Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

CLARENCE THOMAS JUST PUBLISHED THE EXACT ARGUMENT FOR WHY THE SUPREME COURT'S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP RULING IS CONSTITUTIONALLY WRONG Not a political objection. Not a policy disagreement. NAMED HISTORY. SPECIFIC TEXT. Amendment by amendment. 📜 14th Amendment, 1868 — "ONE pervading purpose": securing equal citizenship for FREED SLAVES after the... Civil War 📜 Reconstruction Congress intent — zero evidence the drafters contemplated children of foreign temporary visitors or illegal aliens 📜 "Subject to the jurisdiction" clause — Thomas: means full political allegiance, not mere physical presence on US soil 📜 The majority opinion — Thomas says it REPURPOSED the Amendment to protect preferred rights the drafters NEVER contemplated 📜 Thomas's direct quote — those rights "CANNOT find support in the text today" 📜 His warning on the ruling — "I am not sure that today's opinion will stand the test of time" 📜 Thomas during April 2026 oral arguments — probed whether immigration debates even existed when the 14th was written 📜 His core distinction — freed slaves were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans with no other homeland; children of foreign nationals are not in the same category 📜 Roberts and Barrett — joined the liberal bloc in the 6-3 majority in Trump v. Barbara 📜 Gorsuch — joined Thomas in dissent; Alito filed a separate dissent 💀 91 pages 💀 1 purpose the 14th Amendment actually had, per Thomas 💀 ZERO rights the Reconstruction Congress contemplated for children of foreign nationals 💀 100% of Thomas's argument grounded in the specific post-Civil War historical record — not modern policy preference Every argument on this list is anchored in the text and history of the Amendment. Not in what the Court wishes it said. In what the people who wrote it actually intended. The Court's ruling stands. But Thomas put a 91-page marker on the record. Thomas's dissent is still ticking. These are the arguments at the core of it. I'll keep you updated as this unfolds, turn on notifications this is EXTREMELY important.show more

John Fitzgerald Kennedy Jr.

109,298 subscribers

300,425 Aufrufe • vor 1 Tag •via X (Twitter)

Bildung Nachrichten & Politik

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

NEW: Justice Clarence Thomas issues a scathing 91-page dissenting opinion after the Supreme Court struck down President Trump's birthright citizenship order. "The Court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President's Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens," Thomas wrote. "In doing so, the Court adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support."

NEW: Justice Clarence Thomas issues a scathing 91-page dissenting opinion after the Supreme Court struck down President Trump's birthright citizenship order. "The Court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President's Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens," Thomas wrote. "In doing so, the Court adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support."

Collin Rugg

1,270,748 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

The largest part of the Supreme Court's 194-page decision on birthright citizenship is Justice Clarence Thomas's dissent—a massive alternate history of citizenship, the Civil War, and Reconstruction. To Thomas, the 14th Amendment applied only to the freed people after the Civil War because they were domiciled in the US and owed no allegiance to a foreign power—interpreting the rule as limited to one period and one population. In a concurrence that spotlights the role Black people played in shaping the 14th Amendment, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson takes on Justice Thomas. “The Reconstruction Amendments were an anticaste, antisubordination reset for the Nation,” she wrote, “not a mere spot treatment for the dark stain of slavery.” "The teacher who scolds a student for bullying a classmate hopes the student learns the broader lesson of treating everyone with kindness," Jackson writes. "Not just that one kid." Watch Mother Jones reporters Isabela Dias and Pema Levy dissect the decision with Garrison Hayes.

The largest part of the Supreme Court's 194-page decision on birthright citizenship is Justice Clarence Thomas's dissent—a massive alternate history of citizenship, the Civil War, and Reconstruction. To Thomas, the 14th Amendment applied only to the freed people after the Civil War because they were domiciled in the US and owed no allegiance to a foreign power—interpreting the rule as limited to one period and one population. In a concurrence that spotlights the role Black people played in shaping the 14th Amendment, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson takes on Justice Thomas. “The Reconstruction Amendments were an anticaste, antisubordination reset for the Nation,” she wrote, “not a mere spot treatment for the dark stain of slavery.” "The teacher who scolds a student for bullying a classmate hopes the student learns the broader lesson of treating everyone with kindness," Jackson writes. "Not just that one kid." Watch Mother Jones reporters Isabela Dias and Pema Levy dissect the decision with Garrison Hayes.

Mother Jones

13,067 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

🚨 JESSE WATTERS: SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP in 5-4 ruling, Chief Justice Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett sided with the liberals. President Trump’s challenge rejected. That means babies of illegal aliens, birth tourists, and foreign visitors are automatically American citizens. Justice Clarence Thomas ripped it in a blistering 91-page dissent, saying the 14th Amendment was for freed slaves, not for caravans and scammers. Justice Alito called it one of the biggest mistakes in Court history that will harm America’s future.

🚨 JESSE WATTERS: SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP in 5-4 ruling, Chief Justice Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett sided with the liberals. President Trump’s challenge rejected. That means babies of illegal aliens, birth tourists, and foreign visitors are automatically American citizens. Justice Clarence Thomas ripped it in a blistering 91-page dissent, saying the 14th Amendment was for freed slaves, not for caravans and scammers. Justice Alito called it one of the biggest mistakes in Court history that will harm America’s future.

Gunther Eagleman™

26,935 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Joe Scarborough on birthright citizenship: “You read the 14th Amendment, it could not be more clear. The Supreme Court threw out this racist argument in 1898. The reason I am actually excited about this is I want to know if Clarence Thomas and Alito decide they’re gonna have the guts to decide with Donald Trump in abolishing the 14th Amendment”

Joe Scarborough on birthright citizenship: “You read the 14th Amendment, it could not be more clear. The Supreme Court threw out this racist argument in 1898. The reason I am actually excited about this is I want to know if Clarence Thomas and Alito decide they’re gonna have the guts to decide with Donald Trump in abolishing the 14th Amendment”

Marco Foster

212,932 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

🚨 Justice Alito NAILED IT in his birthright citizenship dissent: “This is one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court, and in my judgment, the Court has made a serious mistake.” The 14th Amendment clearly states "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." As Justice Thomas wrote: "Children born to temporary visitors owed allegiance to another government—the country of their domicile—so they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." The logical manifestation of the majority upholding birthright citizenship is that BILLIONS of foreigners -- including from HOSTILE NATIONS -- have instant access to U.S. citizenship for their children. All they must do is set foot on American soil and give birth to a child. No need to stay. This makes precious little sense, and Justice Thomas is correct: "I am not sure that today’s opinion will stand the test of time. The Citizenship Clause 'added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship.' Today’s opinion devalues that citizenship." The Five Fox News ⬇️

🚨 Justice Alito NAILED IT in his birthright citizenship dissent: “This is one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court, and in my judgment, the Court has made a serious mistake.” The 14th Amendment clearly states "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." As Justice Thomas wrote: "Children born to temporary visitors owed allegiance to another government—the country of their domicile—so they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." The logical manifestation of the majority upholding birthright citizenship is that BILLIONS of foreigners -- including from HOSTILE NATIONS -- have instant access to U.S. citizenship for their children. All they must do is set foot on American soil and give birth to a child. No need to stay. This makes precious little sense, and Justice Thomas is correct: "I am not sure that today’s opinion will stand the test of time. The Citizenship Clause 'added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship.' Today’s opinion devalues that citizenship." The Five Fox News ⬇️

Kayleigh McEnany

207,494 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

.Ben Shapiro describes Justice Thomas’s 91 page dissent, saying he is “super ticked off and for good reason.” Thomas makes it clear that the 14th Amendment was meant to rectify only ONE issue: blacks born in the U.S. as slaves. These unacknowledged Americans had no choice in their residence, no foreign allegiance, and they were called upon to fight in American wars. The Dred Scott decision got it wrong. The 14th Amendment fixed it. It was never meant to apply to the children of illegal or temporary residents. 🎥:

.Ben Shapiro describes Justice Thomas’s 91 page dissent, saying he is “super ticked off and for good reason.” Thomas makes it clear that the 14th Amendment was meant to rectify only ONE issue: blacks born in the U.S. as slaves. These unacknowledged Americans had no choice in their residence, no foreign allegiance, and they were called upon to fight in American wars. The Dred Scott decision got it wrong. The 14th Amendment fixed it. It was never meant to apply to the children of illegal or temporary residents. 🎥:

Jackie Chea ⚖️

18,628 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Wow. President Trump just revealed that he will show up in person to the Supreme Court as the justices hear arguments over ending Birthright Citizenship. "This was about the babies of slaves... It didn't have to do with the protection of multimillionaires and billionaires wanting to have their children get an American citizenship." He's 100% right. The current policy has never been argued before the Court and it is completely insane. The 14th Amendment was written to grant citizenship to slaves and their children after the Civil War, not the children of illegals or birth tourists from the CCP. Time to end the insanity.

Wow. President Trump just revealed that he will show up in person to the Supreme Court as the justices hear arguments over ending Birthright Citizenship. "This was about the babies of slaves... It didn't have to do with the protection of multimillionaires and billionaires wanting to have their children get an American citizenship." He's 100% right. The current policy has never been argued before the Court and it is completely insane. The 14th Amendment was written to grant citizenship to slaves and their children after the Civil War, not the children of illegals or birth tourists from the CCP. Time to end the insanity.

Andrew Kolvet

116,977 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

OMG! This is absolutely hilarious 😂 🚨 KBJ’s Own Senate Quote Backfires and Accidentally Hands Trump’s Legal Team the PERFECT Argument to End Birthright Citizenship! Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson tried to bolster the case for broad “born on U.S. soil = citizen” interpretation by quoting a 19th-century Senate exchange from the 14th Amendment debates. She referenced Senators Fessenden and Wade discussing a hypothetical: a child born in the U.S. to parents who are “from abroad temporarily in this country.” In the exchange, Wade reportedly stated that “a person may be born here and not be a citizen,” using the example of children of foreign ministers (who are not fully “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. due to diplomatic immunity and lack of allegiance). Jackson then immediately admitted uncertainty: “I’m not sure whether these are Senators. I apologize.” This moment undermined her entire credibility and preparation. More critically, Solicitor General D. John Sauer seized on the opportunity, pointing out that it ACTUALLY SUPPORTS the government’s position. The framers of the 14th Amendment clearly understood the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause as requiring full political allegiance—not just physical presence on soil. Temporary visitors, diplomats, or those without complete subjection to U.S. laws were NOT INTENDED to automatically confer citizenship to their children. CASE CLOSED! End Birthright Citizenship!

OMG! This is absolutely hilarious 😂 🚨 KBJ’s Own Senate Quote Backfires and Accidentally Hands Trump’s Legal Team the PERFECT Argument to End Birthright Citizenship! Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson tried to bolster the case for broad “born on U.S. soil = citizen” interpretation by quoting a 19th-century Senate exchange from the 14th Amendment debates. She referenced Senators Fessenden and Wade discussing a hypothetical: a child born in the U.S. to parents who are “from abroad temporarily in this country.” In the exchange, Wade reportedly stated that “a person may be born here and not be a citizen,” using the example of children of foreign ministers (who are not fully “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. due to diplomatic immunity and lack of allegiance). Jackson then immediately admitted uncertainty: “I’m not sure whether these are Senators. I apologize.” This moment undermined her entire credibility and preparation. More critically, Solicitor General D. John Sauer seized on the opportunity, pointing out that it ACTUALLY SUPPORTS the government’s position. The framers of the 14th Amendment clearly understood the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause as requiring full political allegiance—not just physical presence on soil. Temporary visitors, diplomats, or those without complete subjection to U.S. laws were NOT INTENDED to automatically confer citizenship to their children. CASE CLOSED! End Birthright Citizenship!

MJTruthUltra

798,464 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

The Supreme Court hears arguments tomorrow on birthright citizenship. Before you accept any framing that this is a new legal question — it isn’t. We’ve been here before. Twice. Same amendment. Same four words. Different targets. The 14th Amendment, ratified 1868, says people born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. The Trump administration’s entire argument rests on those four words — claiming undocumented immigrants aren’t truly “subject to jurisdiction,” so their U.S.-born children aren’t automatically citizens. We’ve heard this before. 1884 — Elk v. Wilkins John Elk was a Winnebago man born on U.S. soil. He moved to Omaha, renounced his tribal allegiance, tried to register to vote, and was denied. Government’s argument: not “subject to jurisdiction” at birth. Supreme Court agreed, 7-2. Same four words. Different group. 1898 — United States v. Wong Kim Ark Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents — parents who could never become citizens under the Chinese Exclusion Acts. When he returned from a trip to China, they turned him away at the border. Same argument. The Supreme Court rejected it 6-2 and ruled the 14th Amendment means what it says. That ruling has stood for 128 years. 2026 — Trump v. Barbara The administration is literally citing Elk v. Wilkins in its brief — a case widely considered superseded by Wong Kim Ark — arguing undocumented immigrants don’t fall under U.S. “political jurisdiction.” Also worth noting: this same administration prosecutes, detains, and deports undocumented people through federal authority. But suddenly they’re not “subject to jurisdiction” when it comes to their kids’ citizenship. They want it both ways. The 14th Amendment was written in the wake of Dred Scott specifically to prevent the government from carving classes of people born on American soil out of citizenship. Arguments are tomorrow.

The Supreme Court hears arguments tomorrow on birthright citizenship. Before you accept any framing that this is a new legal question — it isn’t. We’ve been here before. Twice. Same amendment. Same four words. Different targets. The 14th Amendment, ratified 1868, says people born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. The Trump administration’s entire argument rests on those four words — claiming undocumented immigrants aren’t truly “subject to jurisdiction,” so their U.S.-born children aren’t automatically citizens. We’ve heard this before. 1884 — Elk v. Wilkins John Elk was a Winnebago man born on U.S. soil. He moved to Omaha, renounced his tribal allegiance, tried to register to vote, and was denied. Government’s argument: not “subject to jurisdiction” at birth. Supreme Court agreed, 7-2. Same four words. Different group. 1898 — United States v. Wong Kim Ark Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents — parents who could never become citizens under the Chinese Exclusion Acts. When he returned from a trip to China, they turned him away at the border. Same argument. The Supreme Court rejected it 6-2 and ruled the 14th Amendment means what it says. That ruling has stood for 128 years. 2026 — Trump v. Barbara The administration is literally citing Elk v. Wilkins in its brief — a case widely considered superseded by Wong Kim Ark — arguing undocumented immigrants don’t fall under U.S. “political jurisdiction.” Also worth noting: this same administration prosecutes, detains, and deports undocumented people through federal authority. But suddenly they’re not “subject to jurisdiction” when it comes to their kids’ citizenship. They want it both ways. The 14th Amendment was written in the wake of Dred Scott specifically to prevent the government from carving classes of people born on American soil out of citizenship. Arguments are tomorrow.

Dittie

12,968 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Former RNC Chair Calls Out SCOTUS for DANGEROUS Interpretation of the 14th Amendment: MICHAEL WHATLEY: "Justice Alito got this right; this is a dangerous ruling, and frankly, the majority on that court got it wrong. They got it wrong in terms of their interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and they certainly got it wrong when they said the people who were born here are going to have obligations to the United States; they're not — they go right back overseas and are being raised in different countries."

Former RNC Chair Calls Out SCOTUS for DANGEROUS Interpretation of the 14th Amendment: MICHAEL WHATLEY: "Justice Alito got this right; this is a dangerous ruling, and frankly, the majority on that court got it wrong. They got it wrong in terms of their interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and they certainly got it wrong when they said the people who were born here are going to have obligations to the United States; they're not — they go right back overseas and are being raised in different countries."

Benny Johnson

73,105 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

BREAKING: Vivek Ramaswamy calls for the end of birthright citizenship for kids who were born in the US with parents who illegally entered the country. Wow 🔥 “I favor ending birthright citizenship for the kids of illegal immigrants in this country.” “Now, the left will howl about the Constitution and the 14th Amendment. The difference between me and them is I've actually read the 14th Amendment.” “What it says is that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the laws and jurisdiction thereof are citizens. So nobody believes that the kid of a Mexican diplomat in this country enjoys birthright citizenship.”

BREAKING: Vivek Ramaswamy calls for the end of birthright citizenship for kids who were born in the US with parents who illegally entered the country. Wow 🔥 “I favor ending birthright citizenship for the kids of illegal immigrants in this country.” “Now, the left will howl about the Constitution and the 14th Amendment. The difference between me and them is I've actually read the 14th Amendment.” “What it says is that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the laws and jurisdiction thereof are citizens. So nobody believes that the kid of a Mexican diplomat in this country enjoys birthright citizenship.”

Collin Rugg

6,225,460 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Listen to Mike Davis breakdown BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ⚠️ "If American Indians didn't have birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment how the hell do illegal aliens kids have birthright citizenship" "Foreign ambassadors children do not have birthright citizenship invading armies kids do not have birthright citizenship people don't realize this but even American Indians did not have birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment to the constitution Congress had to pass a statute to give American Indians birthright citizenship because the Supreme Court said that they don't have it under the 14th amendment so ask this question of American Indians didn't have birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment how the hell does do illegal aliens kids have birthright citizenship they don't they don't have allegiance to the United States which isn't which is a critical components of the 14th amendments of birthright citizenship provision you have to show allegiance to the United States if you are a lawful permanent residence" "You have allegiance to the United States if you are an illegal alien kid if you're a trend Aragua or MS 13 baby your parents do not have allegiance to the United States and therefore you should not have birthright citizenship" 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 Bannon’s WarRoom Maureen Bannon Grace Chong, MBI

Listen to Mike Davis breakdown BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ⚠️ "If American Indians didn't have birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment how the hell do illegal aliens kids have birthright citizenship" "Foreign ambassadors children do not have birthright citizenship invading armies kids do not have birthright citizenship people don't realize this but even American Indians did not have birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment to the constitution Congress had to pass a statute to give American Indians birthright citizenship because the Supreme Court said that they don't have it under the 14th amendment so ask this question of American Indians didn't have birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment how the hell does do illegal aliens kids have birthright citizenship they don't they don't have allegiance to the United States which isn't which is a critical components of the 14th amendments of birthright citizenship provision you have to show allegiance to the United States if you are a lawful permanent residence" "You have allegiance to the United States if you are an illegal alien kid if you're a trend Aragua or MS 13 baby your parents do not have allegiance to the United States and therefore you should not have birthright citizenship" 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 Bannon’s WarRoom Maureen Bannon Grace Chong, MBI

Culture War Report

26,542 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

In 2023, mothers who were illegal aliens or had legal temporary status in the U.S. had 320,000 babies, representing about 9% of all 3.6 million babies born in the U.S. that year. About 260,000 of those babies would not have qualified for birthright citizenship if Trump’s executive order had already been in effect. This includes: • About 245,000 babies born to mothers who were illegal aliens and fathers who were illegal aliens, MS-13 gang members, or Tren de Aragua members. • About 15,000 babies born to mothers who had legal temporary status and fathers who were not citizens or lawful permanent residents. This is just 2023. You can calculate all the years before this and the years before that. In other words: the Supreme Court of the United States ruled for the overthrow of the Constitutional Republic of the United States. The 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, ratified in 1868, was adopted after the Civil War and was intended to secure citizenship rights to former Black slaves and their descendants, overturning the 1857 Dred Scott ruling that had denied them citizenship. The clause was specifically designed to guarantee citizenship to newly freed slaves born in the United States. Meaning: if there had been no slaves, there would be no 14th Amendment and no birthright citizenship. It is that simple.

In 2023, mothers who were illegal aliens or had legal temporary status in the U.S. had 320,000 babies, representing about 9% of all 3.6 million babies born in the U.S. that year. About 260,000 of those babies would not have qualified for birthright citizenship if Trump’s executive order had already been in effect. This includes: • About 245,000 babies born to mothers who were illegal aliens and fathers who were illegal aliens, MS-13 gang members, or Tren de Aragua members. • About 15,000 babies born to mothers who had legal temporary status and fathers who were not citizens or lawful permanent residents. This is just 2023. You can calculate all the years before this and the years before that. In other words: the Supreme Court of the United States ruled for the overthrow of the Constitutional Republic of the United States. The 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, ratified in 1868, was adopted after the Civil War and was intended to secure citizenship rights to former Black slaves and their descendants, overturning the 1857 Dred Scott ruling that had denied them citizenship. The clause was specifically designed to guarantee citizenship to newly freed slaves born in the United States. Meaning: if there had been no slaves, there would be no 14th Amendment and no birthright citizenship. It is that simple.

🇺🇸RealRobert🇺🇸

29,298 Aufrufe • vor 22 Tagen

President Trump called on the Supreme Court to study MY analysis of birthright citizenship. Thank you Mr. President! I’ve been making this argument for decades: the 14th Amendment was never intended to grant automatic citizenship based solely on location, but on allegiance to the United States. Now the media is twisting the story, avoiding the substance, and turning it into something it’s not. So I walk through the actual history—Civil Rights Act of 1866, the framers’ intent, and the meaning of “jurisdiction”—and explain why this debate is being misunderstood at every level. If the Court gets this wrong, it won’t be because the Constitution is unclear—it’ll be because it was ignored. This is about law, history, and the truth behind birthright citizenship. Watch the entire episode: Rumble: YouTube:

President Trump called on the Supreme Court to study MY analysis of birthright citizenship. Thank you Mr. President! I’ve been making this argument for decades: the 14th Amendment was never intended to grant automatic citizenship based solely on location, but on allegiance to the United States. Now the media is twisting the story, avoiding the substance, and turning it into something it’s not. So I walk through the actual history—Civil Rights Act of 1866, the framers’ intent, and the meaning of “jurisdiction”—and explain why this debate is being misunderstood at every level. If the Court gets this wrong, it won’t be because the Constitution is unclear—it’ll be because it was ignored. This is about law, history, and the truth behind birthright citizenship. Watch the entire episode: Rumble: YouTube:

Mark R. Levin

162,596 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

The Supreme Court just ruled that, apparently, immigration IS a suicide pact. It has struck down Trump's birthright citizenship executive order and chose to distort the single most important phrase in the 14th Amendment: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." When the Republican Congress drafted this amendment after the Civil War to protect freed slaves from the Democrat Party's terror campaign, they inserted that phrase for a definitive reason. It was meant to cover people who owed FULL ALLEGIANCE to this country. It was never written to create automatic citizenship for children born to people who enter our country illegally, or who come here on tourist visas just to give birth, or are part of a mass surrogate campaign run by the Chinese Communist Party to increase its influence over America. The authors of the 14th Amendment would never recognize what the Court did today. They have taken our constitutional compassion, born of justice and mercy, and twisted it into a weapon against us. It makes absolutely no sense.

The Supreme Court just ruled that, apparently, immigration IS a suicide pact. It has struck down Trump's birthright citizenship executive order and chose to distort the single most important phrase in the 14th Amendment: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." When the Republican Congress drafted this amendment after the Civil War to protect freed slaves from the Democrat Party's terror campaign, they inserted that phrase for a definitive reason. It was meant to cover people who owed FULL ALLEGIANCE to this country. It was never written to create automatic citizenship for children born to people who enter our country illegally, or who come here on tourist visas just to give birth, or are part of a mass surrogate campaign run by the Chinese Communist Party to increase its influence over America. The authors of the 14th Amendment would never recognize what the Court did today. They have taken our constitutional compassion, born of justice and mercy, and twisted it into a weapon against us. It makes absolutely no sense.

Glenn Beck

306,183 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

JD Vance announces the Trump Administration plans on correcting the Supreme Court ruling on Birthright Citizenship He says the ruling is “A mistake” “I don't know how anybody can say that if a person who is an illegal alien or a person, for example, who's pregnant and comes to the United States on a vacation, they have a baby and all of a sudden their entire family gets the benefits of American citizenship. I don't think that's what the framers of the 14th Amendment had in mind. I don't think it's the right case — We're going to try to correct that mistake, but, nobody's perfect, including the Supreme Court” The best way to correct this is a Constitutional Amendment Propose an amendment clarifying and limiting the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause to children of US citizens or legal permanent residents

JD Vance announces the Trump Administration plans on correcting the Supreme Court ruling on Birthright Citizenship He says the ruling is “A mistake” “I don't know how anybody can say that if a person who is an illegal alien or a person, for example, who's pregnant and comes to the United States on a vacation, they have a baby and all of a sudden their entire family gets the benefits of American citizenship. I don't think that's what the framers of the 14th Amendment had in mind. I don't think it's the right case — We're going to try to correct that mistake, but, nobody's perfect, including the Supreme Court” The best way to correct this is a Constitutional Amendment Propose an amendment clarifying and limiting the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause to children of US citizens or legal permanent residents

Wall Street Apes

78,364 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

HUGE SMACKDOWN!!! Trump's Solicitor General fact-checked Sotomayor on birthright citizenship so brutally that she started interrupting him constantly. Sotomayor: "Right now we have novel courts who've percolated this issue and said you're violating precedent, not only precedent but the plain meaning of the 14th [Amendment] of the Constitution." Sauer: "Respectfully, I think what we have are lower courts making snap judgments on the merits that ignore the fundamental principle of the 14th Amendment that it was about giving citizenship to the children of slaves, not to the children of illegal immigrants who really were not even a very discreet class at that time." When will this wretched witch return from the Supreme Court?

HUGE SMACKDOWN!!! Trump's Solicitor General fact-checked Sotomayor on birthright citizenship so brutally that she started interrupting him constantly. Sotomayor: "Right now we have novel courts who've percolated this issue and said you're violating precedent, not only precedent but the plain meaning of the 14th [Amendment] of the Constitution." Sauer: "Respectfully, I think what we have are lower courts making snap judgments on the merits that ignore the fundamental principle of the 14th Amendment that it was about giving citizenship to the children of slaves, not to the children of illegal immigrants who really were not even a very discreet class at that time." When will this wretched witch return from the Supreme Court?

George

603,012 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

One thing is clear: the 14th Amendment was never meant to give birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. It was meant to ensure citizenship for freed slaves after the Civil War. We’ve lived under the legal myth for decades that anyone born on U.S. soil automatically becomes a citizen. The idea that foreign terrorists or criminal gang members can cross our border and gain citizenship for their children by default is absurd, and it undermines the rule of law. And now we have a Supreme Court that thinks it can block the President of the United States from expelling these known terrorists from our country. That’s not just unconstitutional, it’s dangerous. Thanks for having me on, Kimberly Guilfoyle.

One thing is clear: the 14th Amendment was never meant to give birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. It was meant to ensure citizenship for freed slaves after the Civil War. We’ve lived under the legal myth for decades that anyone born on U.S. soil automatically becomes a citizen. The idea that foreign terrorists or criminal gang members can cross our border and gain citizenship for their children by default is absurd, and it undermines the rule of law. And now we have a Supreme Court that thinks it can block the President of the United States from expelling these known terrorists from our country. That’s not just unconstitutional, it’s dangerous. Thanks for having me on, Kimberly Guilfoyle.

🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸

60,711 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

🎥 New: The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship was unconstitutional, upholding a right enshrined in the 14th Amendment. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented. Drop Site's Julian Andreone asked lawmakers on Capitol Hill what they make of the ruling. Democrats celebrated the decision but called out the three dissenters - Rep. Jim McGovern said "this is a court that needs major reform." Some Republicans, like Rep. Randy Fine, pushed back on the ruling entirely, arguing the 14th Amendment was never intended to apply to children of undocumented immigrants. "If people can come to this country on vacation and have a baby, and that baby's an American," Fine said, "we no longer control our own borders."

🎥 New: The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship was unconstitutional, upholding a right enshrined in the 14th Amendment. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented. Drop Site's Julian Andreone asked lawmakers on Capitol Hill what they make of the ruling. Democrats celebrated the decision but called out the three dissenters - Rep. Jim McGovern said "this is a court that needs major reform." Some Republicans, like Rep. Randy Fine, pushed back on the ruling entirely, arguing the 14th Amendment was never intended to apply to children of undocumented immigrants. "If people can come to this country on vacation and have a baby, and that baby's an American," Fine said, "we no longer control our own borders."

Drop Site

20,307 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat