reSee.it - 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.

Speaker 0 confronts Speaker 1 about a question they appear to be dodging. The discussion centers on the Healey administration and Beacon Hill lawmakers proposing to charge Massachusetts taxpayers for SNAP and direct cash assistance for noncitizens living in the state. Speaker 1 notes that, as the governor stated when she established the task force they are part of, Massachusetts has done this before and provided state-funded benefits to immigrants, and it can be done again. The conversation recalls Massachusetts’ history: from 1997 to 2002, the state did provide those benefits, but Governor Mitt Romney eliminated them. Senate Bill 117, sponsored by Sal Di Domenico, has been voted favorably out of committee and referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means. State Representative Antonio Cabral offered testimony for the House version of that bill. Afterward, they caught up with him to ask a question. Speaker 0 asks whether such benefits would make Massachusetts more of a magnet for people, drawing more individuals to the Commonwealth, as has been seen with other policies like the right to shelter law. The question is specific: if more benefits are offered to noncitizens, how long would they have to be residents to qualify? The question asks, “How long would they have to be a resident for?” and emphasizes the concern about potential magnet effects. Speaker 1 asserts that they did not need to look up the answer because it is known: there is no length-of-time requirement to be considered a Massachusetts resident. Cabral’s dismissive attitude toward the question is framed as a warning that another magnet could be on the way if taxpayers do not speak out on the issue. The transcript underscores debate over whether noncitizen benefits should be funded by state taxpayers and the potential implications for residency and migration, highlighting a political contention around the policy and its potential allure.

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.

The speaker discusses a position held by some in the immigrants' rights community who advocate granting legal status to those who are in the country illegally, or at minimum pausing deportations until better laws are enacted. This view is often framed in moral terms, emphasizing compassion and the idea that people should not be punished simply for trying to earn a living. The speaker acknowledges the sincere humanitarian impulse behind this argument but asserts that such an indiscriminate approach would be unwise and unfair. First, the speaker argues that granting legal status or suspending enforcement without regard to existing laws would send a problematic signal. It would suggest to people who are considering coming to the country illegally that there will be no consequences for that decision. The speaker warns that this could lead to a surge in illegal immigration as fewer barriers or penalties are perceived to exist, encouraging more individuals to attempt entry or stay despite being in violation of the law. Second, the speaker emphasizes the existence of a global queue or waiting process for legal entry. By offering widespread legal status or de facto amnesty, the policy would overlook or sideline the millions of people around the world who are currently waiting their turn to come to the country through legal channels. This aspect highlights a sense of fairness and order in immigration policy, underscoring that legal pathways and timelines are in place for a reason and should be respected. Third, the speaker reiterates a fundamental principle about national sovereignty and governance. The United States, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and to establish laws governing residency and citizenship. This point frames immigration policy as a matter of sovereign rights and societal rules that nations set to maintain order, security, and the integrity of their legal framework. In sum, the speaker presents a cautious stance against broad, indiscriminate legalization or halting deportations, arguing that such measures would be unwise and unfair, could encourage more illegal immigration, would disregard the legal processes that many people are patiently awaiting, and would conflict with the nation’s right and obligation to regulate entry and residency.

Speaker 0 argues that the federal government has made clear that the statutory term for certain non-citizens is "illegal aliens," and that this choice is intended to water down the issue compared to the label "undocumented." They illustrate this by comparing undocumented to someone who forgets a wallet but still has a right to drive; the analogy suggests that even with a missing document, some rights remain, whereas crossing into the country illegally is presented as a deliberate act. The speaker contends that the matter is not simply about missing a document, but about knowingly violating the law. They assert that entering the country illegally is an intentional act, not a mere mistake. The speaker emphasizes that this is done knowingly and, in many cases, with the help of the cartels. The claim is that the act is not accidental but a deliberate violation of law supported by criminal organizations. The overall message stresses the distinction between a temporary lapse in documentation and a conscious decision to violate immigration laws, portraying the latter as a calculated act facilitated by external criminal networks.

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.

Justice Alito, in a separate dissent, argued that the court’s interpretation has national security implications. He posed a scenario in which a person’s only connection to the United States is that the person was born here to a mother who was present just long enough to give birth and then quickly returned to her native country, which he described as a strategic adversary or enemy of the United States. In the scenario, the child never visited the United States while growing up and was inculcated with hatred of the United States. Alito said that, under the court’s current interpretation, such a person is a citizen of the United States. He can enter and leave the country as he pleases, travel the world on a United States passport, and, even if he plots to harm the country, he cannot be deprived of his status as a citizen, at least under current precedent. He further stated that the decision provides a powerful incentive to enter or remain in the country illegally. Alito concluded that, in his judgment, the court made a mistake that will seriously affect the country’s future. The transcript characterizes these dissents as “very pointed,” highlighting that the concerns were raised during the arguments and are presented as real-world scenarios that can actually happen under the majority’s ruling.

It is wildly inappropriate to have any foreign-born individuals in Congress or the judiciary system, regardless of their politics. Foreign-born individuals should be banned from holding positions of power in the country, including Congress and the courts. America's institutions should be controlled by Americans whose identity, loyalty, and instincts are shaped in this country, not imported from somewhere else. Allowing foreigners to make decisions about our laws and leaders is national suicide and an open invitation to sabotage, infiltrate, and deliberately erode American sovereignty. It is like an American woman moving to India, becoming a citizen, and then trying to impeach their president and rewrite their constitution. Foreign-born individuals are controlling what happens in the country.

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.”

The speaker references a collection of legal and policy claims surrounding the Homeland Security Act era, asserting that: - They possess Supreme Court case law defending the First Amendment and US Code provisions on conspiracy against rights, deprivation of rights under color of law, and federally protected activities, to be shared with the group. - The DHS/ICE complex was formed as part of a catalyst event that directly caused the Patriot Act, which the speaker claims “virtually shredded the constitution.” - Nine/eleven is described as the catalyst for the Patriot Act; the speaker alleges overwhelming and undeniable evidence that Israel, Jews, and Israel loyalists are responsible for 9/11. - Michael Chertoff is described as an “Israeli Talmudic Jew” who drafted the Patriot Act, which was prepared less than six weeks after 9/11/2001. DHS was established in 2003 and consolidated 22 federal agencies, birthing ICE. - Michael Chertoff is noted as the second secretary of DHS, who later founded the Chertoff Group LLC and profited from TSA airport surveillance and body scan machines. - The speaker claims every DHS secretary has been Jewish or a “Jew loyalist/Zionist.” - DHS allegedly worked directly with Jewish refugee NGOs (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, International Rescue Committee, Refugee International, etc.), and DHS paid Jewish NGOs with US tax dollars to import foreigners. - Under former secretary Mayorkas, described as a dual citizen with Israel and Jewish, DHS purportedly imported over 80,000 refugees after the Afghan withdrawal, in addition to millions of other migrants; impeachment of Mayorkas is claimed to have been dropped due to “anti Semitic conspiracy theories” linked to a claimed Klerge plan and a UN document titled Replacement Migration. - The speaker asserts immigration is a tool of a “Zionist occupied government” intended to justify a permanent authoritarian surveillance police state, asserting use of the Patriot Act and Palantir as weapons against Americans. - ICE is claimed to receive training, policies, and protocols from the IDF, with hundreds or thousands of IDF foreign military members operating within ICE, implying a foreign paramilitary domestic organization operating under a federal agency on U.S. streets. - The broader claim: the United States is not only occupied, but in the early stages of a Bolshevik Revolution 2.0. - A reference to the constitutional right “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…” and an oath to support and defend the Constitution is included, followed by a detour mentioning the Dow, fertilizer, and the Tree of Liberty, with an intention to drop off a document, implying risk to the speaker. The transcript ends with the speaker noting a potential assassination risk and instructing to leave the document with a clerk.

Speaker 0 says they took an oath to the country, the Constitution, and the American people, and not to Europe, Islam, socialists, or globalists. They argue that “this is our country,” and that Americans “get to decide who comes in” and “who leaves.” They criticize members of Congress, including Republicans, for discussing amnesty, specifically referencing the “Dignified Dignity Act,” calling it amnesty. Speaker 0 argues that granting status to people who “shouldn’t be here” is amnesty. Speaker 0 states they are not a “brain surgeon,” but says the distinction is clear. They claim Congress has a “bad habit” of passing “band aids” and “empty resolutions” about the crisis of the day. They argue that the crisis is immigration, describing it as “illegal and legal because we are at war.” Speaker 0 says the conflict involves China, “the globalists,” and “the people within our own country that don’t believe what you believe.” They conclude by saying the founding fathers fought for a life where they could worship God, and not for Islam or globalists.

The speaker argues that most Americans would reject the idea that a person who enters the United States illegally can have a child at the southern border, and that the child should automatically be treated as an American citizen “just like anybody else in our country.” They also say most people would reject the idea of a Chinese national flying into the United States solely to have a child that becomes an American citizen. The speaker hopes the Supreme Court recognizes this position. They claim that, for most of American history, the country has recognized that certain people do not fall under such broad citizenship-by-birth categories. They cite examples including children of an invading army, children of a Native American tribe that maintains tribal relationships, and children of diplomats, stating that these children have not been considered American citizens or have not been granted American citizenship simply because they were born here. The speaker concludes that “the same logic applies to the children of illegal aliens who never should have been in our country to begin with.”

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.

- Speaker 0 states that criminals will be deported and that entering the US illegally increases the likelihood of being caught and sent back. They describe these actions as lawful and representative of the approach taken by every Republican and Democratic president for the past fifty years. - Speaker 1 asserts the need for tough conditions: people should be told to come out of the shadows, and if they have committed a crime, they should be deported with no questions asked; they will be removed. - Speaker 2 addresses widespread concern among all Americans about the large numbers of illegal aliens entering the country. They claim the jobs held by these individuals might otherwise be occupied by citizens or legal immigrants, and that public services used by them impose burdens on taxpayers. The administration is described as having moved aggressively to secure the borders by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, and by borrowing welfare benefits to illegal aliens. In the upcoming budget, there will be efforts to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, and to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace as recommended by the commission headed by former congresswoman Barbara Jordan. - Speaker 2 concludes by emphasizing that we are a nation of immigrants, but also a nation of laws. It is described as wrong and self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the abuse of immigration laws seen in recent years, and there is a stated commitment to doing more to stop it.

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?

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.

The speakers discuss a perceived rapid demographic shift in Middle America, noting a conspicuous decline in white people at familiar places like rest areas, Walmart, and the DMV, and describe this as part of a broader demographic change across the country. They argue that visiting places where “everybody goes” reveals that the country looks very different now, with fewer white people than in the past, and that this change feels intentional rather than accidental. They describe it as an emblematic problem and suggest that those who have never experienced such places are out of touch with what is actually happening in America. They debate whether it is appropriate to notice these changes, with one saying there is overwhelming pressure not to notice obvious things, and the other acknowledging the change as fast and profound. They question why acknowledging the shift should be considered good if it involves reducing the white population, and they compare it to how people would react if a similar change happened to other races in their native countries. The conversation then broadens to a comparison across demographics: if Nigerians were disappearing from Nigeria, or if Amazonian horned owls were disappearing, most people would deem that bad and question why those populations should vanish. They point out that, unlike other races or species, white people are told they are not native anywhere, and thus there is no recognized indigenous white population. They argue that this leads to the suggestion that white people should not be present in the United States or elsewhere, and they question where whites should be if not in the country that was formed by people of European descent. A central claim is that the people who formed America—“almost exclusively white people of European descent”—were the natives of this country, while the current Native Americans are described as not native to America in a historical sense because America existed as a nation only after it was formed. They contend that the true natives of the country are those who established the nation, implying that those of European descent are the true natives of America. They emphasize that the concept of “native” is tied to the formation of the country, and argue that the natives of America are defined by the nation’s origins rather than by preexisting populations.

Speaker 0 expresses concern about the perceived dispossession of white people in various aspects of society. Speaker 1 argues that this is not dispossession but rather an expansion of equality and civil rights. Speaker 0 counters by referencing the first citizenship law, which aimed to reserve naturalization for free white persons. Speaker 1 acknowledges the flaws of America's founding fathers but emphasizes the ideal of equality for all. Speaker 0 disagrees, suggesting that the arrival of diverse populations will change the country his ancestors built. Speaker 1 concludes the conversation, acknowledging the time taken.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the basis for Jewish connection to the land and who has a legitimate claim to it. Speaker 0 begins by stating that there are about 16,000,000 Jews in total worldwide, with 8,000,000 living in the area being discussed, and the remainder living mainly in New York, South Florida, and a few other places. He notes that this is a small population with historical and biblical connections to the land, and asks if such a connection exists. Speaker 1 responds that Bibi’s family lived in Eastern Europe and that there is no evidence they ever lived in the land, and that he isn’t religious. He questions whether there is a true ancestral link. Speaker 0 asks whether there is evidence of any genuine ancestral connection. Speaker 1 asks if there is a family tree for Bibi, and if not, whether anyone has one. Speaker 0 asks how they know, and Speaker 1 elaborates that the point is to establish an ancestral connection to the land. He notes that there has been a practice of Judaism and a connection to the language, suggesting that Bibi has fought for the land, and that his family has fought for it. He raises an obvious, meaningful question: where does this right come from? He explains that many people in the territory Israel controls, particularly in the West Bank, have genetic evidence of having been there for thousands of years, with many identified as Christians for two thousand years, and even if some did not practice Judaism or were Samaritan or pre-Islam, the question remains: how do they compare in terms of rights to someone whose ancestors lived in Latvia or Poland and were Jewish? He questions the basis of being “Jewish” by faith, language, or Torah. Speaker 0 challenges the question, asking how we know if Bibi’s ancestors ever lived there, and expresses confusion about what Speaker 1 is trying to determine. Speaker 1 emphasizes that a claim of rights based on ancestral presence is significant because many claims hinge on whether ancestors lived there, whether money flowed, and whether displacement occurred. He reiterates that it is not a theoretical issue like a grandparent’s distant past, but a real question of who has the right to be there. Speaker 0 remains unable to fully process Speaker 1’s point.