Of Course We Should End Birthright Citizenship For Illegals | The Matt Walsh Show Ep. 134

Today on the show, Trump wants to end birthright citizenship for illegals. We'll talk about why he's 100 percent right about the birthright issue. Also, I'll explain why I think we need to stop blaming mass shootings on mental illness.

[johnmccall]

great job Trump, greatest president this country has had in decades

[MrLM]

Honestly ending birth right citizenship for illegal aliens makes a lot of sense. It takes away one of many incentives for illegals to illegally immigrate here.

[bignigga]

I agree if you're here illegally and if you birth a child here your child should still be considered illegal.

Come here legally then we won't have an issue.

[peanutandoreobasset]

Matt, you give me hope for your generation. I am 59 years old and unfortunately, the immaturity and entitlement of younger people scares me. Thank you for these videos. God bless, Lisa

[darkmaniac]

What if my parents came here illegally, then had me, and then got their citizenship. Am I still illegal?

[afershock]

Isn’t this argument hypocritical on both ends? The left saying this subject is on paper therefor it shouldn’t be changed, then they want to amend the 1st and 2nd. Then the right saying the left is hypocritical because the lefts logic only works when it favors them, but the right wants to change an amendment too?

[noahdoherty]

Your background confuses the hell out of me. Are you parked vertically in a backyard?

[moralezfamily]

What about if 1 parent was illegally here and the other one is a U.S. citizen?

[Vintagecoilylocks]

First off there is no law that was written to give an illegal the right to do this.

[TigerHawkZ]

Senator Jacob M. Howard who was one of the authors of the 14 amendment said: "...every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person." So that leads me to believe that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to illegal immigrant children.

[steveh]

Great show today Matt, and I have to say, when you're right, you're right. Much love to you and yours and to all the Daily Wire family.

[Alan.Endicott]

God help us if this question gets to the Supreme Court. Congress has plenary authority on citizenship. Article I, Section 8 grants to Congress the authority "to establish an (sic) uniform rule of naturalization." It seems to me that is sufficient for Congress to say that a child born in America to non-citizens is neither a natural born citizen nor a naturalized citizen. And let's recall, Amendment 14, Section 1 says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The first phrase is qualified by the second.

The first phrase requires a person to be born or naturalized in the United States. No child of foreign-born parents who are not themselves naturalized is naturalized, as that term is defined in US law. So the question rests on the word born in the first phrase. The second phrase acknowledges the citizenship of people subject to US jurisdiction. What constitutes that? US citizens are subject to US jurisdiction, and so too are their children. I'm even prepared to say that if the parents are lawful permanent residents of the US they are subject to US jurisdiction, and so too are their children. But a child of parents that are neither citizens nor lawful permanent residents cannot be subject to the jurisdiction of the US quite simply because the parents are not subject to the jurisdiction. How can being subject to US jurisdiction attach to a child when it does not attach first to the parents?

Ask yourselves why the children of diplomats born in the US are not recognized as citizens, or of people here on business, or to study, or to travel? It's because they have not renounced their citizenship to another nation, to which jurisdiction they remain subjects.

The 14th Amendment was adopted to resolve the question of slaves. The importation of slaves was ended by Congress in 1808, the earliest possible date for such prohibition established in the Constitution. Virtually no slave living at the time of the adoption of the 14th Amendment, which occurred in 1868, was born outside the US. No slave living in 1868 was subject to any jurisdiction but that of the US. That was irrevocably ended by the importation of their ancestors or parents under US law. In essence, they were lawful permanent residents. The amendment acknowledged, therefore, that slaves were both born here and subject to US jurisdiction and therefore citizens, just as were any other people both born here and subject to US jurisdiction.

I'm no lawyer, but that's my reading of the Constitution and law.

[wrath]

In this case, the constitution is too vague and non binding, which is troubling in of itself.

[allenferry]

My parents were illegal aliens from Canada living in NYC and had my brother in New York in 1941. They got deported in 1942 and when they said he is an American they were told your illegal, he's illegal and kicked them out.

[QarthCEO]

Birthright citizenship should not be a thing at all, not even for children born to citizen parents. Citizenship should be earned, not given away. Something given has no value. A citizen should be something everyone born here has a right to TRY to become, but it must be EARNED, through service to the nation. Military or civil service should guarantee citizenship, not random chance of who your parents were.

[sprngcactu]

I agree that “anchor babies” should NOT be given citizenship, but what about illegals who have been here for many years and then have a baby? I’m just curious where do you think we should draw the line?

[manuelochoa]

I came to this country with the resident card in my Pocket with my family when i was a teenager. My mother applied for the residency visa at the American embassy in Honduras and it took her 5 years to get it and I was a kid but i remember my mom going back and forth to the embassy doing tons of paperwork and she also had to pay for a physical which was part of the application. If somebody comes into the country illegaly and is pregnant and that person has the baby in US soil technically the baby is a US citizen but that doesn't make the mother a citizen. I think after the mom has the baby, she has the option to go back to her country and take the baby with her or she can give the baby for adoption and then she gets deported. I think that's fair. My parents weren't rich but they managed to get US residence the legal way. If you follow rules then you can come in the country totally legally.

[djz]

Ugh. Complaining that liberals aren't consistent while yourself not being consistent with constitutional amendments.

[johnwicksfoknpencil]

This will effect the Chinese even more than Central Americans. Just an observation though because I’m all for it either way. Long overdue.

If he can pull it off though.. repealing an amendment isn’t something that can be done by executive order. Correct me if I’m wrong.

[ralegade]

It's like that one scene from the lord of the rings when they're trying to protect the wall and that one orc with the bomb jumps over the crowd and blows the doors down. This is a brilliant idea. These people know what they are doing. They plan these things out. Then once they have the kid and get caught, they try to pull the morality card and say that they need to stay in order to fulfill their duties to their child.