reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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.

If the court rules that someone who incited an insurrection to stay in office can remain on the ballot, what consequences will our country face? What if they decide he can stage a coup and then run again? The consequences will be that the voice of the people will be heard, and they get to choose their president. Also, on election night, when he wins, people will get to watch certain individuals cry on air. Thank you for your time.

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.”

If 200,000 illegals are put into swing states, there is a high likelihood that they will vote for a particular party. It's only a matter of time before they become citizens, and those swing states will no longer be swing states. We risk becoming a permanent one-party, deep blue socialist state. This was the game plan, and it almost succeeded. If the opposing party had won, they would have legalized enough illegals in swing states to flip them to blue states. They would win the presidency, House, and Senate, make DC a state, maybe Puerto Rico, and pack the Supreme Court. Then, they would keep importing more illegals to cement that outcome, similar to what happened in California.

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.

A majority of Americans believe no single district judge should be allowed to issue a nationwide injunction. According to the speaker, this is a judicial coup d'etat, with judges issuing nationwide injunctions from the same political background to stop the changes President Trump represents. While some issues should be addressed in Congress, micromanaging the executive branch on national security by single judges is inappropriate. These judges have no standing, knowledge, or awareness of the consequences, and they endanger Americans and the nation by acting as alternative presidents, of which there could be 677, none of whom were elected.

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.

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.

Justice Samuel Alito argued during oral arguments that the Chevron deference doctrine is no longer necessary because judges like him do not impose their personal beliefs into policies. The liberal justices on the Supreme Court did not laugh at this statement, possibly because they were too busy being shocked. Alito previously acknowledged that judges used their personal policy preferences in 1984, but now claims that he and other judges do not do so in 2024. However, Alito has used his personal policy preferences to influence decisions on issues such as abortion rights, college admissions, voting rights, and gun safety regulations. This demonstrates a conservative flip-flop on the issue, as Alito previously supported Chevron deference. Republicans favored Chevron deference in the past when they controlled the executive branch, but now prefer to control the courts instead.

Senator Dick Durbin is allegedly working with other members of Congress to bring Gaza refugees to the United States without public input. This move is seen as a national security threat, as these individuals are unvetted and their intentions could be dangerous. If successful, major American cities could become like Gaza.

One key question is whether a federal judge can block a presidential policy nationwide. The administration argues this creates an unfair playing field, forcing the government to "win everywhere" while plaintiffs "can win anywhere." Justice Sotomayor responded skeptically, saying the administration's argument "makes no sense whatsoever," and that it would limit the ability of federal courts, and even the Supreme Court, to issue nationwide relief. She asked what would happen if a president issued an executive order to take away everyone's guns, and whether courts would have to "sit back and wait for individuals to sue one by one." The administration also argues that the Fourteenth Amendment's birthright citizenship provision was meant for freed slaves, not immigrants.

The speaker states he cannot smuggle a terrorist into the United States, calling the question preposterous. He says they are not fond of releasing terrorists into the country, and that they turned the murder capital of the world into the safest country in the Western Hemisphere. Another speaker clarifies the individual in question is a citizen of El Salvador who was illegally in the United States and was returned to his country. He states that the foreign policy of the United States is conducted by the president, not by a court. Another speaker adds that the Supreme Court held that no court has the authority to compel the foreign policy function in the United States. He claims the policy is that foreign terrorists who are here illegally get expelled from 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.”

Our opponents are terrified that our America First policies will succeed, leading to a stronger party. We're going to prove that their treasonous years of betrayal will not be forgotten because allowing millions of people to pour in through open borders from all over the world is treason. What they've done to our country is unthinkable. The money we have to spend to take people out, and then we have judges that say, no. Let Trende Araqua come back into our country. They want them to come back in killers. They cut off a man's

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.

Justice Alito's belief that the Supreme Court should only be accountable to itself is criticized as unacceptable and a path to authoritarianism. It is argued that having one branch of government unchecked leads to abuse of power and is unsustainable structurally. There is a call to rein in the unaccountable court to prevent tyranny.

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?

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.

As a Middle Eastern immigrant, I predicted this verdict due to political ties. The judge's daughter supports the Democratic party, and the DA is funded by Soros, aiming to take down Trump. This is a dangerous precedent for democracy. If powerful figures like Trump can be targeted, ordinary people may face similar treatment, leading to a desire to flee for a better life elsewhere.

It's common sense that we have many migrants here illegally who have committed crimes. It's hard to understand why anyone would defend allowing them to stay in the country. If someone is here illegally and engages in criminal activity, they should be removed. This issue was significant in the recent election. In the Senate, with 47 members, if we can't secure at least 7 votes on this matter, it reflects why we lost. This is one of the reasons for our defeat. Brett, consider that perspective; it's a crucial point being made.