He believes that the 14th Amendment does not mandate birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.

“So the issue that I see here is I believe John Sauer's argument in this regard is correct that the 14th Amendment does not address birthright citizenship in these contexts.”

The Supreme Court erred in their ruling on birthright citizenship because children born to foreign citizens who are in the country illegally are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

“the Supreme Court, in my opinion, they got it wrong about birthright citizenship because the the argument being made wasn't just, hey, you know, anyone born here are is anyone born here um a citizen? It's it was at its core it was are people that are born here to parents that are here illegally are ”

The Constitution and the 14th Amendment do not mandate birthright citizenship for children of foreign citizens who are not domiciled in the United States.

“The 14th Amendment never contemplated that. The Equal Protection Clause never contemplated that. The birthright citizenship clause, the citizenship clause never contemplated that.”

The current interpretation of the 14th Amendment erroneously grants citizenship to children of foreign nationals and should be abolished.

“So, it is pure fantasy to suggest that we've always had birthright citizenship or that this was ever a settled issue. What happened is that an amendment was ratified containing a rule with one particular scenario in mind. The rule came with several exceptions right off the bat.”

He claims that birthright citizenship should be ended.

“I am against birthright citizenship period. I want that to be clear.”

Philip DeFranco asserts that the vast majority of legal experts disagree with Donald Trump's claim that the Constitution does not guarantee birthright citizenship.

“with Trump arguing that the Constitution does not actually guarantee birthright citizenship, which, to put it lightly, is a radical fringe interpretation that the vast majority of legal experts disagree with.”

Cenk Uygur believes birthright citizenship is a clear-cut constitutional law that should not be subject to political debate.

“Yeah, first of all, it shouldn't have been an issue in the first place. It's a clear-cut law and there's no question about it.”

Karen Friedman Agnifilo believes there is no valid legal basis for Congress to pass a law overriding birthright citizenship because it is constitutionally protected.

“there is no law that you can pass to prevent this because it's in in And now you have”

Michael Popok argues that birthright citizenship is established by the Constitution and cannot be overturned by an act of Congress.

“it can't be overcome by an act of Congress uh because it's in the Constitution.”

The Trump administration's attempt to restrict birthright citizenship is a xenophobic effort to erase a constitutional principle and normalization of a practice meant to include historically excluded

“So we have this this long history and this normalization of a practice in a part of the world that suffered colonialization that essentially this administration is trying to completely erase for what might be termed highly xenophobic ends.”