►出生公民權把國家白白送給外國人？美國最蠢政策！沒有之一◄中英對照|即時新聞|學習道地口語表達

The Supreme Court's decision on birthright citizenship. Take a look. Supreme Court just this minute, Breonna, announced it's going to take up a challenge to President Trump's order lifting birthright citizenship. You might remember on January 20th, his first day in office, he took his Sharpie pen and he said, this is a big one. And what he did was he tried to eliminate the automatic birthright citizenship that all Americans have had for more than a century. And what that does, it goes to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution that says all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. That means that anyone who's born here, Breonna, automatically becomes a U.S. citizen. And what Donald Trump's executive order tried to do was say anyone who was born of someone who was not here lawfully or who was here on some sort of temporary status, that person's baby would not automatically be a citizen. It's probably of all the Trump actions that have been taken to date, Breonna, this one is the most challenging because what it does is it flies in the face of the 14th Amendment that was adopted in 1868, and it flies in the face of an 1898 Supreme Court precedent that said, even if you were born of, in that case, it happened to be a Chinese national, even if you were born of someone who was not here as a U.S. citizen, you still had, you still have, you definitely still have citizenship here in the U.S. The fact that the Supreme Court is taking this case and not just ruling Trump's executive order illegal based on precedent is massive. The Democrat assumption that birthright citizenship was so clear, so cut and dry that there was no way it could be interpreted any differently or possibly rolled back is the same mistake they made with Roe versus Wade, and we saw how that ended up. The 14th Amendment that granted birthright citizenship was meant for slaves, but it's been exploited by the entire world for far too long. It has been the catalyst and driving motivation of mass migration from Central and South America over the last 60 years. In the 60s, the United States population was roughly 85% white people, 10% black people, and 5% Asians, Hispanics, and others. But fast forward to today and the population is roughly 50% white people, 13% black people, 25-30% Hispanics, and the rest Asians, Middle Easterners, and Africans. That's why I am so adamant about trying to free black people from the shackles of the Democrat party. They think the Democrats are fighting for their place in society, but they're not. They're fighting for the entire globe's place in their society, and that's why they rely on telling black people they're victims and second-class citizens so they'll help give away their country, their birthright, to the entire globe. And before you say, well, Brandon, there's no chance that they're going to overturn birthright citizenship. Well, here's MSNBC even admitting Trump's lawyers have a pretty good argument. The Supreme Court ruled on this back in the very early 1900s, I think 1908, and they found that if you were born here, despite your parents' citizenship, you are an American citizen. So could it be that this Supreme Court overturns that? I don't think that it will, but let me give you the administration's argument. The case that you're referring to is called Wong Kim Ark. The administration's interpretation of that case is not that it extends citizenship to all children born in the U.S., but rather that it extends citizenship to those who have permanent domicile, those who are the children of parents who have already established permanent residency in the U.S. And they say that's clearly not the case for, you know, thousands of children who are born in the U.S. every year. They say that decision was never meant to confer sort of universal birthright citizenship, but that the decision itself uses the word domicile more than 20 times. And therefore, we have all perverted the meaning of that case rather than their perverting the meaning of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. So that is going to be the major determining factor for how the Supreme Court ends up ruling. Does it require the parents to have some semblance of legal permanent residence? There's already a carve out for the children of foreign diplomats because it's understood they belong to an entirely different country. Their residence in the United States doesn't have the foundation of permanence. So that would apply to people with temporary protective status, keyword temporary. Their presence in the United States was never intended to be permanent. Refugees, asylum seekers, tourists, and obviously the big one, illegal aliens. There is no rational argument that can be made that when the 14th Amendment passed in 1968, they meant for it to encompass the children of tens of millions of illegal aliens who broke into the country and had children here, granting their kids United States citizenship. And if we're being honest, I think this case would have been settled if not for Joe Biden letting in 25 million illegal aliens in the span of four years, highlighting the clear exploitation of our immigration system paired with birthright citizenship. And the mainstream media is even admitting the simple fact that the Supreme Court is hearing this case is concerning for them. And do you think, Jessica, that's why the court took it? Because as you well laid out, we have precedent and statute. Do you think the court wanted to make an affirmative declaration that those are the governing elements of this question? Or at least four members of the court, as you know, and you're a student of the court as well. All it takes in order to decide to take a case is four votes. And so I think there easily could have been four to say the president has tried to change the understanding of the Constitution by executive order. We should be clear that there has been no court that has agreed that he can do that. This executive order, which I believe was signed on the first day of his presidency, never went into effect. But yes, to your question, I think this is one of those big constitutional questions that, generally speaking, the Supreme Court is the final word. Again, if this case was so cut and dry, the Supreme Court wouldn't have even heard it. They would have just struck down the executive order as unconstitutional. They would have said the precedent is the precedent. It's been this way for 150 years. There is no point in us even wasting our time reaffirming this ruling. I personally believe I have a pretty good track record in reading the tea leaves, and I think this is going to be a 5-4 decision that overturns birthright citizenship. I think they'll interpret it to mean at least one parent has to be a lawful permanent resident. If the ruling goes as I predict, this will be a massive disincentive to all future illegal migration because the entire scam right now is predicated on an extremely backlogged court paired with birthright citizenship, where migrants bank on having as many American citizen children as possible, so when their day in court finally arrives, years down the road if they ever even show up, the court will offer them deference because they'll see they have three or four US-born American citizen children. It is a system that at its core encourages breaking the rules, exploitation, lying, and scamming. It dilutes the meaning of American citizenship to something anybody can obtain so long as they're willing to get here by any means necessary, and punishes the people who wait in line and follow our proper immigration process the legal way. This ruling is so consequential because it will seriously halt the third worldification of America.