Digital vs Traditional $$$ Revealed, Trump's Birthright Citizenship Controversy & Border Dispute...

Video Statistics and Information

Video
Captions Word Cloud
Reddit Comments

To me, the Constitution is plain and clear and doesn't limit any persons specifically. Birthright citizens, even as anchor babies, should be granted citizenship. Now if we want that to change, don't do it via executive order. Take it through the Senate and House and go from there. I plan on following the Constitution the best way I can, now how to handle changing anything in it is a different topic entirely. Just for right now, Trump can't do shit. If we get the process going to change that, then we will go into that more and I am sure that will be very interesting.

👍︎︎ 13 👤︎︎ u/[deleted] 📅︎︎ Oct 31 2018 🗫︎ replies

Is there any evidence that birthright citizenship negatively impacts America? You can show statistics of how people get it every year, but what do those numbers mean? If the parents of those children are contributing members of American society what is the issue?

Three of my cousins were born in America while their father was doing his doctorate in Kentucky. After he graduated he couldn't find work there, so he moved back home with his children. Now one of my cousins has moved back to America and is working as a chief anesthesiologist in Seattle. My two other cousins live in Canada with their families.

What's so scary about it?

👍︎︎ 26 👤︎︎ u/[deleted] 📅︎︎ Oct 31 2018 🗫︎ replies

I rarely get angry about politics anymore, but this is infuriating to me. Up until now Trump/the GOP were clinging to the the constitution, always saying that it's contents can basically never be reduced. Not an argument I really agree with, but they've at least been consistent on it. Now, however, that's all out the window. But I guess that's today's politics :/

(And yeah, I get that not all republicans are for this. But we've seen a lot of republican congressmen in the end just shifting their agendas to align with Trumps' over the past two years, so it wouldn't surprise me if it happened again)

👍︎︎ 25 👤︎︎ u/Gloredex 📅︎︎ Oct 30 2018 🗫︎ replies

At the exclusives being viable thing: you don't have to keep all the subscriptions you want all the time. You can just sub for a month and watch all the shows you want before cancelling and going to another service next month for different shows. That's where the real savings on legal cable-cutting comes from (assuming you were to watch as much content as you used to).

👍︎︎ 4 👤︎︎ u/Sadtv1 📅︎︎ Oct 30 2018 🗫︎ replies

Can President Trump use an executive order removing birthright citizenship - Decision will end up at the Supreme Court.

The court with Brett Kavanaugh sitting as the swing justice? Yeah, birthright will be removed without resistance.

👍︎︎ 9 👤︎︎ u/One_Way_Trip 📅︎︎ Oct 31 2018 🗫︎ replies

How did yesterday's program "get hit?"

Its on par or better preforming than his recent videos.

Does it ring as self congratulatory or obnoxious to whine about monetization so much in the PDS?

👍︎︎ 17 👤︎︎ u/Shreddy_Shreddington 📅︎︎ Oct 30 2018 🗫︎ replies

"If Phil is not willing to participate in the discussion he is asking for on the important but not easily parsed topics like the last one beyond simple breakdowns than I am not sure what the purpose of his show is. I would prefer he firmly takes a stance I disagree with than this waste of our time. I would appreciate a no commentary tag in the description so I can just look at which sources he cites when he decides to do that. I think Phil can be (and has been) much better than what amounts to just news aggregation video service."

-Me four months ago since apparently my more recent comment is rule breaking

Edit:link to the quoted comment

👍︎︎ 13 👤︎︎ u/last657 📅︎︎ Oct 30 2018 🗫︎ replies

At this point, the only seemingly rational thing left now is to destroy this entire country, let it burn down completely. Call it pessimism, nihilism, broken faith in the system or just a grouchy mood, but it just seems like there is nothing sacred left in this country worth a damn anymore.

👍︎︎ 5 👤︎︎ u/MarthsBars 📅︎︎ Oct 31 2018 🗫︎ replies

This was automatically posted.

I'm a botbleep bloop.

Contact my owner, /u/vladbootin, if issues arise.

Check out the documentation for an explanation of why the videos take so long to post!

Testing new video method to grab latest video, let us know if the bot acts strangely.

Command List/Documentation Bot Version: 1.1 Wrapper Version: 0.7.5-Pre

👍︎︎ 1 👤︎︎ u/Trey-Mazing 📅︎︎ Oct 30 2018 🗫︎ replies
Captions
What's up, you beautiful bastards. Hope you had a fantastic Tuesday. Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco show, and a quick note before we get started: If you didn't see, yesterday we posted the Monday Philip DeFranco show. We kind of expected, given the topics that we were covering that we were going to get hit by Youtube. Ended up getting hit but what was the other option? Just not talk about those important stories? So if you missed yesterday's show, and it's a big one, it's one of the top links in the description down below. You can watch that; but with that said, let's just jump into it. And the first thing we're gonna talk about is some interesting entertainment and money news that came out today There's a piece that came out today from Variety where they talked about the salaries of top TV stars Although "TV" should be in quotes or should just be changed to "series stars", and I say that because streaming has become such a big part of where people consume series That's what really stood out to me with this list is digital is throwing a ton of Money at people which really does make sense for two reasons one I believe since season 1 of house of cards Netflix proved to the world that the best way to get people to use your Service isn't licensing but rather really good originals, although with Netflix nowadays. There's a constant conversation about quality versus quantity they're also two thanks to the rise of so many digital platforms that have exclusive content actors have the ability to go into so many places because there is such a big content war going on and there are so Many different places to go you can ask for more money So on this list, yes, we do see examples of people getting a ton of money for broadcast television You have John Goodman Laura Metcalfe Sara Gilbert of the Connors reportedly getting three hundred seventy five thousand per episode unscripted We see a lot of money getting thrown at the rock Kelly Clarkson Alec Baldwin, Kevin Hart but also here we see digital gain some ground nor McDonald reportedly getting seventy five thousand per episode Sarah Silverman reportedly getting 225 thousand per episode and then in drama It gets really interested so much of the money is being thrown at actors and digital random broadcast It's reported that Stephen Amell is making 125 thousand dollars per episode And then you look at what Apple is throwing around and it is a wild difference for Glee They're giving Reese Witherspoon, 1.1 million an episode Jennifer Aniston, 1.1 million an episode Steve Carell $600,000 in episode Amazon reportedly giving Javier Bardem 1.2 million dollars in episode Elizabeth moss on Handmaid's Tale reportedly getting 1 million in episode and also an important note as some of these actors are actually making money on top of this one of the examples that cited in this report is Milly Bobby Brown who's listed is getting $350,000 per episode and also she's reportedly set to collect additional fees and also thing to keep in mind is there references all over for example, Dwayne Johnson is listed here at $450,000 that's reportedly per episode of Titan games and not even what he's been getting paid on baller well This story is interesting to me from a standpoint of money and entertainment specifically series versus movies that and then there's also the digital versus traditional Media and also the evolution of traditional what I'm left wondering is how long is this viable? how long is this sustainable for a lot of the companies involved and also with just the range of online services out there that have Exclusives at what point? Is it economically viable for your everyday person, right? One of the biggest reasons initially people were excited about cord cutting it was like Oh I get to save money and she was what I actually want and it all adds up if you want to do it legally which I recommend and I would never say to steal anything Like if you legally want all the exclusives when this isn't considering the the TV replacement packages like PlayStation View sling TV YouTube TV You know that right which even there there are pockets in cover if you look at the other services if you want to do everything Legally all of a sudden you need to have an account with Netflix and Amazon and Hulu and now Apple and if you want DC stuff They have their exclusive service and you got the Disney streaming service that's coming out that's not even covering the channels that have evolved like HBO whether it be HBO go and Connection to something else or HBO now even places like Hulu have evolved to the point where it's like you can have your regular Hulu stuff and then live TV. So I wonder is there enough money? Is there enough market share? involved for this to be viable or are you gonna see kind of people tanked but actually on that note if I can pass a Question off to you with this story. What is the top or to top pay subscription services you use online? I'll allow you into this conversation. Even if you're just using someone's login, and you're not personally pay and also let me know Why you gravitated towards those places rather than maybe somewhere else so from that I want to share some stuff I love today and today in Austin brought to you by seeking and seeking is of course fantastic ticket app that takes confusion out of Buying tickets for all kinds of live events from concerts to comedy shows to sport They put all the tickets in one place. They give them 0 to 100 score. So you never getting a good deal or not And you're so incredibly easy whether you want something kind of a last minute thing. Maybe it's date night Maybe it's a present or something down the road. You're looking forward to that's a great time to test it out You have the NFL season the NBA season They're a ton of fantastic concerts the best of all for you beautiful bastards if you're new You want to download the app and click the link in the description or go to see geek fill com? however You want to do it? Just make sure you use code fill and then we'll give you $20 off your first ticket purchase and the first bit of awesome today is we got A brand new bad lip reading around the MLB area Keira Knightley and Mackenzie Foy answering the web's most searched Questions the official trailer of boy race official trailer of head full of honey It's ed ed giving us the fascinating history of cemeteries We had bone Appetit giving us some daily food porn Then we got the honest trailer for Batman the Animated Series if you want to see the full versions of everything I just shared the secret link of the day really anything at all Links is always our in the description down below and then let's talk about one of the sexiest topics of all time ever Birthright citizenship in connection to this. You also may have heard the term anchor, baby So today why is everyone talking about birthright citizenship in the new? Well Axios this morning released a small clip from their new show Axios on HBO and in it We see this back and forth about birthright citizenship. It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment Yes, one minute. You don't you don't number one. Number one. You don't need that number two next thing just As well, you can definitely do it with an act of Congress But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order now how ridiculous were the only country in the world? where a person comes in has a baby and the baby is Essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years with all of those benefits. It's ridiculous It's ridiculous and it has to end have you talked about that with counsel? Yeah So we're in the process in the process. It'll happen and after watching that clip I just think it's really important to publicly fact check that what the president's describing in the clip about having a baby in a country And that baby essentially being a citizen is birthright citizenship. What he said is inaccurate The United States is not the only country in the world that has birthright citizenship It's not even the only country in North America that has birthright citizenship Canada and Mexico recognize it as well And in fact almost the entire Western Hemisphere recognizes birthright citizenship, although it is important to know that worldwide is a minority position It's only around thirty countries that recognize citizenship. That way there are over a hundred ninety countries worldwide You only include the world's top developed economies a list shrinks to the United States and Canada You did have places like the UK and Australia recognized it But they got rid of the practice back in the 80s and most recently you had Ireland and New Zealand get rid of it in The early 2000 that's just something I wanted to point out since at least in the teaser clip We don't know what the full looks like But in the teaser clip Trump kind of says that uncontested with that out of the way, let's head on a few different things So one of the main issues here is whether or not the Fourteenth Amendment applies to children of illegal and temporary residents like people traveling On a tourist visa. So first things first can Trump actually do this with an exact Well, there's debate on this point But it seems very unlikely even had conservatives who advocate for curved immigration like ben shapiro saying he doesn't think the president can and there's a nearly unanimous view that if trump did try to sign an executive order to ban any birthright citizenship so that it would end up in the Supreme Court and even if Congress changed the rules people are fairly confident that it Would also end in the Supreme Court there article suggesting the Trump wants to end all birthright citizenship or right now that isn't completely clear And hasn't been officially confirmed. But with that said we should answer a question that's incredibly important to this situation How does birthright citizenship in the United States currently work? Well, it applies to nearly everyone born in the United States and there are tiny exceptions We're gonna jump into a bit a main point essentially right now If you are born in the United States regardless of where your parents are from or how they got here You are a US citizen at birth which brings up the big question does the Constitution explicitly allow for all birthright citizenship And that's what we're seeing people debate right now with the 14th amendment the 14th amendment reads 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 resigned if you're unfamiliar with 14th amendment it was passed to give citizenship to people who were born in the United States and who were in citizen ie It's how ex-slaves and even freed black people were given citizenship where the main debate lies with the 14th amendment is the end subject of the Jurisdiction there and this is a debate we've seen for decades and there are two interpretations of this law the mainstream one among legal scholars is that if you're in the United States even to a temporary or legal resident you are still subject to US laws and police so You're subject to the jurisdiction thereof and so are many it seems clear It's like real estate location location location and of those who think that this is obvious you have Omar dois He's a director of the ACLU immigrant Rights Project Who said the President cannot erase the Constitution with an executive order and the 14th amendment citizenship guarantee is clear This is a transparent and blatantly unconstitutional Attempt to sow division and fanned the flames of anti-immigrant hatred in the days ahead of the midterms But on the other side of this debate You have people pointing to that same line if they argue that it only counts for lawful permanent residents and citizens who owe full political allegiance to the US since they are always subject to the jurisdiction of the US even when they are abroad so this view is at least partially used by the US government to Deny citizenship to some people born in the United States. Most notably here You have the children of diplomats born in the US since they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US because of their diplomatic Status they're denied citizenship it's also been argued that it was worded this way to prevent children of foreign soldiers born in the United States to be citizen and Also, unfortunately to prevent Native Americans born on natively within the u.s. To claim US citizenship That was something that was reaffirmed at an 1884 Supreme Court case but and then later changed in 1924 when Congress granted citizenship to nearly all Native Americans also on the note of important Supreme Court cases connected to what we're looking at Today there are two that we can mention the last time this was an issue before the Supreme Court was in 1898 or the United States became long our case the court found there that Kim was a US citizen despite being born a Chinese immigrants who were in citizens because The parents were lawful permanent residents of the US, but obviously that's not an exact match to what we're talking about today And since that case the court has an issued a ruling on whether or not the children of undocumented Unlawful or even lawful but temporary residents of the u.s. Get citizenship however Justice William Brennan touched on this tangentially in 1982 because for a 1982 case he wrote quote. No plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment jurisdiction can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful and resident aliens whose Entry was unlawful also with the situation It's an interesting thing to know that for the longest time birthright citizenship wasn't a massive issue But that changed drastically over the course of three decades back in 1980 We saw 30,000 births to us unauthorized immigrants in the United States and that continued to increase until it hit its peak in 2007 with 370 thousand births a year in which the number of these births were actually 9% of all births in the u.s that number though has declined since the Great Recession and now accounts for only about 7 percent of the births in the United States and With all that said I do want to bring it back to the main point that a lot of this conversation Ultimately revolves around can Donald Trump via? Executive order do this not can it change by other means or should it change should should birthright citizenship come to an end That's something we saw other Republicans in Congress hit on for example You had Senator Lindsey Graham who didn't outright say the president can't do this rather praise the president for wanting to take on this Policy and saying in addition I plan to introduce legislation along the same lines in the proposed executive order from President Trump, right? So Graham's angle there is glad the president brought this up I am going to introduce legislation to try and get this through Congress Right, and if the president could just do this via executive order. Would that be necessary? But at the same time you had House Speaker Paul Ryan kind of just cut to the point saying well Obviously you cannot do that. You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order and adding as a conservative I'm a believer in following the plain text of the Constitution I think in this case the 14th amendment is pretty clear And that would involve a very very lengthy constitutional process But then adding where we obviously totally agree with the president is getting a the issue here, which is unchecked illegal immigration and also I Paul Ryan pointing to the past with President Obama because in the past Republicans objected to when President Obama tried to issue executive orders on immigration With all that said where I do want to end this story today is I want to know your opinions on birthright citizenship I ask That is because the polls Regarding this topic. They are all over the place and obviously a comment section is not a great way to take a poll but what I want to see there are the varying opinions and explanations as to the reason what people see as the positives and the Negatives that sort of thing actually connected to that let's talk about what's happening at our southern border right now The reason we expressed a drum has talked a lot about the threat of the migrant caravan that we've covered on this show Slowly heading towards the United States and last week there was talk about deploying active military to the southern border to repeal that group also Saw president from tweet yesterday many gang members and some very bad people are mixed into the caravan Heading to our southern border. Please go back You will not be admitted into the United States unless you go through the legal process This is an invasion of our country and our military is waiting for you and on Monday We learned that the government will in fact be deploying active military troops to the border reportedly 800 soldiers are already on their way by the end of the week They're expecting 5,200 active-duty soldiers to be deployed at the borders along the three southern border states and in each state 1200 to 1800 soldiers are estimated to be in those although according to reports They'll first be deployed to staging areas where the we briefed and trained on their mission and effort that's reportedly being referred to as operation Faithful Patriot and it's expected to last until mid-december But with this news there's been a big question as to what role can the military actually play at the border at a press conference Yesterday general Terrence O'Shaughnessy head of us Northern Command explained that role Well, thank you commissioner Macklin for the partnership and the opportunity today to speak about how u.s Northern Command as the operational command for the Department of Defense's forces is Providing mission enhancing capabilities to the Department of Homeland Security and US Customs and Border Protection To harden the southern border in a macro sense Our concept of operations is to flow in our military assets with a priority To build up southern Texas and then Arizona and then California will reinforce along priority points of entry So as to enhance CBP's ability to harden and Secure the border and so like the general said the military's role here will primarily be a support role. You got military Engineer groups to reinforce infrastructure along the border of three helicopter companies and four airplane To help transport Border Patrol or identify crossings medical units military police other support personnel for planning and logistics With Trump being so hardline about this issue actually sending the military You might be wondering why the military is not taking a stronger role on well There's a law known as passe Comitatus which limits the role of the military in the enforcement of domestic law according to the RAND Corporation it was first used and federal troops from policing state elections and former Confederate state and immigration enforcement is a domestic law that the military Cannot enforce and so that's why you're seeing them in this support role. There's that part of the story But okay, what about the actual care of it? Well yesterday we saw Kevin McAllen and the commissioner of Customs and Border Protection Say this as of this afternoon, we continue to track a large group of approximately 3,500 traveling through southern Mexico with a stated intent to reach the US border This group is near the Chiapas Oaxaca border in southern Mexico So we learned from that as the caravan is essentially halfed from the last time we talked about it where it was 7,000 also based on their location the caravan appears to be a little under a thousand miles away from the southernmost part of the border Also, michaleen and mentioned that there was another caravan that was reportedly forming along the Mexico Guatemala border We're also aware of a second large group of migrants at the Ciudad inaudible border crossing between Guatemala and Mexico Size estimates for the second group are around 3,000 as well however reports have indicated that some of this group is currently stuck at the border there while several hundred across the river in defiance of Police there are a couple of considerations here first another Caravan that was widely publicized Earlier this year ended up making to the California border a lot of the 1500 actually started in southern Mexico reportedly amounted to around 400 or so requesting asylum second under US and International law migrants are entitled to apply for asylum regardless of how they cross the border But on that know there is a huge backup of would-be asylum seekers waiting to apply at legal ports of entry So I'm have reportedly been waiting for weeks and are waiting in Mexican border towns Also an interesting thing of note are the reactions and conversations around this situation last night on Fox News We saw Donald Trump being interviewed by Laura Ingraham and during that they talked about what was happening at the border What if they're applying for asylum isn't the law because Congress if they applied for asylum? We're going to hold them until such time as their trial where we have the facility We're going to put up. We're going to build 10 cities. We're going to put tents up all over the place We're not going to build structures and spend all of this, you know hundreds of millions of dollars We're gonna have tents they're gonna be very nice and they're gonna wait and if they don't get asylum if they get out, You've also seen Trump's move to send troops to the border being criticized as a political ploy by many saw Kelly maximun who served on the National Security Council and in the Pentagon under Bush and Obama saying it's a craven misuse of the US Armed Forces for an obvious political stunt And I'm surprised defense secretary mattis agreed to a given the range of real national security threats Our military has to deal with this is not an appropriate use of the military that mattis feels the need to appease the President on this should be shocking and Congress should have a lot of questions about scott cooper a marine veteran and director of national security outreach for Human rights first saying I try not to be a cynic but this just smacks of looking for a political advantage during an election I think that the military redeploy is probably within the next couple weeks and they will have done very little I'm just kind of scratching my head as to the need for this We also saw the Shepard Smith an anchor on Fox News striking a very different tone from many of his colleagues tomorrow The migrants according to Fox News reporting are more than two months away. If any of them actually come here But tomorrow is one week before the midterm election Which is what all of this is about There is no invasion No one's coming to get you There's nothing at all to worry about When they did this to us got us all riled up in April. Remember the result was 14 arrests where America we can handle it as far as my personal take away do I think that this is at least in part a political ploy Yes immigration is one of the most important topics for voters this year, especially for Republican voters as well as Republican politicians. Just hitting on immigration even to the point where we saw reports that Donald Trump was annoyed that last week's mail bomb coverage took away from the Conversation around the caravan given where the current Caravan is and what happened with the last Caravan I think that Donald Trump is doing this for political points that said it is important to know that he's not the only president to engage in border operations in 2006 You had Bush deploy 6000 National Guard with 3,500 in the field in 2010 yet Obama deploying 1200 National Guardsmen to the border But of course even with that at the top level there are differences another thing that comes to mind even even trying to compare this Situation to things in the past is money according to a 2011 Government accountability and Department of Defense report the combined cause of those two deployments caused 1.35 billion dollars And so the question pops up here. Well, what's the price tag going to be? But of course it's the pds That's the story then my person will take away and I pass the question off to you Well, what do you think about all of this? Do you agree with Shepard Smith that this is all? Political move that it's all for the midterms where you have the mindset that this is this is a massive deal and all these moves They're justified, you know thoughts. I'd love to see in those comments down below and that's what I'm going to end Today's show but of course remember, it's not just something you'll watch I'd love for you to join the conversation in those comments down below I can be on anything whether it be the last story the first one anything in between I just want to hear from you also while you're at it If you liked today's video you want to support the show hit that like button if you're new here hit that subscribe button Make sure you get future episodes Which actually if you missed the last philip defranco show you can click your tap right there to watch that Maybe you're in the mood for something different. You can watch a brand new bonus video right here But with that said, of course as always, my name's philip. Defranco. You've just been phill'd Zin I love yo faces, and I'll see you tomorrow
Info
Channel: Philip DeFranco
Views: 981,987
Rating: 4.8754334 out of 5
Keywords: Donald Trump, Trump, Immigration, Border Wall, Caravan, Citizenship, Birthright, Deployment, Anchor Baby, Active Military, Border Security, Mexico, Guatemala, Paul Ryan, Lindsey Graham, salary, celebrity, The Rock, Dwayne Johnson, Alec Baldwin, Kevin hart, Sarah Silverman, Apple, Elisabeth Moss, Millie Bobby Brown, Philip DeFranco, DeFranco, The Philip DeFranco Show, philly d, sxephil, news, politics, breaking news, world news, current events, daily, opinion, satire, stranger things
Id: d3AVJvTtUlA
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 18min 14sec (1094 seconds)
Published: Tue Oct 30 2018
Related Videos
Note
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.