Digital vs Traditional Revealed, Trump's Birthright Citizenship Controversy & Border Dispute.
video description
Date: 2019-11-01
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
xaero5150
Ok Phil, you are wrong. The only country in the world that recognizes the children of ILLEGALS as citizens, is the US. Other nations(and the US) recognize the children of temporary LEGAL residents as citizens, but NOT the children of diplomats. To realize why, one needs only look at the writings of one Jacob M. Howard, senator from Michigan. In the congressional record, which you can look up, he CLEARLY states This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, INCLUDE PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES WHO ARE FOREIGNERS, ALIENS, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. Seems pretty damn clear to me, and this guy wrote the amendment language that people are arguing about. So here is the issue: Can Trump change this by executive order, NO. That is because the original intent was to not allow for illegals to get birthright citizenship in the first place. So if Trump signs an executive order, and that order is challenged to the SCOTUS, the SCOTUS is free to rule that birthright citizenship was never a thing on the first place. Point out the official record of congress where the author of the language details his proposed meaning and the SCOTUS would have no choice but to declare that the executive order is moot because the underlying language was already there. With a 5-4 majority, and the official record, that is what would happen. This makes an interesting point. If Trump signs an executive order, and it is not challenged, it applies from that day forward. If he makes an executive order and the court finds that the common interpretation is wrong, and that the law has been misapplied, then it applies to forever. Millions of anchor babies would be deportable, because the law was misapplied.
reply
Ok Phil, you are wrong. The only country in the world that recognizes the children of ILLEGALS as citizens, is the US. Other nations(and the US) recognize the children of temporary LEGAL residents as citizens, but NOT the children of diplomats. To realize why, one needs only look at the writings of one Jacob M. Howard, senator from Michigan. In the congressional record, which you can look up, he CLEARLY states This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, INCLUDE PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES WHO ARE FOREIGNERS, ALIENS, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. Seems pretty damn clear to me, and this guy wrote the amendment language that people are arguing about. So here is the issue: Can Trump change this by executive order, NO. That is because the original intent was to not allow for illegals to get birthright citizenship in the first place. So if Trump signs an executive order, and that order is challenged to the SCOTUS, the SCOTUS is free to rule that birthright citizenship was never a thing on the first place. Point out the official record of congress where the author of the language details his proposed meaning and the SCOTUS would have no choice but to declare that the executive order is moot because the underlying language was already there. With a 5-4 majority, and the official record, that is what would happen. This makes an interesting point. If Trump signs an executive order, and it is not challenged, it applies from that day forward. If he makes an executive order and the court finds that the common interpretation is wrong, and that the law has been misapplied, then it applies to forever. Millions of anchor babies would be deportable, because the law was misapplied.
reply
wemii76
I'm not a big proponent of how they want to handle this caravan but at the same time I hate people spouting BS to make a political statement. In a scenario like this you have to prepare in advance any time your dealing with a large group of people. Whether it's at a music festival or your proven weakest border. Thing is all of these people Shepard Smith included are lying about how close the caravan is. I did research using a article from from New York times which tagged their location a week ago and then did some basic Google maps directions using walking as the option and though it's not like tomorrow this caravan depending on what transportation help they get could get to the border in about a week and a half (10 days) not the 3 weeks they are all quoting so coordinating additional help through soldiers or national guard right now isn't really that odd considering how long it takes to complete the logistics. We are talking our whole southern border until we know where they intend to cross so its platoons of people needed at first. Your not deploying Seal team six to take out Bin Laden here. Your moving the equivalent to an entire medium size city spread out across the border until an entry point is determined then cut it back after that. Yeah its partially sabre rattling ahead of the election, but it really is just circumstantial too by to have things ready for when they get here the week after the elections are done you got to start getting stuff moved around sooner than later. Boy scout rule: Always be prepared.
reply
I'm not a big proponent of how they want to handle this caravan but at the same time I hate people spouting BS to make a political statement. In a scenario like this you have to prepare in advance any time your dealing with a large group of people. Whether it's at a music festival or your proven weakest border. Thing is all of these people Shepard Smith included are lying about how close the caravan is. I did research using a article from from New York times which tagged their location a week ago and then did some basic Google maps directions using walking as the option and though it's not like tomorrow this caravan depending on what transportation help they get could get to the border in about a week and a half (10 days) not the 3 weeks they are all quoting so coordinating additional help through soldiers or national guard right now isn't really that odd considering how long it takes to complete the logistics. We are talking our whole southern border until we know where they intend to cross so its platoons of people needed at first. Your not deploying Seal team six to take out Bin Laden here. Your moving the equivalent to an entire medium size city spread out across the border until an entry point is determined then cut it back after that. Yeah its partially sabre rattling ahead of the election, but it really is just circumstantial too by to have things ready for when they get here the week after the elections are done you got to start getting stuff moved around sooner than later. Boy scout rule: Always be prepared.
reply
Ratherbejaded
I consider myself a democratic socialist, I was a huge Bernie Sanders supporter (still am) and campaigned hard for him. While I agree on almost every issue that is considered progressive. immigration is the one I have a much more republican view on. I think birthright citizenship should end as well, or at least be seriously changed. My stance is, if you are here illegally, your children should not get to be a citizen and reap the benefits of babies born to legal citizens. 7% of babies born every year is to illegals? Thats way too high If we didnt have birthright citizenship, it would stop a lot of people from coming here illegally. I do think though that as long as one parent is a citizen or legal resident, whether temporary or not, they should get citizenship. I also think that this shouldnt be retroactive, so any child who was granted birthright citizenship shouldnt have that revoked. It should only be going forward. But, since I am for the most part a progressive and democratic socialist, I still vote that way, so know it probably wont change. And Im not gonna vote for a Republican whos anti pro choice, free healthcare, free college etc, just because they agree with my stance on immigration. But if there was ever a prop or law that could be voted on by citizens, I would definitely vote to ratify the amendment.
reply
I consider myself a democratic socialist, I was a huge Bernie Sanders supporter (still am) and campaigned hard for him. While I agree on almost every issue that is considered progressive. immigration is the one I have a much more republican view on. I think birthright citizenship should end as well, or at least be seriously changed. My stance is, if you are here illegally, your children should not get to be a citizen and reap the benefits of babies born to legal citizens. 7% of babies born every year is to illegals? Thats way too high If we didnt have birthright citizenship, it would stop a lot of people from coming here illegally. I do think though that as long as one parent is a citizen or legal resident, whether temporary or not, they should get citizenship. I also think that this shouldnt be retroactive, so any child who was granted birthright citizenship shouldnt have that revoked. It should only be going forward. But, since I am for the most part a progressive and democratic socialist, I still vote that way, so know it probably wont change. And Im not gonna vote for a Republican whos anti pro choice, free healthcare, free college etc, just because they agree with my stance on immigration. But if there was ever a prop or law that could be voted on by citizens, I would definitely vote to ratify the amendment.
reply
Giotto Laudo
Birthright citizenship isn't in the Constitution. The fourteenth Amendment was about slaves period, exclamation point. It did not, and does not confer an imaginary constitutionally guaranteed right to citizenship to anyone who is lucky enough to be born on American soil. As such, there's no reason that Trump can't use an executive order to command the departments under the purview of the Executive Branch (of which he is the head) to refuse to grant citizenship to children of illegal immigrants. Diplomats have kids here rather frequently, and those children are not granted citizenship. This is no different. Again, birthright citizenship is not in the constitution. Mandatory granting of citizenship to slaves and the children of slaves owned by American citizens is in the constitution. That's what the fourteenth Amendment was for. And that's why American Indians weren't considered citizens until after 1924 An Act of Congress was required (The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924) People who pretend that the fourteenth Amendment made it so that the constitution guaranteed citizenship to anyone born on American soil, regardless of parentage, are either lying or frightfully ignorant; and in either case, they should be ashamed of themselves.
reply
Birthright citizenship isn't in the Constitution. The fourteenth Amendment was about slaves period, exclamation point. It did not, and does not confer an imaginary constitutionally guaranteed right to citizenship to anyone who is lucky enough to be born on American soil. As such, there's no reason that Trump can't use an executive order to command the departments under the purview of the Executive Branch (of which he is the head) to refuse to grant citizenship to children of illegal immigrants. Diplomats have kids here rather frequently, and those children are not granted citizenship. This is no different. Again, birthright citizenship is not in the constitution. Mandatory granting of citizenship to slaves and the children of slaves owned by American citizens is in the constitution. That's what the fourteenth Amendment was for. And that's why American Indians weren't considered citizens until after 1924 An Act of Congress was required (The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924) People who pretend that the fourteenth Amendment made it so that the constitution guaranteed citizenship to anyone born on American soil, regardless of parentage, are either lying or frightfully ignorant; and in either case, they should be ashamed of themselves.
reply
Liam Mitchell
Essentially, this would be denying citizenship to anyone who's parents are from this country, so its kinda impossible to become a US citizen if you or your parents aren't from here to begin with. It's an isolationist policy. America has always had an anti-immigration, and nationalist viewpoint, which I disagree with. We are all immigrants. First it was the Scots-Irish, then the Italians, now Muslims and Latin Americans. Sorry, there are domestic terrorists born to American families who shoot up schools and commit crimes. I totally disagree with scapegoating immigrants (because that is all trump is doing) saying they commit all our crimes, because the fact is they don't. Not even close. There is no feasible reason to deny citizenship to people born in this country. None, but scapegoating. Scapegoating is nationalist, and totalitarian, because it is simplifying things that CANNOT BE SIMPLIFIED. Crime in America should always be looked at in an unbiased, not racially or culturally motivated, case of justice. So why should we secure our borders or citizenship against something that isn't threatening?
reply
Essentially, this would be denying citizenship to anyone who's parents are from this country, so its kinda impossible to become a US citizen if you or your parents aren't from here to begin with. It's an isolationist policy. America has always had an anti-immigration, and nationalist viewpoint, which I disagree with. We are all immigrants. First it was the Scots-Irish, then the Italians, now Muslims and Latin Americans. Sorry, there are domestic terrorists born to American families who shoot up schools and commit crimes. I totally disagree with scapegoating immigrants (because that is all trump is doing) saying they commit all our crimes, because the fact is they don't. Not even close. There is no feasible reason to deny citizenship to people born in this country. None, but scapegoating. Scapegoating is nationalist, and totalitarian, because it is simplifying things that CANNOT BE SIMPLIFIED. Crime in America should always be looked at in an unbiased, not racially or culturally motivated, case of justice. So why should we secure our borders or citizenship against something that isn't threatening?
reply
Jing-yen
Canadian opinion: It shouldn't matter whether your parents are in a country legally, but it should matter whether you are actually in a country. The problem I see with birthright citizenship in Canada is birth tourism. Many people (including three of my own first cousins, are deliberately born here during a short (2-3 month) stay to two foreign parents on short-term visas, and then grow up entirely in their home country, only using the passport for visa-free travel, cheap uni, and to escape political turmoil. I don't blame parents at all; its canny and I'd also do anything for my kids. I also think its clever way for the government attract more wealthy citizens. But I don't think its ethical: it devalues the citizenship of actual residents. Citizenship should be dependent on living in a place, like if you get permanent residency at birth and full citizenship after 5 years of residency. TL: DR I think citizenship should depend on residency.
reply
Canadian opinion: It shouldn't matter whether your parents are in a country legally, but it should matter whether you are actually in a country. The problem I see with birthright citizenship in Canada is birth tourism. Many people (including three of my own first cousins, are deliberately born here during a short (2-3 month) stay to two foreign parents on short-term visas, and then grow up entirely in their home country, only using the passport for visa-free travel, cheap uni, and to escape political turmoil. I don't blame parents at all; its canny and I'd also do anything for my kids. I also think its clever way for the government attract more wealthy citizens. But I don't think its ethical: it devalues the citizenship of actual residents. Citizenship should be dependent on living in a place, like if you get permanent residency at birth and full citizenship after 5 years of residency. TL: DR I think citizenship should depend on residency.
reply
Aesma
France is not counted as having birthright citizenship, but we still have jus soli, and you can abuse the system. You just can't do it like rich Russian or Chinese people do in the US, having their kids born in the US to get a passport then get the kid back to their country. But if an (illegal or legal) immigrant has children on French soil, the kid will almost certainly end up with French citizenship at some point. Where this is blatantly abused is on the island of Mayotte, where women in labor make the short boat trip from the Comoros to give birth on Mayotte. As a consequence the mothers are usually sent back, and the baby left with relatives already settled in Mayotte (this is not a forced separation, the child can of course be sent back too.
reply
France is not counted as having birthright citizenship, but we still have jus soli, and you can abuse the system. You just can't do it like rich Russian or Chinese people do in the US, having their kids born in the US to get a passport then get the kid back to their country. But if an (illegal or legal) immigrant has children on French soil, the kid will almost certainly end up with French citizenship at some point. Where this is blatantly abused is on the island of Mayotte, where women in labor make the short boat trip from the Comoros to give birth on Mayotte. As a consequence the mothers are usually sent back, and the baby left with relatives already settled in Mayotte (this is not a forced separation, the child can of course be sent back too.
reply
Fred Zeppelin
I really don't get what the big deal is about the whole caravan/border situation, there are laws in place that should be followed. People have to legally apply for citizenship, a whole lot of people are currently doing it and if the caravan plan to just barge in they are only making things worse for everyone. If you want to get into a country you have to abide by their rules, is that concept really that preposterous? Is it ok to break laws just because you disagree with them perhaps? People seem to think their opinion on things are more important than the society they live/are trying to live in. Maybe I think cars should be free so that must mean it's a-ok for me to just waltz into a dealership and drive one out of the doors right?
reply
I really don't get what the big deal is about the whole caravan/border situation, there are laws in place that should be followed. People have to legally apply for citizenship, a whole lot of people are currently doing it and if the caravan plan to just barge in they are only making things worse for everyone. If you want to get into a country you have to abide by their rules, is that concept really that preposterous? Is it ok to break laws just because you disagree with them perhaps? People seem to think their opinion on things are more important than the society they live/are trying to live in. Maybe I think cars should be free so that must mean it's a-ok for me to just waltz into a dealership and drive one out of the doors right?
reply
Ollie Pollock
Im a birthright citizen of Canada from the UK, I served my country for 15years and am very grateful to be a citizen here. Understandably it has now become an issue for countries to not be so fast and loose with their borders, it is foreseeable that with rising populations and greater divisions between haves and have nots we will only see more of these mass immigrations in the future. Its maybe not so clear to the general public how dedicated we are to needing these radical actions to preserve their way of life. As long as we want things to stay the same or improve for our economies we will see these situations become more dire. Stand by for human rights violations in the coming decade.
reply
Im a birthright citizen of Canada from the UK, I served my country for 15years and am very grateful to be a citizen here. Understandably it has now become an issue for countries to not be so fast and loose with their borders, it is foreseeable that with rising populations and greater divisions between haves and have nots we will only see more of these mass immigrations in the future. Its maybe not so clear to the general public how dedicated we are to needing these radical actions to preserve their way of life. As long as we want things to stay the same or improve for our economies we will see these situations become more dire. Stand by for human rights violations in the coming decade.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
12:19
13:47
14:30
12:51