Home
Connexion
S'inscrire
Contenu d'apprentissage
Loading...
The end of birthright citizenship as we know it? - Video học tiếng Anh
Pratique d'écoute
Pratique d'écoute
/
Video
/
VOX
/
The end of birthright citizenship as we know it?
The end of birthright citizenship as we know it?
Choisir le mode d'apprentissage:
Voir les sous-titres
Choisir le mot
Réécrire le mot
Highlight:
3000 Oxford Words
4000 IELTS Words
5000 Oxford Words
3000 Common Words
1000 TOEIC Words
5000 TOEFL Words
Sous-titres (246)
0:00
President Trump has been on a crusade to
0:02
end birthright citizenship for years.
0:05
>> Hundreds of thousands of illegal
0:07
immigrant children are made automatic
0:09
citizens every year because of this
0:12
crazy policy.
0:13
>> And now a political battle over whether
0:16
virtually everyone born in the US should
0:18
be granted citizenship is about to take
0:20
center stage.
0:22
>> We're going to end that because it's
0:23
ridiculous. through executive action.
0:25
>> We well if we can through executive
0:27
action.
0:28
>> Trump's executive order set in motion a
0:30
flurry of lawsuits challenging his
0:32
ability to make sweeping changes to
0:34
birthright citizenship. And now it's
0:36
headed to the Supreme Court in a case
0:39
called Trump v. Barbara. Getting rid of
0:41
birthright citizenship for a significant
0:43
group of people would be one of the most
0:46
controversial and transformative items
0:48
on Trump's agenda. It's also blatantly
0:50
unconstitutional. Trump cannot take away
0:53
someone's citizenship. Period. He
0:54
certainly can't do it through an
0:55
executive order.
0:56
>> The Oval Office does not come with a
0:58
magic eraser that allows the president
1:01
to delete any constitutional amendment
1:03
that he doesn't like.
1:04
>> With the stakes as high as they come, in
1:06
this episode, we're going to dive into
1:08
why birthright citizenship is crucial to
1:11
the foundation of modern America, the
1:13
agenda behind the Trump v. Barber case,
1:15
and what might happen next. This is the
1:18
docket.
1:20
Let's get started with a short history
1:22
of birthright citizenship. By the way,
1:25
we have an in-depth explainer on this,
1:27
too. The 14th Amendment says that all
1:30
persons born or naturalized in the
1:32
United States and subject to the
1:34
jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the
1:37
United States. Remember those words,
1:40
especially that jurisdiction part. They
1:43
are essential to the Trump case. The
1:45
14th Amendment was passed to guarantee
1:48
citizenship to freed slaves and their
1:50
children, but it was clarified to apply
1:52
to anybody born here with a few very
1:55
specific exceptions. For well over a
1:57
100red years, birthright citizenship has
2:00
been enshrined in the constitution with
2:02
this understanding. It has faced
2:03
challenges and critics, but the legal
2:06
consensus has remained the same. If you
2:08
are born here, you are a US citizen. As
2:11
anti-immigrant sentiment has grown, so
2:14
have calls to dismantle birthright
2:16
citizenship.
2:17
>> Just because they come here illegal and
2:19
they have a baby, that should not
2:21
entitle them to actually be anchored
2:23
here in the United States.
2:24
>> We view this assault on birthright
2:27
citizenship as a broader effort to
2:30
really try and remake the country and
2:33
ultimately turn the clock back to a time
2:35
when the country was less free and less
2:37
equal. But since it's tied to the 14th
2:40
amendment, the Constitution would have
2:42
to be changed to make it law. Trump
2:45
can't do that by himself. So he signed
2:47
an executive order to try and chip away
2:49
at this amendment.
2:50
>> Trump's executive order carves out
2:53
basically two groups of people who would
2:56
be stripped of their citizenship. One is
3:00
children of undocumented parents and
3:02
then the other is children of parents
3:06
where like maybe the parents were in the
3:08
country legally but on some sort of a
3:10
temporary visa.
3:11
>> After the order was signed, several
3:14
lawsuits were filed and federal judges
3:16
granted injunctions blocking the
3:18
enforcement of the order.
3:19
>> Every single court that has looked at
3:21
this question has said that birth right
3:23
citizenship is the law. Trump's
3:24
executive order is unconstitutional. He
3:26
can't take people's citizenship away.
3:28
>> This is where things get complicated and
3:31
the real intention of the executive
3:33
order comes into focus.
3:35
>> The Trump administration is taking the
3:37
long game when it comes to challenging
3:40
these foundational features of
3:42
citizenship law like the interpretation
3:45
of the 14th amendment with the hope that
3:48
they will get a friendly audience in
3:50
front of the US Supreme Court. Trump did
3:52
force the issue by trying to take away
3:54
people's citizenship and triggering a
3:56
lawsuit over it.
3:57
>> In a separate case in June of 2025
4:00
called Trump v. Casa, the Supreme Court
4:03
ruled that those universal injunctions
4:06
from lower court judges had limitations.
4:09
The Casa case dealt with the procedural
4:12
challenges to Trump's executive order,
4:14
but it still left an open question as to
4:16
whether it complied with the 14th
4:18
amendment. This could create a lot of
4:20
fear in immigrant communities and that's
4:22
what they're most concerned about is the
4:24
ripple effect, the potential here
4:26
because no doubt the administration is
4:28
going to see this as a win for them.
4:31
>> The second way that Cas has said that
4:32
potentially you could still get the
4:34
equivalent of a nationwide injunction is
4:36
if you had a class action, which is
4:38
essentially where you have a lawsuit
4:40
brought on behalf of all people who fit
4:42
a particular description. So all people
4:45
who would be subject to Trump's
4:46
executive order is essentially the class
4:49
that is in play in Barbara.
4:51
>> Which brings us to Trump v. Barbara, the
4:53
birthright citizenship case in front of
4:55
the Supreme Court. I wanted to take a
4:58
second to thank our Patreon members.
5:00
We're putting this episode of our
5:02
Patreon exclusive series, The Docket, on
5:04
YouTube. Videos like this one are only
5:06
possible through the financial support
5:08
of our members. And for a few dollars a
5:11
month, you can get access to exclusive
5:13
video reporting, new shows we're
5:15
developing, and a chance to chat
5:17
directly with our journalists. Reporting
5:19
on important topics like this one take
5:21
time, care, and real resources. Support
5:24
from members gives us the independence
5:25
to report on these kinds of urgent
5:27
stories. Your membership allows us to
5:30
produce journalism that is accurate,
5:32
interesting, and fun to watch. And if
5:34
you're not able to support financially
5:36
right now, you can still follow us on
5:38
Patreon for free to stay connected to
5:40
our community and our reporting. Now,
5:43
back to the video. Remember those
5:45
critical lines in the 14th Amendment,
5:48
subject to the jurisdiction thereof? In
5:51
the Barber case, the government is
5:53
basically arguing that we've been
5:55
getting the meaning of those words wrong
5:57
for over 100 years. The Trump
6:00
administration claims that the law
6:02
applies to those who are not just born
6:04
in the United States, but also owe
6:06
allegiance to it. Except the words owe
6:10
allegiance don't appear anywhere in the
6:13
amendment.
6:14
>> The first line of the 14th amendment is
6:16
all persons born or naturalized in the
6:18
United States. All persons born. So like
6:22
under the text of the 14th amendment, it
6:24
doesn't matter what the allegiance of
6:26
the parents are because the amendment
6:29
doesn't mention the parents.
6:30
>> And it's not like when a baby is born,
6:32
it declares allegiance to one country or
6:35
another.
6:36
>> The fundamental thing to understand
6:37
about Trump's arguments is that he wants
6:40
to pretend that the word jurisdiction
6:41
means something else. The government is
6:44
essentially asking the Supreme Court to
6:46
reinterpret the 14th amendment to
6:48
achieve their political goals, which
6:50
will be a tough cell given how much
6:52
legal precedent there is supporting
6:54
birthright citizenship as it currently
6:56
stands. Ultimately, what they have to be
6:58
saying is, "Well, we'll just ignore what
7:01
the words actually are subject to the
7:03
jurisdiction in the Constitution, and
7:05
instead we'll just make up an ad hoc
7:08
rule that matches our particular
7:12
political preferences."
7:13
>> The position of the plaintiffs and Trump
7:15
v. Barbara is simple. Leave birthright
7:18
citizenship alone. If the court were to
7:21
reinterpret the words of the
7:24
constitution, it would open the door to
7:27
all sorts of institutions as well as
7:29
just people in everyday life questioning
7:33
the citizenship of their neighbors, of
7:37
people they come across, of people they
7:39
do business with, and so forth.
7:41
>> On top of that, it would result in a
7:44
generation or more of stateless people.
7:47
you create a problem of having this
7:49
underclass of people who meaningfully
7:52
claim a tie to any state.
7:54
>> The point of this executive order is to
7:57
try and reshape not just the electorate,
8:00
but to reshape our shared understanding
8:02
of what it means to be an American.
8:06
>> The 14th Amendment granted rights and
8:08
citizenship to enslave people and their
8:10
children, which then extended to carve a
8:12
path for immigrants to attain the
8:14
American dream. Well, birthright
8:15
citizenship is the foundational
8:20
uh doorway into participation in our
8:24
democracy.
8:24
>> It has encouraged generations of
8:27
ambitious and highly skilled people to
8:30
come to the United States with the dream
8:32
of giving their children better lives.
8:34
It's unlikely that the Supreme Court
8:36
will side with Trump and suddenly decide
8:39
to reinterpret the 14th Amendment given
8:41
its long-standing legal consensus that
8:43
birthright citizenship applies to anyone
8:45
born in the United States. But that
8:48
doesn't mean that the fight is over. The
8:50
way that we lose birthright citizenship
8:52
is the same way we lost the right to an
8:55
abortion, which is just that you keep
8:58
electing presidents who don't support
8:59
the right and eventually they get enough
9:02
justices on the Supreme Court that the
9:03
right goes away.
9:04
>> Whichever way the Supreme Court ends up
9:06
ruling in Trump v. Barbara, Trump and
9:08
his allies are likely going to keep
9:10
trying to change the rules on birthright
9:12
citizenship however they can.
