TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker clarifies a headline, stating that three US citizen children (ages four, seven, and two) were not deported. Their mothers, who were in the US illegally, were deported, and the children accompanied them. The speaker asserts that if the children are US citizens, they can return to the US if their father or someone else wants to care for them. The speaker claims the US does not have a policy to deport children, even US citizens, without due process. The speaker explains that if someone is in the US unlawfully and has a young child, the parent can choose to take the child with them upon deportation. Alternatively, they can leave the child in the US. The speaker suggests the children likely have fathers in the US and that the family decides where the children go. The US deported the mothers who were illegally in America.

The discussion focuses on the definition of birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. There's a belief that there are strong grounds for addressing this issue, as the U.S. is unique in its approach to birthright citizenship. Some have sought to change this for decades, and while the outcome is uncertain, there is confidence in the arguments being made.

Entering the U.S. legally and ignoring a judge's deportation order are crimes. Choosing to have a U.S. citizen child while in the country illegally puts the family in a difficult position. The speaker claims they removed children with mothers who requested it, calling it a parental decision. The speaker argues that if they hadn't removed the children with their mothers, they would be accused of separating families. They assert that when a parent wants their child to go with them, they facilitate it, and that the parents, not the government, made the decision. The speaker then references Lincoln Riley and Rachel Moran, stating they will never see their children again, and concludes that the administration is doing the right thing.

The exchange centers on accusations of hyperbolic statements and the accuracy of quoted posts. Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1's credibility, citing a series of posts and asking whether the statements were read correctly. - On 02/11/2026, Speaker 0 cites a Blueski post: “my words or your words, not mine. The democrats video telling service members to ignore illegal orders didn't go far enough. They should have also urged them to refuse unethical orders, whether illegal or not. There are many things deemed legal that are still obviously unethical, and everyone should hold themselves to this higher law,” and asks, “Did I read that correctly?” Speaker 1 confirms reading it and asks if Speaker 0 disagrees with it, questioning whether people should do unethical things in their capacity of [unknown context]. - On 12/31/2025, Speaker 0 references a post reading, “in front of god and country. … They referring to Republicans think they control their way into us accepting ethnic cleansing,” and asks, “Did I read that correctly?” Speaker 1 responds that it related to a DHS security post advocating a 100,000,000 deportations, stating that “A 100,000,000 deportations would be ethnic cleansing,” adding, “You would be True. One third of the country. So, yes, there are people within the Department of Homeland security.” Speaker 0 asks whether this is hyperbolic and requests more time. - On 02/05 (implied), Speaker 1 notes, “advocating a 100,000,000” but the sentence is cut off in the transcript. Speaker 0 comments, “reputations is … cleansing,” while continuing to engage in the discussion with the chair and audience; Speaker 0 asks for thirty more seconds. - On 03/02, Speaker 0 quotes Speaker 1: “if you rule against Trump's population purge agenda, no hyper permanently there, the nativists will name you, threaten you, and come after you. These judges are much braver than the ICE agents who hide behind masks while violating the constitution. They are much braver.” Speaker 1 clarifies, “They put their names on their rulings, and they stand behind their constitutional rulings. When I talk about population purge, I'm talking about the fact that they're trying to deport US born citizens, people born here. They are trying to deport them as well. So it's not a mass deportation agenda. It is also an agenda intended to reduce the population of The United States, including US born people.” - Speaker 0 responds, “Thank you.” Speaker 1 adds, “These are not hyperbolic statements. I appreciate you reading my account. Here's the good news.” The conversation escalates in tone as Speaker 0 interjects with disbelief, asking, “What planet … parachute him from?” Speaker 1 replies, “No. No.” Speaker 0 comments, “Hey, guys. You're you you You trigger my gag reflex,” and Speaker 1 closes with, “Mr. Bieber.”

What's your name? Where are you from? I was born in Thailand. Have you ever been deported from the U.S.? No, I've never been deported. What have you been charged with? I'm not a citizen; my mother is. I've seen Dr. Phil on TV. This is an example of sanctuary cities, where illegal immigrants, like those involved in sex crimes against children, are walking the streets instead of being detained by federal agents. You've been charged with sex crimes? Not really. So, you've never been deported? Nope. We need to process and lock them up.

They used birthright citizenship, some of the worst people, some of the cartels to get people into our country, just so you know. He references 'the end day, was it 1869 or whatever, but you take that exact day, that's when the case was filed, and the case ended shortly thereafter' and says, 'This has to do with the babies of slaves very, very obviously.' He adds, 'I think we're gonna win.' The speaker argues 'they've used it,' and 'the cartels have used birthright citizenship to get very bad people in' and cites 'Pam's doing and what Todd and everybody else what they're doing at DOJ and all over, FBI, ICE, border patrol' as 'incredible people' trying to keep the country safe. He concludes that 'This is just another way that they get illegal immigrants into our into our country, and in some cases, very, very bad one.'

The speaker clarifies that a headline is misleading because three US citizen children (ages four, seven, and two) were not deported. Their mothers, who were in the US illegally, were deported, and the children went with them. The speaker states that if US citizen children are deported with their parents, they can return to the US if a father or someone else wants to care for them. The choice of whether the children accompany their deported parents rests with the parents. The alternative would be for the US to hold the children while deporting the mother, which would lead to different negative headlines. The speaker assumes the children have fathers in the US who can care for them. The US deported the mothers who were in America illegally.

Tax dollars are being used to facilitate the travel of children who may be trafficked for sex or forced into sweatshops. The lack of verification for family members and the absence of rapid DNA testing under the current administration raise concerns. The head official at the border acknowledged the issue when questioned, admitting that children are being sent to potential traffickers. This disturbing revelation highlights the urgent need for action to address the exploitation of vulnerable children.

The hearing regarding Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship concluded in Seattle, with Judge Cooner criticizing the order as blatantly unconstitutional. This suggests a likely unfavorable ruling for Trump, which would lead to an appeal and potentially reach the Supreme Court. The legal principle at stake is rooted in the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. or its territories. The ongoing debate centers around whether this applies to children born to individuals in the country illegally, as opposed to those with diplomatic status or other legal protections.

Biden's policies have led to a surge of illegal immigration, allowing millions to enter the U.S. unlawfully. This includes individuals from prisons and mental institutions. Current laws grant automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, incentivizing more to cross the border. To address this, on the first day of my term, I will issue an executive order clarifying that future children of illegal aliens will not automatically receive citizenship. This will reduce illegal immigration and discourage those currently in the U.S. from staying. Additionally, I will end birth tourism, where individuals come to the U.S. to give birth for citizenship benefits. Our focus will be on securing borders, restoring sovereignty, and prioritizing American interests.

Chinese couples are allegedly using American surrogates to have children in the US who then return to China with US passports. This "rent a womb" scheme involves Chinese parents paying American women to carry babies conceived with Chinese sperm and egg. The practice is happening thousands of times and costs around $200,000, with the surrogate receiving about $70,000. US officials are concerned that these children, as US citizens, could pose a national security risk in the future, potentially serving in the Chinese military with the ability to freely enter the United States. One example cited was a child born in Irvine in 2015 who could join the Chinese military at age 20. While birth tourism is illegal, this surrogacy loophole is not. Some members of Congress are concerned, but currently, there is no legal way to stop it.

The speaker challenges Mr. Breer's claim that intentional trauma was caused by the Trump administration's separation of children from their parents. They argue that it is unknown whether these individuals are the children's actual parents, and criticizes Mr. Breer for using the term "parents" in quotes. The speaker questions Mr. Breer's knowledge and suggests that the reason for family separation is to prevent child trafficking. The speaker, identifying as a mother, ends the conversation, accusing Mr. Breer of being destructive.

The speaker states that they would end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. They clarify that this would only apply from January 20, 2025 onwards, as there is a legal concept called reliance interest that prevents retroactive changes. They argue that the 14th Amendment supports their stance, as it states that birthright citizenship applies only to those subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They compare the situation to the children of legal Mexican diplomats, who also do not receive birthright citizenship. They believe that the Supreme Court would agree with their interpretation and emphasize the importance of understanding the constitution.

Welcome to today's hearing on birthright citizenship. We're examining the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment's jurisdiction clause, focusing on who is a citizen by birthright. The amendment was meant to recognize former slaves as Americans, not to grant automatic citizenship to everyone born here. The jurisdiction clause, as understood originally, only grants citizenship to children whose parents have full allegiance to the United States. It does not include children of illegal aliens or temporary visitors. The Supreme Court has never ruled that children of illegal aliens are entitled to birthright citizenship. This interpretation aligns with President Trump's executive order. Furthermore, automatic citizenship devalues American citizenship and strains our resources, costing billions in welfare benefits. Adversaries are abusing this policy. Congress has the power to address this issue and restore the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What the Biden administration did with respect to child trafficking is one of the great crimes in human history. Over 500,000 children were illegally trafficked into the country under the previous administration. When we've gone and looked for these children, Martha, the addresses that the US government provided, in other words, the records that the government kept under Joe Biden, are all fake. Nobody ever checked if the addresses were real. Nobody ever checked if the sponsors were real. Nobody ever checked if they were really even relatives or parents or relations or safe. We we recently recovered a a young illegal alien, for example, who had been raped repeatedly by the adult male that the Biden administration handed to her. She was under constant video surveillance and was coached exactly what to say if an officer ever knocked on her door so that she would never be rescued.

Speaker 0 asks: “Can you talk about the number of missing children… Yeah. You guys have discovered in Memphis? That's amazing.” Speaker 1 responds: “Well, it's hundreds of thousands were lost through Biden and the Biden administration, and we are getting a lot of them back. But they're either dead, they're slaves, they're captured in some form. But think of it, hundreds of thousands we're talking about. Not even believable. And they came in through the border, they were sold, They were bargained for. And this was all Biden. Meaning Biden and Obama, the same, you know, the same mentality, frankly. I think it's the same mentality. Let me tell you, Barack Hussein Obama was a lousy president. A lot of bad things happened. Remember when they used to talk about Trump with the jail cells? Well, he built the jail cells for the children. He built those jail cells. Remember that came out? But sure, they were built in 2014. You remember when that came out after me going through that stuff for about two weeks, and then they found out it was Barack Obama that built those jail cells. No. These people are they were bad leaders. I hope I hope we don't have it again. I hope we don't have it again because, you know, our country has come back a long way, but it can only withstand so much, and we don't wanna ever go through that again. We never wanna have open borders again. We don't wanna have we don't wanna have men playing women's sports. We don't wanna have transgender for everybody. We don't want that. We wanna have a great country with low interest rates, nice housing, great education, a strong military. The basics. Yes, please.”

You promised to end birthright citizenship on day one. Is that still your plan? Yes, absolutely. However, the 14th Amendment states that all persons born in the United States are citizens. Can you bypass the 14th Amendment with an executive action?

Speaker 0 questions the practicality of a mass deportation program, particularly concerning families with American-citizen children, suggesting a single negative image could halt the entire program. Speaker 1 acknowledges that deporting a woman with children, resulting in media coverage, would complicate the effort. Speaker 0 then asks for confirmation of support for mass deportation, "even of women and children." Speaker 1 responds that they will look at it very closely, noting that the deportation of even one "wrong person" could be exploited by the "radical left lunatics."

The case concerns birthright citizenship and the Trump administration's attempt to reinterpret the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens. The Trump administration announced it would no longer automatically grant citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, tourists, and temporary guest workers. However, this order did not take effect.

Speaker 0 conveys a series of grave allegations about the abuse and trafficking of children. They state that children are not only kidnapped and, in some cases, bred by families as a cash crop, but that there are people in the United States who breed children in order to sell them. The claim continues that when these children are sold, they come without birth certificates, which, according to the speaker, makes it easier to kill them without anyone asking where they are. In addition to this, Speaker 0 asserts that children are being imported by the plane load, again noting that these children have no documentation. Beyond child slavery or child sex abuse, the speaker asserts that there is child torture, described as involving adrenalized blood. They mention “the whole blood drinking ceremony of the satanic world,” and reference ritual ceremonies and ritual murder, as well as incidental murder. The speaker also raises a working assumption about the survivability of these children, asking how long they survive, and states that, from witnesses they have spoken to, the answer is two years. These points are presented as direct claims about widespread abuse, trafficking, and ritual violence directed at children, with a specific assertion that some of these children lack birth certificates and travel with no documentation, facilitating harm and concealment. The overall narrative emphasizes a combination of kidnapping, forced breeding for profit, illegal importation, lack of documentation, and extreme forms of torture and ritualistic violence, culminating in the asserted conclusion that the observed survival time for these children is two years, according to the witnesses referenced by the speaker.

Joe Biden's policies are allowing a record number of illegal immigrants to enter the US. These immigrants, along with their future children, will become automatic US citizens and have access to welfare, healthcare, voting rights, and other government benefits. This policy is seen as a reward for breaking US laws and is drawing more illegal immigrants to the country. The speaker believes that this policy is based on a historical myth and a misinterpretation of the law. They argue that it is attracting criminals and people with mental health issues. The speaker plans to sign an executive order to end automatic citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants and to stop birth tourism. They aim to secure the borders, deter illegal immigration, and prioritize America's interests.

Donald Trump signed an executive order to end birthright citizenship, which has sparked debate. The 14th Amendment originally granted citizenship to the children of freed slaves, and Supreme Court rulings have clarified that children of illegal immigrants do not qualify. Past policies, particularly from LBJ, allowed for broader interpretations, leading to the current situation where children born to illegal immigrants are considered citizens. Critics argue this is unconstitutional and a manipulation of the law. The discussion emphasizes the need for clarity in citizenship laws and the distinction between citizens and non-citizens, suggesting a potential new classification for non-citizen residents. The ongoing information war highlights the importance of understanding these legal precedents and their implications for immigration policy.

A birth tourism industry exists where pregnant individuals travel to the US to give birth. Evidence suggests some countries, possibly China, send people to the US for this purpose. The children born in the US are then raised in their home countries for many years. Later, these individuals can return to the US and claim citizenship due to their birthright. Abuses like these led to President Trump's executive order.

Joe Biden's policies have led to a surge in illegal immigration, with millions of people crossing the border unlawfully. These individuals, along with their future children, will become automatic US citizens, gaining access to welfare, healthcare, voting rights, and other government benefits. This policy acts as a reward for breaking US laws and attracts more illegal immigrants. The US is one of the few countries that grants automatic citizenship to children born to non-citizen parents on its soil. To address this, I will sign an executive order to end automatic citizenship for future children of illegal immigrants. This will discourage illegal immigration and prevent birth tourism. We will secure our borders, restore sovereignty, prioritize education, and put America first.