reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker questions whether the person in question was born in the United States, as it is a requirement to be president. They mention that people are urging them not to give up on this issue. The speaker highlights that the person has spent a significant amount of money on legal fees to avoid the issue. They admit to having brought up the topic casually, but now more facts are emerging, causing them to wonder if the person was indeed born in the country.

The New York City Council voted to allow noncitizens to vote in municipal elections starting from January 9, 2023. Similar measures are being considered in Vermont, Maryland, Illinois, Maine, and Massachusetts. The speaker argues that this is an attempt to turn illegal immigrants into voters, citing the example of New York City. However, another speaker points out that New York and Vermont do not represent the entire country. The speaker expresses concern that allowing noncitizens to vote goes against the constitution and threatens American sovereignty. They believe that American elections should be decided by American citizens.

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.”

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.'

Michael Anton discusses the constitutional debate surrounding birthright citizenship, highlighting a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment. He explains that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has been overlooked, clarifying that it means individuals must not owe allegiance to any foreign power. This interpretation counters the belief that children of illegal immigrants automatically gain citizenship. Anton attributes the current bureaucratic practice of granting birthright citizenship to a liberal agenda, rather than constitutional authority. He also critiques the use of accusations of racism against those questioning this practice, emphasizing that the amendment was originally intended to enfranchise freed African Americans, not foreign nationals. Anton concludes by pointing out the irony of allowing citizens from adversarial nations to exploit the system while criticizing the president for addressing these issues.

It's legal for illegal aliens to vote in federal elections if they believe they are citizens, according to a provision in the US code. Concerns arise about the 2020 election's lawlessness and the upcoming 2024 election. The hope is to raise awareness and demand accountability before November to determine if citizenship is truly a state of mind.

Trump is expected to sign executive orders at a convention center before returning to the White House. Legal challenges are anticipated, particularly regarding his plans to remove birthright citizenship, which is protected by the 14th Amendment. As a nation, we need to take a moment to reflect and determine the kind of country we want to be, both individually and collectively.

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.

The speakers discuss the historical basis for the concept of jurisdiction and who is included or excluded under it. They argue that the text does support a historical interpretation, citing multiple primary sources from the framers and early Congress. Speaker 1 presents direct quotations from key figures to define jurisdiction. He cites Senator Trumbull, who was asked what jurisdiction means and answered, "it means subject to jurisdiction," and further, "not owing allegiance to anybody else." He identifies Trumbull as the principal of the framers of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. He then references Representative Bigham, described as the framer of the Fourteenth Amendment, who, in the congressional record (page 1291), is quoted as saying, "within the jurisdiction of The United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty." Speaker 1 notes that these statements are part of the congressional debates and that they reflect the meaning of jurisdiction in that era. Beyond these individuals, Speaker 1 mentions George Bancroft's oration as another source, indicating that the argument draws from a broad set of authorities. He asserts that there are "at least 13, counting that one in the 12 treaties as we cited, pages 26 to 28 of our brief" sources, totaling over a dozen references that specifically address temporary sojourners. The core claim presented is that the historical record shows a consistent view across many sources regarding temporary sojourners. The speakers state that in the five decades after the enactment of the amendment, "every single one of them says, well, temporary sojourners, their children are not included," and they emphasize this position continues "including for two decades after Wong Kim Ark." In summary, the argument is that a substantial, multi-source historical record—comprising framers’ statements, congressional debates, a Bancroft oration, and treaties—defines jurisdiction as allegiance-related and asserts that temporary sojourners and their children were not included in the protections or definitions at issue, a view maintained for decades after Wong Kim Ark.

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.

All Americans are disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering the country, not only in the states most heavily affected but in every place in the United States. Speakers describe U.S. immigration policies as a “shambles,” saying the borders are “amazingly porous” to people who “shouldn't be here,” including terrorists and drug smugglers. The transcript also asserts that if someone breaks U.S. laws by entering without permission and gives birth to a child, the child is “reward[ed]” with U.S. citizenship, and it questions why the country has an illegal immigration problem under those circumstances. Another point emphasized is that unlawful immigration is not acceptable. The transcript states the U.S. is both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws, and it characterizes the reported abuse of immigration laws in recent years as wrong and “ultimately self defeating.” It concludes that the country “must do more to stop them.”

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.

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments regarding nationwide injunctions blocking President Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship. Federal appeals courts have maintained the order on hold, suggesting it is likely unconstitutional. President Trump contends that the lower courts overstepped their authority. He is requesting the Supreme Court to lift the injunctions or, at minimum, permit the administration to begin planning for the change.

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?

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.

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.

The US code may allow illegal aliens to vote in the upcoming presidential election. According to Title 18, if an alien reasonably believed they were a US citizen at the time of voting, they are not subject to prosecution. Many people crossing the border are excited to vote for Joe Biden and claim to be citizens. If foreigners vote in the election, there is nothing that can be done about it after the fact. The American people are the reason for hope.

The speaker questions whether Democrats support an open border and asks if noncitizens will be eligible to vote in New York. The other speaker denies this, stating that noncitizens have not been eligible to vote in New York since the 19th century. The first speaker disagrees, mentioning that the New York City Council recently passed a law allowing noncitizens to vote in municipal elections starting in 2023. They argue that this is part of a plan to turn illegal immigrants into voters. The second speaker clarifies that this is only being considered in certain areas, not the entire country. The first speaker expresses concern about the impact on American elections and the constitution.

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 caller asked if the guest knew about Chinese maternity houses, where the Chinese government allegedly sends pregnant citizens in their seventh or eighth month to the US to give birth, after which they return to China with US citizen children who are raised loyal to China. The caller also questioned why a baby born in the US to a mother from Trendel Agua was not sent back with the mother. The guest responded that a mother is still a mother unless actively abusing the child. Regarding the first comment, the guest acknowledged the existence of a birth tourism industry where people pay to come to the US to give birth. He stated there is evidence that some countries, possibly including China, send people to the US to give birth so that those children can later claim US citizenship after living in their home countries for many years. He believes 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.