Illegal Immigration and Birthright Citizenship | America Uncovered

Illegal Immigration and Birthright Citizenship | America Uncovered

There are 11 million illegal immigrants in
America. They have 300,000 babies a year. All of them automatically become US citizens. But now Donald Trump wants to change that…
with an executive order. Hi, welcome to America Uncovered. I’m your host Chris Chappell. President Trump once again has people asking…can
he…do that? At the end of October, Trump sat down with Axios to talk about immigration and revealed he’s thinking about ending
birthright citizenship. “On immigration, some legal scholars believe you can get rid of birthright citizenship
without changing the Constitution…” “With an Executive Order…” “Exactly…” “Right.” “Have you thought about that?” “Yes” “Tell me more” “It was always told to me that you needed a Constitutional Amendment. Guess what? You don’t — number one. Number one you don’t need that…. “ “I mean that’s in dispute. That’s very much in dispute” “Well, you can definitely do it with an
Act of Congress. But now they are saying I can do it with an
Executive Order. Now how ridiculous… we are the only country in the world, where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the
United states for 85 years with all of those benefits. It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end. “ “Have you talked about that with counsel?” “Yeah. I have.” “So where in the process…” “It’s in the process, it will happen… with an Executive Order that’s what you are talking about. It’s interesting. I didn’t think anybody knew that but me. I thought I was the only one. Jonathan… I’m impressed.” “I’ve got a good guess. Good guess.” “I’m impressed.” Aww, I feel like they really had a moment
there. Birthright citizenship is something Trump
spoke about on the campaign trail. But many Republican Party officials expressed
concern that this issue that could cost Republicans
the Latino vote. So a lot of people thought Trump wouldn’t
bring it up again. But they forgot: Controversial is Donald Trump’s
middle name. Just kidding. His middle name is John. So what is birthright citizenship? As it’s interpreted now, it means any child born within the borders
of the United States is automatically a US citizen including children born to parents who are
in the country illegally, on a temporary visa, or as tourists. It comes from the 14th Amendment which says, “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.” Obviously anything to do with immigration creates a lot of strong feelings on both sides. Birthright citizenship has been challenged
before, by both Democrats and Republicans. For clarity: The controversy here is not really about whether the children of
immigrants should become US citizens. It’s been that way for a long time. The issue now is mainly about whether the children of illegal immigrants should. In 1993, Democratic Senator Harry Reid introduced this bill to limit birthright citizenship. At the time, he said, “If you break our laws by entering this
country… Wait, hold on. Is that in Fox News? Fox News is quoting a Democrat to prove their
point. It truly is an age of wonder. Anyway, Harry Reid said, “If you break our laws by entering this
country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship. And guarantee of full access to all public and social services this society
provides and that’s a lot of services.” That was 25 years ago, and Reid later changed his stance on birthright
citizenship. But today birthright citizenship is no less
controversial. Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’
Rights Project, wrote, “The president cannot erase the Constitution with an executive order. This is a transparent and blatantly unconstitutional
attempt to sow division and fan the flames of anti-immigrant
hatred.” While Democratic Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi released a statement that starts out talking about birthright citizenship, and ends up attacking Republicans on healthcare. Now that is a seasoned politician. On the other side, Jessica Vaughan, the policy director at Center
for Immigration Studies said, “there are legitimate legal questions about how we have interpreted [birthright
citizenship] in many different scenarios.” And Republican Senator Marco Rubio said about Trump’s announcement, “Everybody should take a deep breath. Let’s take a deep breath here for a minute.” Ahhhhhh. Yeah, I don’t feel any better. So let’s go back to the 14th Amendment for
a moment. Now no one is arguing that if your parents are citizens or legal
residents, you shouldn’t get to be a citizen. Well, except for me. I think things should be run more like Starship
Troopers, where you only get citizenship if you fight
giant space bugs. “Join the mobile infantry and save the world. Service guarantees citizenship.” Things would be so much simpler if this were the only alien we were arguing
about. Anyway, it’s this part of the 14th Amendment that’s the sticking point: “and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof.” What does that mean? If you’re born in the US, aren’t you also subject to its laws? Isn’t anyone in the United States, even an illegal immigrant, subject to US laws? Isn’t that just redundant? Well, this is where it gets complicated. The 14th Amendment was originally about granting citizenship to former slaves. Before the 14th Amendment, the 1857 Supreme Court ruling on the Dred
Scott case had said people of African descent are not
entitled to citizenship, regardless of where they were born, or whether they were slaves or free. But one bloody civil war later, the 14th Amendment was ratified and that part of the Dred Scott ruling was
overturned. The reason the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was added to the 14th Amendment was thanks largely to Senator Jacob M. Howard. He argued that it wasn’t redundant, but clarified the meaning of “All persons born or naturalized in the
United States.” In other words, according to the Senator, “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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.” Clearly, it did not remove all doubt. But Senator Howard’s main purpose was to exclude American Indians who were subject to the jurisdiction of their
tribe, and therefore not “subject to the jurisdiction”
of the United States. Don’t you love legalise? So, in its original interpretation, the 14th Amendment excluded a lot of people. That interpretation did not last forever,
though. But not because of concerns from Indians or even African Americans. It was actually a Chinese man, Wong Kim Ark. At the time, Chinese people weren’t allowed to become US citizens because of the Chinese
Exclusion Act. In an 1898 US Supreme Court case, Wong argued that since he was born in the
US and his parents had permanent domicile, he was entitled to citizenship. In a 6-2 ruling, the Supreme Court agreed
with him. Then, in 1924, Congress passed the Indian
Citizenship Act, granting citizenship to all American Indians. And in 1982, using the United States v. Wong
Kim Ark as a precedent, the Supreme Court ruled on the case of Plyler
v. Doe. Texas had passed a state law denying funding to K through 12 schools for educating children
of illegal immigrants. The Supreme Court struck it down. The majority opinion wrote that the law was unfair because children of illegal immigrants didn’t have a choice about whether to be
in the country. In addition, the judges were concerned that denying these kids an education would lead
to “the creation and perpetuation of a subclass
of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the
problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime.” Now however you feel about that, the case only dealt with a very specific situation:
School funding. According to the Congressional Research Service, “The courts apparently have never ruled on the specific issues of whether the native-born
child of unauthorized aliens, as opposed to the child of lawfully present
aliens, may be a U.S. citizen.” So President Trump’s challenge to birthright
citizenship could result in exactly that clarification. As the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute
points out “Illegal aliens and their children can be
prosecuted and convicted under US law, unlike diplomats, or foreign invaders, and the countries of origin can hardly make a ‘jurisdictional’ claim on kids
born in America.” But that still is a relatively recent interpretation. John Eastman, a constitutional scholar and director of Chapman University’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, told Axios “Until the 1960s, the 14th Amendment was never applied to undocumented or temporary
immigrants.” And he told the Epoch Times, “Near as I have been able to determine, a bureaucrat changed the form in the passport
office to exclude questions about a child’s parental
status at his birth. That had previously been a key part of the
passport application, which required proof of citizenship.” But really, how big an issue is this? Are there that many children of illegal immigrants who are getting automatic citizenship? Well, according to the Pew Research Center, there were tens of thousands each year in
the 80s, eventually reaching a peak of 370,000 a year
in 2007. It’s gone down a little bit since then. So under the current policy, these 2 to 3 hundred thousand children born
each year are immediately entitled to the same rights
as any other US citizen. They potentially get food assistance and other welfare benefits that can be collected on their behalf by their parents, even though the parents are illegal immigrants. “Many of the welfare costs associated with
illegal immigration, therefore, are due to the current birthright
citizenship policy.” In 2012 that meant that 62% of illegal immigrant headed households were on some form of welfare. It’s greater in some states. In 2013, according to then Los Angeles County
Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich, “the total cost for illegal immigrants to county taxpayers exceeds $1.6 billion dollars a year.” Then there’s the issue of birth tourism. People visiting to the US just to have their
kids here. More on that after this short commercial break. Birth tourism. As the Center for Immigration Study says, “An entire industry of ‘birth tourism’
has been created and the phenomenon of pregnant women traveling
(legally) to the United States specifically for the
purpose of giving birth on U.S. soil has grown largely without any debate in Congress or the consent of the public.” Birth Tourism has become a big business from
Russia, China, even countries like Nigeria. There are no clear statistics on how much birth tourism there is, and it’s something the US government is
trying to stop. Because it can have far reaching consequences. At 21 years old, a US citizen can sponsor their extended family, who can then in turn sponsor their extended
family. Of course, that’s two decades from now,
so… it’ll be someone else’s problem. Of course, that’s what they said 20 years
ago. The question today is, can Trump change all this with an executive
order? Well, he can’t change the constitution with
one. In order to make a constitutional amendment, it requires support from two-thirds of Congress as well as ratification from three-quarters
of states. But Trump might not need a constitutional
amendment. According to Michael Anton, a former spokesman for Mr. Trump’s National
Security Council, “An executive order could specify to federal
agencies that the children of noncitizens are not citizens.” And according to the Heritage Foundation, “The president has the constitutional authority to direct executive agencies to act in accordance with the original meaning of the Citizenship
Clause, and to direct agencies to issue passports, Social Security numbers, etc., only to those whose status as citizens is clear under the
current law.” Of course, whatever Trump does will almost certainly be challenged in court. And eventually it may go the US Supreme Court. A Supreme Court that currently has a 5-4 conservative
lead with two Justices appointed by President Trump. Of course there’s another possibility. Senate Republican Lindsey Graham has said he will also introduce legislation to end birthright citizenship to illegal immigrants. Congress has already set a precedent that they can interpret who falls under the
14th Amendment. That’s what they did with the Indian Citizenship
Act of 1924. So that’s another way the Trump administration could end birthright citizenship for illegal
immigrants without changing the constitution. Of course, a congressional decision could
always get sent to the Supreme Court as well, but… However it happens, it looks like a strong possibility we will be seeing some new —or at least clearer— rules about who counts as “subject to the
jurisdiction thereof.” How does the rest of the world treat birthright
citizenship? Only about 30 countries have it. Almost all of them are in the Western Hemisphere. Which make sense, considering that a few hundred years ago, these are the countries that were being populated
by European colonists. And now let’s conveniently gloss over that
part of history. But the general trend over the last few decades has been for countries to get rid of birthright
citizenship. Australia, Ireland, India, New Zealand, the
United Kingdom, Malta, and the Dominican Republic have all changed their laws, often for the
reasons mentioned above. The main arguments people have made for getting rid of birthright citizenship
for illegal immigrants are that it encourages more people to immigrate
illegally; and it also uses up taxpayer resources to help families that broke the country’s
laws from the very beginning. On the other hand, while getting rid of birthright citizenship will discourage some people from coming to the US just to have kids, it can also lead to other problems. For example, it could lead to a permanent
underclass in society the people who are descended from illegal
immigrants, who don’t have any opportunities to join
mainstream society. This has historically been a problem in other
countries, where “these noncitizen youths are more prone to crime and extreme political ideologies like communism.” That’s one reason the libertarian Cato Institute actually supports birthright citizenship. That and its ability to help assimilate immigrants into American society. Some people consider it “unfair” to punish children for the crimes of their
parents while others consider it “unfair” to give illegal immigrants the same automatic
rights and benefits as legal residents. Besides, getting rid of birthright citizenship probably won’t make very many of the 11 million illegal immigrants currently
in the US return to their home countries. As with so many issues in this country, liberals and conservatives aren’t necessarily
arguing about the same thing. From Obama to Trump, leaders on both sides have said we need to stop illegal immigration. But will ending birthright citizenship do
that? And are the additional problems it might create
worth it? What do you think? Leave your comments below. And remember, this show requires a lot of
research to produce. So please, contribute to America Uncovered on the crowd funding website Patreon. Go to to learn
more. Once again I’m your host Chris Chappell. Thanks for watching America Uncovered.


  1. Post
    America Uncovered

    As some of you have pointed out, according to a new Yale study, there are possibly 22 million illegal immigrants living in the United States, double the 11 million we cited. Of course it's impossible to know for certain exactly how many there are, I wanted to provide this additional source. Thanks to everyone who pointed me in the direction of this study!

  2. Post
    Graham X

    Not sure how I feel about this one. There are many good reasons to end birth right citizenship, but given the large numbers of illegal immigrants in the US, it is certain that this will create an under-class of multi-generational illegals that can't receive any education, etc causing them to gravitate towards crime and in general making American society worse off. I guess the question is whether the potential decrease in illegal immigration will be worth these trade offs.

  3. Post
  4. Post
    publius scipio

    This was designed for post slavery America, the issue it was meant for is well passed. Now it is not only not needed it is damaging. Plz get rid of now god emperor Chris.

  5. Post
  6. Post
    Just cats

    Regardless of how each of us feels about this issue it still would be nice to get clarity on what it actually means in the courts.

  7. Post
    Didddin duuu nufffin Wakanda enn shiiieet

    Also you Americans could make a law for example tourist etc can’t be past 3 moths pregnant tor just eliminate it all together

  8. Post

    I saw a very pregnant Chinese lady and her comparatively relaxed husband arriving at Melbourne airport. Unless I’m ignorant of the laws governing my own country (which I might be), I knew just what this couple was (legally) up to. I hope Trump succeeds on this one, and that Australia and other Western countries do the same. Of course, Aboriginal people and descendants of those brought as slaves should totally be recognised as full citizens without question.

  9. Post
    Tom Chen

    Please stop citing the Epoch Times, it really undermines your channel's credibility. It's such a partisan and political media one can argue it's just FLG propaganda.

  10. Post
  11. Post
  12. Post
  13. Post
    loli protection agency

    In biased news to the point that I can't choose which one would be the better option
    I mean its a good thing to let other into the country like babies for a better chance of life with the ability to have a better life but at what cost? It could utterly fail and screw us over in the end

  14. Post
  15. Post
    KJR Channel

    It would be a simple thing to state that children born in the US would only be a legal citizens. If at the time of birth at least one parent was legal or pending the outcome of a parents succesful current citizenship application.

  16. Post
  17. Post

    If trump do this it’ll weaken the second amendment. He should focus on the wall to protect us and the 14 amendment along with the second.

  18. Post
  19. Post
  20. Post
  21. Post
  22. Post
  23. Post
  24. Post
    Shane Funk

    Have to agree with Trump on this one like usual. If we cant keep people from shitting up America then we at least need to get somebody over here worth them dropping a baby in the first place. Russia, Sweden. heloooooooooo. We need something a little more easy on the freaking eyes that have two brain cells to rub together.

  25. Post
  26. Post
    Juan Duenas

    Illegals are not under the jurisdiction of America. Only people legally here, and citizens are under the jurisdiction of the United states.

  27. Post
  28. Post
    corrado alamanni

    be mindfull of patreon look up sargon's banning , they are getting big on banning people for political reason , maybe an other platform like subscribe star would be better!

  29. Post
    Calvin Hicks

    End birthright Citizenship now, if you’re born in the states to a parent or both parents that are citizens then fine but if not, they should wait until ages 18 to receive citizenship just like Switzerland

  30. Post
    Mike Hancock

    Anyone reading our constitution will know birth right is not legal.. Our problem is citizens not even reading our constitution. People read it and then form an opinion. We have a population that's getting dumber by the year.

  31. Post
    M. Low

    All laws should be re-evaluated at some point to see if they're needed any longer or not. At one point Birthright citizenship may have made sense, however if it persists it will destroy the white race, we all know white people have a very low birth rate and it's getting lower due to homosexuality, drug and alcohol overdose, High suicide rate and a very low sperm count lower than anyone else. In order for white people to stay relevant Birthright citizenship must be abolished or adjusted somehow or white people will be forced to live in a country full of the descendants of people they have historically mistreated, but the tables will be turned they will be the minority for the very first time, oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive LOL things are getting better year by year what goes around comes around, every dog will have its day, what goes up must come down LOL revenge is sweet payback's a bitch.

  32. Post
  33. Post
  34. Post
    Rebecca Perez

    That would be the best solution President Trump would do…Best would be reversed RETRO ANCHOR BABY'S 50 years….

  35. Post
    sachelle babbar

    Chris, it's not "illegal" anymore. The term is "irregular" to signify that migration and immigration is no longer "legal" or "illegal" because there are now lots of in betweens and migration that doesn't end up in immigration at all, especially with the refugee crisis. This is the kind of far-right incitement nonsense I expect from Epoch Times (which is largely said to be one of the parties behind America and China Uncovered) along with the somewhat to far-right Cato Institute, who makes no secret of its standpoint against immigration, which they also love carrying out and peddling the extreme, radical-right narrative in Europe. "Irregular" is an internationally-recognized term and is now replacing the obsolete "illegal", which the far- and extreme-right is desperately holding onto.

    The Center for Immigration Studies is often classified as a hate group, but regardless, it's not even close to a legitimate source. That should tell you all you need to know about this guy. Then comes The Heritage Foundation, another far-right research group cited often by white supremacists.

    So I'm guessing these are all coincidences?

  36. Post
  37. Post

    Imagine if a burglar got to simply keep your stuff and received immediate immunity if he was able to get your stuff to his house. That’s birth right fake and fraudulent citizenship. It’s plain and simply theft and destruction of America and democracy, the power over the government that is stolen by foreign nationals.

  38. Post
  39. Post

    I like your pic on the video it looks like the woman is carrying a sack of potatoes instead of a child it looks like the child is a burden to her rather than A love ❤️.

  40. Post
    Suz Q

    If birthright citizenship isn't reformed, we'll end up having another bloody civil war. Birth 'tourism' is the epitome of this scam – they have no intention of ever living under US jurisdiction or paying taxes…they just want their children to have US passports and perhaps send them to US schools later on. They're not citizens in any way beyond paper.

  41. Post
    Tiffany Leslie

    I know of cases of tourism citizenship from Caribbean countries, also. Great reporting! Thought provoking and reasonable. Keep it up!!

  42. Post
  43. Post
    Everything You Need To Know

    Like the right to bear arms. This constitutional law was set before we had such sophistocated weapons or advances in technology. Technology disrupts laws and they need updating.
    You can now travel across a the world in a plane in a day to give birth, this was never the case when the constitution was set!
    Law should be updated to accommodate new technologies such as planes and vehicles.

  44. Post
  45. Post
  46. Post
  47. Post
    JJ Flash

    There are not 11M illegal immigrants in the United States.  There are close to 30M.  The automatic right of birthright citizenship needs to be revoked.

  48. Post
    ThomasTheSailor Chubby

    It's ILLEGAL for anyone to benefit from a Crime.. Children born to illegals, are collecting benefits, directly related to their Parent's crimes of Border Jumping…. US Citizenship offers a ton of Money benefits ..
     I know in Connecticut, Full Welfare benefits amounts to well over $40,000 a year .. Including free Housing, Food, Fuel assistants, Healthcare, etc… Children of Illegals, can support their Alien parents with all that….

  49. Post
    Carmen Childers

    There is no such thing as an, "anchor baby". If you are caught living in the U.S. illegally, your U.S. born children will be deported with you and they can come back as adults. You can take my birthright citizenship away if you want. You can also pay to relocate me to Germany. I've paid into the tax system for over twenty years already and I have another twenty to go. I'm just as entitled to access the welfare system as any other working adult in the U.S. If you don't like it refund my tax dollars and I'll gladly relocate.

  50. Post
    Annas R Zulficar

    Now I know why this channel doesn't have a lot of sub, this channel provide unbiased information and from both sides, I mean, who wants that? We all just want news that support our side!

  51. Post
    Tyler Chubb

    look, ILLEGALS, they aren't completely subjected to the "law of the land"… what taxes, insurance, yada yada they everyone else is subjected to? They're Illegally here, so how do you tax them, and subject our law unless they get caught?

  52. Post
  53. Post
  54. Post

    With how things are going now, it seems necessary. And the sooner the better.
    And we already have a large number of illiterates in the country either way,.

  55. Post

    DAAAAANG! Melania Trump and her parents got lucky to have become legal citizens before the birthright citizenship ended.

  56. Post

    It’s true that a USA citizen can apply for legal status for his/her illegal family BUT that is IF the family entered the country legally (the family might have been living illegally for decades even though they came legally). If the family entered illegally they don’t have rights to apply for legal status. They family MUST leave the country and request legal status outside the country after 10 years because immigration penalized the illegal alien for ten years before allowing him/her to obtain legal entry back to the country.

  57. Post
    Shawana Washington

    11 million?? Uh uh. There are 65 illegal aliens in America in 2018. That 11mm figure has been dragged forward from the 1980's. It doesn't change because 'they' don't want you to know it's 65MM.

  58. Post

    11 million? they have been using that number for over a decade lol the estimate is between 30-50 million, and here i liked your channel.

  59. Post
    Josh Brackelsberg

    I think they just want to put more people in detention camps to make money. They hardly ever seem to report them or fine employer's who hire them.

    Without any discouragement employer's are often forced to hire illegals or else they can't compete on equal terms with those that do

  60. Post
    Zol z

    There has to a serious discussion on the 14th amendment and what it should actually take to be a citizen in any country for that matter…honestly just being born here isn't enough in my book 2 years of public service, military service or something similar along with a test proving you are capable of voting is needed to prevent demagogue parties from seizing power

  61. Post
    Richard Harris

    Hooray! Finally someone else who knows that the Starship Trooper model of citizenship is the way to go! But Chris, plz, NO more references to that crappy movie with nothing in common with the excellent SF book except the name.

  62. Post
  63. Post

    After years of observing the illegal immigration problem, I have to conclude that the only practical way to lower illegal immigration is to FIRST to enforce the border vigorously, then grant a conditional amnesty to those already here, creating a fast process of making them citizens. Having open borders creates a magnet not only for those in foreign nations that are poor, criminals looking to escape to the USA, it also has the effect of allowing skilled and professional persons to leave their country, where they may have less opportunity but also deprive their countries of their skills. That may be bad for those people and for the USA, but it does hurt other countries who need talent to bring their nations to prosperity also. Quite an interesting problem.

  64. Post
    AJ Atcc

    I think that any babie born in the U.S by "tourist" parents, should be given the right to citizenship but, that baby can't use their status to sponsor anyone ever.

  65. Post

    There are con artists advertising over your videos to oust the president. It claims he commits nine impeachable offenses per day and believes he is above the law..
    Stop taking money from this or lose my support.

  66. Post

    I think it's fine if it's legalized immigrants, but definitely not illegal immigrants.

    This issue really shows how that students in the United States should really have more knowledge on how the governments from federal, state and municipal actually work. It should almost be a mandatory thing in all schools at this point if you ask me. So that way, we wouldn't have people suggesting that we get rid of the Electoral College.

  67. Post
  68. Post
    john douglass

    I think a lot of these birthright details were written when sail was the way you moved around, people didn't or couldn't pop into and out of countries quickly, so there may well be a need to update them, I.e. the child has to be in the country for a set time after birth to comply. I also think you need to end chain migration, if you qualify to immigrate great bring in a parent on child, but that's were it ends, these other people have to start the process again to bring in other people its not an automatic right.

  69. Post
    chan polun

    if US doesn't have all those birthright benefits, then there is no need to get rid of birthright citizenship at all!

  70. Post

    I have a dozen large houses in California which are used for birthright tourism, with around thirty babies born, mostly to Chinese mothers on shopping trips, every six months, and I would strongly resist such legislation as it would affect my business negatively.

  71. Post
    Robert Coca

    People this Man u readers Donald Trump's Congress racist trolls haters opinions matter not at all ..
    Hello the Constitution above All including supreme Court.the text of constitution so clear kids in school under stand these words..(All) (Or) (and) (persons). (Born) if u look up the meaning of these words .ull know the 1st amendment untouchable .no executive order can supersede constitution lol ..learn before talking lol

  72. Post
    Patrick Leung

    Birth right citizenship doesn't just happen in the US, but also Canada too, and Canada provide much more $$$ in social programs and healthcare. I can understand both sides of argument. It is a loop hole and unless it is closed, it is giving people an opportunity to take advantage for a better life their their children and family. Everyone has dreams, prayers and hopes, Birth right citizenship is that opportunity for some people in situations and countries not as fortunate as ourselves. It's not wrong to Hope. I think it is something humans can understand beyond money. I hear money and loss opportunity is the issue for people arguing against. I guess if you see people as numbers and money, then it might be an issue. Legal and illegal is something society as a whole decides, but it is too shallow to encompass humanity.

  73. Post
  74. Post
    Stuart Fox

    The solution: require proof of citizenship for all pregnant women who apply for medical services. If the woman is not a legal resident send her and any illegal alien persons related to her back to their countries.

  75. Post
  76. Post
  77. Post

    his argument would be that it is just a supreme court precedent and as such isn't actually part of the constitution so he would try to override it causing another supreme court case to set new precedent. sadly he might actually win that shit. birth citizenship is not a legislative law, it is a reading (interpretation) of the constitution itself that isn't directly stated. his problem here though is that if he plays with this fire the 2nd amendment becomes fair game. if he did what is described (executive order) that would take interpretation of the constitution from the courts. that is what would be fought. but it would be with the supreme court justices. ginsburg, get ready for another 4 years. people are stupid.

  78. Post

    Why do you, Chris (along with so many others), keep using the term “illegal immigrant” when referring to illegal aliens? Language in important; why do you think the left worked so hard to change that very wording?

    In order to “immigrate” to the U.S., one is required to apply for immigration, i.e., immigration is a well-defined legal process, and go through a very specific legal process/procedure. A non-citizen, intentionally ignoring that process is, in fact, breaking the law, thus making their existence here “illegal”, ergo, “illegal alien”. I’m sure someone caught stealing a car would prefer being called “Automotive Security Tester” over “car thief”, and that just might help them when showing up in front of a jury charged with “Testing the Security of a random vehicle” vice “vehicle theft”.

  79. Post
  80. Post
    Alan Padilla

    All – with the exception , of the " Indians – Are illegal & immoral , immigrants – Or "Pirates " if you will . Welcome –
    To America – land of the pirates – { – Take all you can – & – give Nothing back – }

  81. Post
    Delicious DeBlair

    I hope they do pass such laws. We lack enough economy to support this insanity. Freeloaders exist aplenty among the legal citizens however citizens with legitimate needs exist aplenty as well. Between those people, that's enough. We don't need to import millions of additional empty pockets and open mouths.

  82. Post
    SyFy Rytr

    What about…. Chinese vacation women about to birth, just to assure they have a kid who is a US citizen. They go home to China with an inroad for the family years later. 'Under the jurisdiction… ' doesn't the Bill of rights have a phrase about 'equal protection' and its application to ALL persons in our borders. Uhhhh, didn't Don the Con's Mom enter undocumented… sooooooooooo, he not citizen ?

  83. Post
    thateffin guy

    Im pro wall and Republican, but if youre born here, you're ABSOLUTELY an American citizen, regardless of how the parents got here or where they're from. Period.

  84. Post
    Randy Dank

    Got an article government report that says there are 35 million illegals6 at that time in 1985 that was over 34 years ago

  85. Post
    jack black

    Hey you broke American laws now lets give them money. Hey Military Veterans, we know you fought for our country and got injured. But now you have to prove it. Until then you get nothing.
    Can anyone tell me how fuck up this is?

  86. Post

    Constitutional rights DO NOT BELONG to Illegal Immigrants. Constitutional rights belong to those legally here and US Citizens.. and even so, those with Green Cards cannot vote. Constitutional Rights are not to be confused with Human or natural rights.

  87. Post
  88. Post
  89. Post
    Nicky s

    umm INCOME TAX IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL but we let that happen and look big companies get away with GETTING money from the government and we the poor (or poorer who do not have offshore bank accounts and multiple businesses and charities to hide our money in) are stuck paying the most percentage wise. Warren Buffett brags about how he pays less taxes than his employees comparatively I think he said he pays about 20% in taxes and how workers pay about 33-37%

  90. Post
    Alex Leigh

    well he timed the commercial break perfectly like hes psychic
    dude someone test his psychic future seeing powers

  91. Post
  92. Post
  93. Post
    Steven Wilfong

    Chapo Guzman has an American kid now 😵. Just because they planned to have it in the US. Jacked up system.

  94. Post
    Ali Labeeb Alkoka

    Sounds like Anchor babies away!!!
    No more anchor babies to hold down immigrants!!! Maybe they will drift away to other countries like Canada!!!

  95. Post
  96. Post
  97. Post
    John Rildo

    The US is the only country in the world that allows people to become citizens just by being born in the borders. The US and EU should be like the rest of the world on their immigration policies and their path to citizenship.

  98. Post
  99. Post
  100. Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *