Why Does the U.S. Have Birthright Citizenship? | United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Why Does the U.S. Have Birthright Citizenship? | United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Mr. Beat presents Supreme Court Briefs 1868, or 1871…or perhaps 1873 Wong Kim Ark is born. His parents are Wong Si Ping and Wee Lee, both immigrants from China and not United States citizens. According to the Naturalization Law of 1802, the two could never become citizens because they weren’t “white.” Whatever the heck that means. Due to the Chinese Exclusion Act discriminating against them, the Wongs moved back to China, when Kim Ark was 9. But a few years later, Kim Ark came right back to California because he wanted to make much more money. This was not a problem for Kim Ark because, since he was born in San Francisco, he was automatically an American citizen thanks to the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. In 1890, Wong went to China to visit his parents, and he came back home to the United States with no problem. However, four years later when he went back to China to visit them, he was denied re-entry upon his return. He was like “dude, I live here.” They were like, “nope, not anymore. You’re not a citizen.” During the five months when Wong fought for re-entry into the country, U.S. Customs kept him confined on different ships just off the coast of San Francisco. Fortunately for Wong, he got support from an organization called the Chinese Six Companies to help him fight for his citizenship. He went to federal district court. So let’s break out that 14th Amendment, shall we? So there’s the Citizenship Clause of it, and what they focused on the most was different interpretations of this phrase here: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Does that cover when a child is born in the U.S. to parents who both are not citizens? Wong’s lawyers argued yes. The United States had been waiting to test out the Citizenship Clause for awhile, and here was their chance. Henry Foote, a former Confederate soldier, represented the United States, calling Wong a “accidental citizen,” not the term you usually hear today, which is “anchor baby.” On January 3, 1896, the district judge sided with Wong, declaring him a citizen since he was born in the USA. The U.S. government appealed the decision directly to the Supreme Court because…well…they could, and the Court heard oral arguments on March 5, 1897. Soooo, COULD the government deny citizenship to people born in the United States in any circumstance? The Court said “no.” In a 6-2 decision, they ruled in favor of Wong, declaring that any child born in the country to parents of a foreign country is automatically a citizen. UNLESS…the parents are foreign diplomats, or the person is born on a public ship, or the parents are nationals of a foreign enemy country that is trying to take over the United States. But yeah, you’re born here? You a citizen, buddy! The Court relied on English common law tradition just as much as they relied on the 14th Amendment for this one. Leading the dissent was Chief Justice Melville Fuller, joined by justice John Harlan. They both argued that the history of American citizenship broke with the tradition of English common law after it declared independence in 1776. In particular, they wondered about the part of the citizenship clause that said “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Wouldn’t that also mean not subject to any foreign power? They argued Wong was still under the control of China due to his parents being under their control. Of all Supreme Court decisions in history, United States v. Wong Kim Ark is the strongest at protecting that Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, no matter what the situation is with their parents. Over the years, millions of Americans have owed their citizenship to this case. So how did the story end for Wong Kim Ark? Well, back when Wong was fighting for citizenship in the courts, he had started a family back in China. He had a wife and kids back there. After the Supreme Court decision, Wong still went back and forth, and for the rest of his life, Wong never got to fully enjoy the benefits of citizenship. Every time he went home to China and came back he got hounded by Customs, always having to show extra documentation like the signatures of white Americans vouching for him. Wong’s oldest son tried to move to the United States and they wouldn’t let him. However, his youngest three sons were able to move to the United States as citizens, although it was far from easy. One of those sons later served in World War II. But Kim Ark? He eventually stopped trying to be an American. In the 1930s, at the age of 62, he went to China and decided to never come back. I’ll see you for the next Supreme Court case, jury! President Trump would definitely disagree with this case, but what do YOU think about the Court’s decision in this one? Please let me know in the comments below. Well the next Supreme Court Briefs episode will feature the most important Supreme Court decision in American history. Just trying to build up the hype here, let’s get that hype train going, eh? Thanks for watching.


  1. Post
    Mr. Beat

    Do you agree with the Court's decision? If you are born in a country should you automatically be a citizen of that country?

  2. Post
  3. Post
  4. Post
  5. Post
  6. Post
    Atomic Reverend Alexander

    Yep, I can see by the comments on this video I am a minority in my thoughts but I truly feel that this is an outdated law to provide citizenship to former slaves that has been taken advantage of for well over 140 years now. The USA is one of the only nations in the world to do birth right ctizenship and it is time to repeal and replace the 14th Amendment with something along the lines of citizenship is only granted to a child born of one or more citizens of the USA or someone whom has been granted permanent residency.
    This isn't racism but a guarantee for assimilation into the USA culture and this would not affect anyone who was born here before the date the new law would take effect.
    This is simple policy making that our modern left/right politicians can't seem to grasp even though numerous polls say that 70+ percent of American citizens think that Immigration is an issue that needs to be addressed.

  7. Post
  8. Post
    Chris Nemec

    You know, Trump was born in the United States. Technically speaking, if we reverse this decision, we could have him deported as there is an ancestor who wasn't born here.

  9. Post

    Yeah, let’s throw away precedent set by the Supreme Court, the Constitution and Common Law for the sake of NaTiONaL SeCUriTy…

  10. Post
    Venky Wank

    Denied citizenship because he wasn't white?
    Does that mean the US could deny citizenship to Native Americans under the same logic?

  11. Post
    Hugo Boss

    1st off fuck Trump! And yes I've subscribed. 2nd thing thanks for shedding light on such a controversial issue of citizenship. Poor Wong never really belonged in a place called home 😯

  12. Post
  13. Post
    jeffrey hebert

    Love this story… aren't we all aliens of this country one way or another… that's what makes us so great…or does it… hmm

  14. Post
    Stefan Milo

    Great video and an important decision. Birth right citizenship, in my opinion, is one of the defining features of America and I'm glad it is. Neither my wife, nor I were born in the USA but I'm happy that any children we have would be citizens and I'm very happy for them to be Americans…. although I still think baseball is a poor man's cricket.

  15. Post
  16. Post

    Birthright Citizenship is the dumbest law in the world, an invitation for pregnant foreigners to enter your country and give birth to an anchor baby. Most of the world doesn't have this self destructive law. Congress, who represent's the American people, should immediately rescind this awful law.

  17. Post
  18. Post
  19. Post
  20. Post
    Carlos Frederico Gitsio Klier T da Silva

    I agree with that interpretation (I'm not a USA citizen) but I wonder if their parents were legally in the USA. If they were, then there's no problem, but if they were not that make the the contemporain argument more falible.

  21. Post
    rpl palacio

    right now there is an american citizen who was denied reentry from mexico because he was born&raised in texas and "ice" did it because they question his citizenship because of a crime some lady did falsifying some birth certificates …now thats bull$#!t i was born in texas an if they try taking my citizenship i'll stick some 7.62 up their asses … we were born here we are americans first and foremost god bless america and god bless you and your family mr beat

  22. Post
    Sweet "T"

    Deny children born here citizenship, make their existence in the only country they've ever known a crime? Make them a criminals for the circumstances of their birth, deny them the protections of the law? Disallow them from becoming successful law abiding citizens?

    That would be terrible for these people and our country.

    I can only hope that our country will resist the urge to take away Constitutional rights on a whim whenever it becomes politically expedient.

  23. Post

    "because he wasn't white, whatever that means" funny how no one knows who is white until the issue of white privilege comes up, then everyone knows who is white and who is not.

  24. Post

    I wouldn't be a US citizen if we didn't have birthright citizenship! Both my parents were born in Turkey, I was born in Ohio 😛

  25. Post
  26. Post
    Blitz Of The Reich

    My position is that as long as an immigrant is legal in the US (by tourist visa or anything else) and they have a child, that that child should be awarded citizenship. We should give leeway but be firm.

  27. Post

    the majority of my relatives from my fathers side came to the United states after WW2 from Germany , and my moms side from thailand after the vietnam war , my brother and sister were born in Thailand on american military bases .

    i think if you are born on american territory you are an American, im glad my relatives who were not born on american soil all went through and are going through the legal processes to gain their citizenship's

  28. Post
  29. Post

    Great idea, any pregnant woman who lives outside the United States and who's fetus is infected with the zika virus, schedule a trip the the United States when your 9 months pregnant. After giving birth to an American citizen, the United States will have to spend millions dollars for the remainder of the anchor baby's life. The USA has the most brilliant politicians in the world.

  30. Post

    Great video. Really shows that the 14th Amendment matters more than just giving citizenship to former slaves. Can't wait for the next one.

  31. Post
    John Kilmartin

    If the 14th amendment had been passed with the Bill of Rights would the U.S. have been justified in executing UEL militiamen during the War of 1812?

  32. Post
  33. Post
    Ross Webster

    Well done as usual, Mr. Beat. Suggestion for a follow-up video; something about Angel Island, the "Ellis Island" of the West Coast. Like Ellis Island, but with less Fival-esque nostalgia and more blatant racism and medical quarentine practices that would be considered civl rights violations today.

  34. Post
  35. Post
  36. Post
  37. Post
    Eric Mathiasen

    I like your videos in general and this one specifically, but do have one quibble with this one:

    Toward the end, where you display the votes of the Supreme Court justices, you list one side as "For Wong Kim Ark" and the other as "For the U.S.A."

    I know that court cases against the Federal Government are officially listed as "Plaintiff v. The United States," but that's in an official capacity. More informally, it could be argued that Wong, in trying to expand individual rights, was truly "for the People," and that the U.S. government is ultimately made up of the People, so, in many cases the Federal government is only standing up for the Attorney General's interpretation of a law, and not for the People or, at least not particularly, the People of the United States.

    It's a subtle distinction, and it would require addition discussion to explain, but it's possible worth explaining for key Supreme Court cases where a citizen (or possible citizen) is seeking protection of their rights against actions by some part of the Federal Government being defended by the office of the Attorney General. I think it's important that your students, and viewers in general, understand that in such cases "the U.S.A." is merely a convention for addressing one side of a court case, and doesn't necessarily mean that the side labeled as "the United States" are correct, let alone actually acting in the interest of United States' citizens.

    Just a thought and something you could consider for future Supreme Court videos.

  38. Post

    Screw it, I'm going to say it. I find it hilarious that Trump is rallying against birthright citizenship while, I kid you not, his properties in FL is allowing Russian citizens to come here and give birth to babies. His immigration policies are not America First, they're racist. Like I stated earlier he has no problem with Russians coming to America, giving birth, and leaving. But he campaigned about how that was such a bad thing and how he wanted to end that. He also is only seems to care about screwing over non white people. His travel ban made it difficult for Iranian doctors and scientists to come over to the US and visit their relatives. How is that America First? How is that keeping us safe(considering they are rubbing shoulders with Saudi Arabia AFTER it is known they killed an American resident and journalist). He also is employing/employed known racists like Stephen Miller(who is pretty much in charge of the ), Steve Bannon and Gorka. Also bonus, Melania's parents who don't work or have really good skills just became US Citizens because of Melania. This is literally the chain migration that he was talking about and notice how once the pigment is a different color he gets upset about it. I even remember seeing Trump supporters saying that they were okay with Melania's potential illegal immigration because she's white. I know I'm going to get blowback from some people "Typical libtard only seeing race! Trump has done more for blacks than Lincoln! " but IDC. Come at me

  39. Post
  40. Post
  41. Post

    My whole problem with the clause is how do you know they were born in the USA. Like a kid could be born elsewhere and they brought them to America.

  42. Post
  43. Post
  44. Post

    The fourteenth amendment was drafted with a specific purpose, to grant citizenship to former slaves. You can look at statements of the people who wrote it and people who were alive at the time. The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant not a citizen of another country as the former slaves did not have citizenship from any other country. It the phrase didn't mean anything then it wouldn't have been included. The interpretation of the clause has changed since then but that is the original reason and intent of the amendment.

  45. Post
  46. Post

    Wrong decision. This part of the amendment should have been expired after the last child of a slave was granted citizenship.

  47. Post
    Emma Manning

    I do always wonder why at the end of videos Mr Beat says "I'll see you for the next supreme court case, jury" when supreme court cases don't have a jury.

  48. Post

    I personally think the decision was calculated just right. Birthright citizenship is incredibly important for an immigrant-destination country like the US, but at the same time, those few exceptions to the rule are perfectly reasonable (though I'd imagine there have some disappointed diplomat babies).

  49. Post
  50. Post
  51. Post
  52. Post

    OK your constitution says something and your Supreme Court made a decision. But why does the US have birthright citizenship?

  53. Post
  54. Post
  55. Post
  56. Post
    Francisco Rodriguez

    People have been pushing me to become a U.S. citizen for the longest time. I can't buy squat shit with citizenship. I am only patriotic to money, if yal have a problem with that. Then you should take it up with your banksters and selected officials. They are less patriotic than me, but they benefit the most from ALL of us. With our own taxes no less. Some red pills for your dumb asses.

  57. Post
  58. Post
  59. Post
    VincentGames Nebulous And Civilization

    You should definitely take a look at Trump Vs Hawaii, it's a bit difficult to find any non biased videos on this topic

  60. Post
    Zhu Bajie

    Excellent Video. Perhaps you may consider another case. I still don't understand Aronow v. United States. Could you do a video on this?

  61. Post
  62. Post
  63. Post
  64. Post

    Important point. People talking about birthright citizenship today are talking about citizenship being applied to children of Illegal immigrants. This case you cited, his parents had legal residency here. They were legally allowed within the United States just not as citizens for the reasons you stated. This is similar to someone getting a green card today and having children here. So my father has a green card as he is from Cuba, so this case protects my birthright citizenship as he is a permanent legal resident. But that doesn't strictly mean it can apply to anyone who say crosses the border, pops one out and then tries to claim they are now a citizen.

    People are asking for clarification on the 14th amendment to see whether or not it can be applied to the children of illegal immigrants who shouldn't be here in the first place as we have never had a specific supreme court ruling or case in that specific circumstance.

  65. Post
    Opiniones de JACC's Opinions

    (3:35) So do you see the island of Taiwan as part of the Republic of China🇹🇼 or People's Republic of China🇨🇳?🤔

  66. Post
    BenJamin Croft

    "A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

    His parents were not "foriegn diplomats", they were not "nationals of an enemy nation", they owned their own business, and their "permanent domicile and residence" has been the U.S. for 20 years. Therefore Wong's parents were in fact naturalized citizens that whole time; therefore making Wong a natural born citizen.

  67. Post
    John Hooyer

    I believe that one of the factors in their decision was that that his parents were, at the time of his birth, considered permanent residents and registered to work. I'm not sure how this applies to tourists, and then then there's the matter of people who are not legal residents of the United States. You also have to take into consideration the prior ruling in Elk v. Wilkins that Native Americans born in the Unites States were not considered to be part of the jurisdiction of the United States. This was later solved half a century later in an act of Congress.

  68. Post
    kris guntner

    You don't know what "white"means?
    Do you know what "black"means?
    The african's sure seem to know since they use it every chance they get to proclaim africa is for "blacks".
    A bit of a gutless coward aren't ya beat boy?

  69. Post
    Phil Gordon

    The purpose and intent of the 14th Amendment was to reverse the “Dred Scott vs. Sandford decision of 1857” and did nothing more than this. It was about granting citizenship to freed African slaves. The 14th Amendment gave naturalize citizenships to all freed African slaves and their children are natural born United States citizens. Under the 14th Amendment only naturalized or natural born United States citizens parents can have children that have birthright citizenships.
    14th Amendment Section 1.

    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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause meaning is political jurisdiction example Native Americans had their own tribal jurisdiction therefore not subject to the American jurisdiction this includes foreigners and aliens that are subject to home countries jurisdiction and allegiance. Allegiance and/or citizenships although different words they have the same meaning. Foreigners and aliens are not subject to American jurisdiction therefore their United States born children allegiance are in question and are not naturalized or natural born United States citizens.

    Civil Rights Act of 1866

    All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

    The civil rights acts of 1866 and 1875 were passed by the U.S. Congress in an effort to make full citizens of and guarantee the rights of the freed slaves. The Thirteenth Amendment (1865) had abolished slavery throughout the nation, and Congress was faced with how to enfranchise this population

    The Civil Rights Act of 1866 has the same meaning as the 14th Amendment but written differently in such a way so that it cannot be misinterpreted. Such as claiming birthright citizenship of children born on United States soil to foreigners and aliens’ parents

    Anchor babies are not United States citizens. Birthright citizenship of children born on United States soil to foreigners and aliens parents started after the 1965 Immigration act it was a decision made by executive fiat not authorized by the senior executive ranks and only congress that has the authority to make such changes, decisions, and law. President Donald Trump has the authority to reverse this un-authorized executive fiat decision retroactively without the consent of congress. This is what the executive order is all about. This is the same as reversing DACA executive order made by President Obama it will be an uphill court fight. Congress never authorized birthright citizenship of children born on United States soil to foreigners and aliens’ parents in the 1965 immigration act. Congress in its entire history never authorized birthright citizenship of children born on United States soil to foreigners and aliens’ parents. Judges in court will be constantly asking questions did congress by law authorized birthright citizenship of children born on United States soil to foreigners and aliens’ parents? No! The court case will not be about whether the 14th Amendment authorizes birthright citizenships but about reversing an executive decision. Congress needs not get involved.

    The executive or the president oversee enforcement of immigration laws. Enforcing the laws as they are written and following strict constitutional protocols is fully constitutional. The 14th amendment is not being followed to its original intent as Senator Jacob Howard R-MI statement of intent.

    Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing: “The 14th Amendment granted citizenship only to the recently freed African slaves. It did not grant citizenship to illegal immigrants. It did not grant citizenship to Native American Indians. It did not grant citizenship to foreigners or their children born on U.S. soil.” Senator Jacob Howard R-MI: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

    The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all “persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. 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.

    It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country." Senator Jacob Howard R-MI, 1866 14th Amendment author.

    By signing an executive order reinforcing the original intent of the 14th Amendment is fully constitutional because President Donald Trump is not violating constitution, not promoting or creating laws by executive order legislation, DACA by executive order did violate the constitution only congress has the authority to create immigration law. But the congress and the states by constitutional amendment have already express that only decedents of African slaves are covered by the 14th amendment. It was about reversing the “Dred Scott case of 1857” were African American slaves lost in the Supreme Court case gaining their United States citizenships.

    By signing an executive order reinforcing the original intent of the 14th amendment is fully constitutional. Keep in mind most judges have already made up their minds on the 14th Amendment vs. birthright citizenship. Of course, this executive order will be challenge in the courts by anchor babies because they will lose their United States citizenships retroactively. For anchor babies some very uncomfortable questions will be asked in the courts, were Native Americans covered by the 14th Amendment? No! Native Americans got their United States citizenships by the “Indian citizenship act of June 2nd, 1924”. Proof that only freed African slaves were covered by the 14th Amendment. The “Indian citizenship act of June 2nd, 1924” gave naturalize citizenships to all native Americans and their children are natural born United States citizens. If native Americans were not covered by the 14th Amendment why do you say persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens are US Citizens when Senator Jacob Howard R-MI made statement of intent “persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. 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.

    It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

    Lawyers it will be really challenging to answer this question!

    Before the 1965 immigration act babies born on United States soil of foreign and alien parents were not citizens and were later deported to their parents’ home countries. Did congress authorize birthright citizenship of children born on United States soil to foreigners and aliens’ parents in the 1965 immigration act? No!

    Lawyers it will be really challenging to answer this question!

    Did the United States vs. Wong Kim Ark 1898 decision authorized birthright citizenship of children born on United States soil to foreigners and aliens’ parents? No! Because of the Chinese exclusionary act of 1882 congress by law excludes all Chinese from getting United States citizenships. The federal government executive never allowed children from Chinese parents who were Chinese citizens to become United States citizens. Even after the United States vs. Wong Kim Ark 1898 decision. United States vs. Wong Kim Ark 1898 decision is in direct conflict with the 14th Amendment therefore should be overturned.

  70. Post

    1) Usa after civil war should go to ius sanguinis , and write that this birthright citizenship law apply only to former slaves.

    2) It's immoral to be citizen of two countries ; as Polish conservative politician Janusz Korwin Mikke once said; You can not be servant of two masters.

    3) Many countries abolished Ius soli to limit migration to their countries ( India and Ireland).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli#Abolition_of_jus_soli ; India Abolished jus soli on 3 December 2004 in reaction to illegal immigration from its neighbor Bangladesh.

    Jus soli had already been progressively weakened in India since 1987.

    but why cater someone with usa citizenship , while they are citizens of their parents country ? why there are no anchor babies in Latin american countries ?

    and how would latino governments react , if that would happend ( according to you) ?

  71. Post
    Daliao Ren

    America is too prejudice against asians, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese n communist etc. . to live, shop, school, invest, buy, sell, travel, tour and have fun in America freely and fairly numbers with whites, no wonder IT IS COLLAPSING like rock, and asians are rising like rocket, hiahiahiahiahiah.

  72. Post
    Matthew Tolentino

    Following English Common Law tradition? Makes sense, since the OG United States was a British colony.

    I've heard of Philippine lawyers using American precedents in their cases, because Philippine law had so much in common with US law.

  73. Post
  74. Post
    Jose Starks

    I literally own my life to this case! When my biological mom snuck in illegally she was pregnant with me. I had a lot of medical problems so I had to be cared for and instead of taking me to Mexico-notice I didn't say "back"- I could stay in the United States( where I was born) instead of having to go to Mexico which had inadequate healthcare. Finally because of this case I was allowed to stay in the United States and was eventually adopted by my wonderful mother!

  75. Post
  76. Post
  77. Post
  78. Post
    jeffrey hebert

    you all now mr and mrs beat. I need to make a comment..I love you two…this story hits oooo close to my family from the potota famin…my great granpa had t join the union 1863 to become an american citizen…jesus he signed his name withj an X…please tell ua why an X was sooo impportantant…freak Im old miss and mrs beat….cheeeers

  79. Post
    jeffrey hebert

    also by my last name could you tell our story..we were persecuted for being french canadieian's senmd to the suth for not fightiing gainst our own… would loe to hear your sidek,k,i have my own..grat dialoge

  80. Post

    There is a huge anchor baby problem in the United States!… People cross the border illegally to have their babies on American soil… In other words, they are rewarded for breaking U.S. laws!… Australia and New Zealand did away with jus soli for this reason and the United States should do the same!

  81. Post
  82. Post

    I taught about this case back in October after President Trump was considering a Birthright citizenship ban with the discussion question, "Can President Trump execute an order limiting birthright citizenship? How might this be resisted?" In this lecture, I discussed the vocabulary terms:
    judicial activism
    judicial restraint
    jus soli
    jus sanguinis
    Executive Order
    Birthright Citizenship
    anchor baby
    13, 14 and 15th Amendments
    My large focus was on jus soli, jus sanguinis, and the 14th Amendment.
    I also discussed the following SCOTUS cases:
    1844 Lynch v Clarke *
    1857 Dred v Scott
    1884 Elk v Wilkins
    1982 Plyler v Doe
    From what we understood, US v Wong Kim Ark overturned 1844 Lynch v Clarke. This case may be a good follow up to this case,

  83. Post
  84. Post
    John Battey

    The Supreme Court of the United States never DECIDES anything. They examine factors they believe have bearing on a given case or set of cases and render OPINIONS as to how the laws and the Constitution should be interpreted regarding the case or cases. Laws and opinions are never sacrosanct and are always subject to review and reinterpretation.
    If you study the true origins of the Constitution and the journals of its creation and its creators, the error of this SCOTUS opinion becomes obvious. The Court chose in this case, not only to base the majority opinion on English Common Law, but did so on the basis that the notes and journals of the framers of the Constitution, the authors of the 14th Amendment, were inadmissable because there was no one left alive who could bear direct witness to their authorship. When one considers that both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 were fought by Americans strictly for the purpose of overthrowing the authority of English Common Law with regard to Americans, the very thought that the Constitution was in any part based on English Common Law is insultingly absurd.

  85. Post
    Bloodwolf 720

    Well I agree with the courts on this cause it could affect my future kids cause I was born in Great Britain in 2002 and came to the United States in 2006 so what would that mean for my kids when they would be born here while I was in Great Britain does that mean all of us get our citizenship taken away

  86. Post
  87. Post
  88. Post
    Pedro Marcelino

    Here in Brazil, the Constitution is a lot more clear about the exceptions for ius soli citizenship, which are the same you stated in America. That's a measure more countries should adopt.

  89. Post
  90. Post
  91. Post
  92. Post
    Firebolt Prime

    For those saying the U.S. is so racist and whatnot, why do people come here if it's apparently so bad?

  93. Post
  94. Post
    Marcello Di Maio

    What's the problem with dreamers? If they're born in the US why they should be kicked out or denied citizenship?

  95. Post
    Scott Koenig

    Good video and thank you. You left out an interesting point. The Wong parents were in the country lawfully when their son was born. The High Court has NOT ruled on parents who are in the U.S. unlawfully.

  96. Post
    Julio Cesar Quiles

    That interpretation of the 14th is an insult to our forefathers, imagine, a criminal comes into the country to take advantage of this law, does it make any cense? End birthright citizenship now.

  97. Post
  98. Post
  99. Post
  100. Post

Leave a Reply

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