianChen-r9b]

Did you even watch the video?

[@BrianChen-r9b]

Clueless Latinos as usual

[@broederbond60]

Let's end the scam on 1-20-2025!

[@crazysquirrel9425]

Jurisdiction only applies if you are not an illegal ALIEN, Diplomat, nor if you withdrew your consent to be governed.

[@robertcrawford4721]

The Supreme Court will rule that a precedent was set over the last 140 years to reinterpret the amendment

[@rodneytyus]

I have made this same argument for years. Thank you.

[@harrychildress4575]

All “those subject to the jurisdiction”, applies to legal status, and adherents to our Laws. Our Laws REQUIRE that you must enter our Country LEGALLY. Birthright to Non-citizens has never existed, government overreach is to blame. That is where a Dictatorial President could issue a Dictatorial Executive Order to make “illegals citizens”. When in fact, if the facts were important, No Amnesty is legal because it circumvents the Constitution of our Republic. To give illegals benefits, would be to take something from Legal Citizens to accomplish the “Fifth Amendment”. A Gift of Public Funds is NOT allowed in a Constitutional Republic. Maybe we need to start electing “Libertarians” who are far RIGHT of MAGA?

[@marshabaker6153]

ABSOLUTELY!!!

[@carolinegarza8285]

This nonesense....

[@bobcaygeon975]

Laken Riley, Molly Tibbets, say their names!

[@jesuspardinas3874]

Can you name one of the kids massacred in their elementary school by a US citizen? Right, they dont count because they werent killed by a foreigner.

[@user3567tgyhzz]

What was the other one...Ms. Morin, mother of five.

[@jimy-h3z]

Hopefully Trump figures out a way to get rid of this insane rule. We should only allow citizenship if your parents are American citizens, both of them

[@OrangutanKiller-pq5rm]

2:07 It never even even mentioned what were the immigration statuses of the parents of Wong Kim Ark in the case so your argument is already invalid. The concept of resident alien or permanent resident did not exist until after the mid 20th century. If you want to resolve this issue, amend the 14th amendment, let's see you try. Otherwise, stop with this hateful propaganda.

[@bilindamueller3154]

Its the LAW..NOT PROPAGANDA...TRY AND OPEN A BOOK .

[@OrangutanKiller-pq5rm]

@@bilindamueller3154 not being required to perform mandatory jury duty or getting drafted means you ARE subject to the jurisdiction because you are following the law of not being required to do jury duty or getting drafted! It's the same concept as 0 being a number, does not mean none.

[@OrangutanKiller-pq5rm]

@@bilindamueller3154 The fact that noncitizens are exempt from certain civic duties like jury service or the draft doesn't mean they're not under U.S. jurisdiction-it means U.S. laws specifically exempt them from these obligations. These exemptions are a function of being under U.S. jurisdiction.

[@maty5152]

​@bilindamueller3154 yeah exactly, and the Supreme Court ruled birthright citizenship in the kim case. So yeah it's lawful and a precedent. Which makes this video misinformation and propaganda. But everyone knows that they are heavily right leaning and fund a lot of money for their bias. Guess you can't see that?

[@darkplainsdrifter3499]

Then give up your home to an indigenous "migrant"... live your values!

[@adrianpozos3498]

This video is misleading and fails to mention the landmark Supreme Court case US v. Wong Kim ark which essentially guaranteed birth right citizenship to all persons lawfully domiciled in the United States, not to mention that a majority of the states in the union prior to the civil had adopted common law interpretations of birth right citizenship.

[@MarkHanford-r8w]

The only people within the United States and not subject to its jurisdiction are foreign diplomats and native tribes that are exempt by treaty. The principle is called "Jus Soli", and we are not the only country to practice it.

[@tomaszsobocki4639]

Correct. Many countries have birthright citizenship. Brazil is a stellar example. Children born in Brazil are automatically Brazilian citizens, the concept known as jus soli. The only exemption, the children of foreign diplomats. Makes sense! Moreover, parents of the kids born in Brazil, can apply for permanent residency based on the fact that they are now parents of newly "made" Brazilian citizens. Can the US learn from that?

[@colleenmonfross4283]

Wow! Glad Trump is reviewing this. How many millions could be/should be stripped of their citizenship based on the CORRECT interpretation of the 14th Amendment??? Let's get this corrected immediately!

[@RigelsOverlord]

And no government aid should be spent on a single non citizen

[@mary-jvazquez6306]

If employers didn't hire illegals , there would be no illegals. Fyi: in the time of my grandpa, employers would go to Mexico to get employees for cheap labor. Your enemy is not the weakest of them all is your very own.

[@SewingBoxDesigns]

Even citizens have to explain why they had a child in 6 months out of the country before their child can get citizenship. 😑

[@DavidLeeKim]

I want to make this happen. However, the biggest hurdle is to get past the equal protection clause.

[@vickisawyer7405]

bigot. What made you hate people?

[@tylerenglish6696]

I love how Republicans completely understand the full context of an amendment when that interpretation benefits their ideology, but suddenly don’t care when it doesn’t like with the 2nd amendment, which allowed militias to exist and nothing more. But the Supreme Court interpreted it to mean all citizens should have the right to bear arms in order to create militias, just like they decided this in US v Wong Kim Ark in 1898.

[@redfoxsecurity3334]

A militia is simply a group of armed citizens. The words well regulated in the amendment mean well trained and effective. No, the Second Amendment isn’t the government issuing itself a permission to arm itself. Something tells me that when you came across that iconic photo of armed Black Panthers 🐆 from the 1960s, your reaction was closer to “Yayy! 👍 So brave! 🥰” and not “OMG! 🙀 How DARE they usurp government functions! Why are the 👮🏻‍♀️ just standing there and not arresting them?! This picture traumatizes me so much I just caught PTSD! 😿”

[@chucksucks8640]

I don't see the urgency of going after birthright citizenship because it is a small fraction of the total problem of illegal immigration.

[@BelindaBennettJohnson]

It's time to stop this, NOW

[@B1gHagar]

You don't get to keep stolen property. Thief steals a watch. Pawns the watch. What happens when the police come? The watch is returned to the rightful owners.

[@jessicah3782]

The same amendment and laws, like this is what the people in power choose, who has access to citizenship rights. Remember, the native Americans were not considered citizens for some time. Japanese American citizenship were taken away and given back.

[@quintrankid8045]

Native Americas are a special case because they get mentioned as independent nations in the COTUS that the federal government made treaties with. They gained citizenship by an act of Congress since they are not A14 citizens.

[@Noneyobisness]

Please Mr. Trump enforce this law!

[@sandyjohnson5111]

It’s a constitutional amendment. Your mango Messiah doesn’t have the power to alter the constitution because he doesn’t like certain parts of it. BTW, go fuck yourself Heritage Foundation. You just can’t make the rules up as you go.

[@georgekucharo1960]

Amen! This is EXACTLY TRUE!!!

[@subispaceship]

DEPORTTTTTT🎉

[@PeaceOfGrace]

Misinterpreting or downright fraudulent misrepresentation?

[@georgekucharo1960]

Purposeful misinterpretation

[@humantacos9800]

I’ve never met someone against legal immigration or work visas. The only rare exception has been some middle eastern countries after 9/11.

[@D_B6]

Dual citizenship is a different matter. Children born in America of US citizens and legal immgrants ARE US citizens. This does not apply to the truckloads/planeloads of pregnant ladies whose children are born almost as they cross the border or land on US soil. There is nothing difficult about this!

[@leoavila915]

I got lucky

[@fernandodeleon3454]

THIS is what needs to be brought into and taught in our schools from the 9th up to graduation. This needs to be one of the main subjects to graduate.

[@Ge45eg32]

Amen ! Clarity is a must...and you are 100% correct.

[@EvilEtan]

Yea, say whatever you want

[@samspade2131]

The HF used to be an intelligent advocate for conservative thought. Now it’s a cesspool. And, oh, it’s wrong on this topic as well.