Why is there so much opposition to ending birthright citizenship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When virtually every other sane first world country doesn't have it? For starters, Spain, the UK, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, France, Greece, Australia, Japan, Singapore, China, Colombia, nor the Czech Republic and any of the many other countries liberals say they're going to move to do not have birth right citizenship. What Trump is proposing isn't extreme at all, so why is there resistance to enacting common sense reform? It's also funny too, because as these elections showed, many coming over the border who eventually establish themselves aren't even Democratic voters either, so the Dems may actually seriously want to rethink they're immigration and citizenship policies before they blindly stand up for making it extremely easy for letting in millions of super catholic people who are now showing to be socially conservative and supporters of traditional family values. There was a time when the 14th amendment served a purpose, but it is the year 2024. Birthright citizenship is now much more of a security liability than anything. Why shouldn't we end it when most of the countries liberals espouse and hold up as role models don't even have it?

NP. I think birthright citizenship is what has caused this country to become the massive economic engine it is. None of the countries you list has the economic productivity that the US does.

I’m actually fine with socially conservative immigrants voting. Voting is good overall, in the long term. People with a citizenship stake become more productive and after a few generations, they assimilate.

No they don’t. Not the unskilled, uneducated, illiterate ones who stay that way. Not even with “a few generations” of teen births.

Clueless. You don't even realize who are the less productive people here.

Productive at what?

How many lawn cutting people do you think Bethesda needs?

[Anonymous]

Because America has always had it. We are better than Germany. It promotes assimilation too.

[Anonymous]

Meh. Is there that much opposition? Probably not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a Harris voter. I’d support a hybrid approach; we should maintain birthright citizenship, but only for babies born here to women who were here legally at the time of the birth. No documentation for mom, no citizenship for baby. If mom has a documented case for amnesty pending, baby gets full citizenship as a natural born citizen if/when amnesty is granted. No amnesty for mom, no citizenship for baby.

There are thousands of moms here legally on a tourist visa coming to visit and oops having the baby while they are here. A bunch of Chineses, Russians, Brazilians having babies in Miami, Pakistanis coming, having their babies and going back to their country. I mean…it is not possible people don’t see it as a huge problem.

While we all focus on the mainland, I read somewhere that American Samoa is crawling with chinese tourists who show up there just to give birth. Also helps that chinese dominate the economy there and provide a bunch of jobs.

Oh dear!

Let’s let that continue all over the mainland so the chinese can have jobs in Samoa in the USA citizenship baby factory.

Lol not lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In an age when traveling to/from the United States was a major ordeal and impediment to abuse, perhaps birthright citizenship made sense.

The majority of the country does not believe that hopping on a flight from Beijing to Los Angeles, or driving across the border, while pregnant so you can get automatic "birthright" citizenship for your child, is a rational policy.

Citizenship bestows privileged and why should they be given to just anyone whose parents just show up here to give birth?

Go to Del Rio, TX and ask why there is an ambulance every 2 miles along the border.

Because pregnant illegals IN LABOR throw themselves across the border and demand to be taken to the Del Rio Hospitale. And they are. Ka Ching!

Do you actually believe your lies?

[Anonymous]

Trump should never forget he’s a child of immigrants. His children are children of an immigrant mother. The VP’s children are grandchildren of immigrants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The underlying context that no one wants to talk about is that Trump only wants to eliminate this for Latinos. He's not going to turn away white people.

Illegals are illegals.

Anchor baby problems and anchor baby problems.

White, black, yellow, red, brown, purple.

America needs to get rid of Citizenship by Birth.

Legal immigrants can apply for their child’s citizenship after 5 or 10 years just like the law and order at 100s of other countries. Many of which already nullified Citizenship by birth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In an age when traveling to/from the United States was a major ordeal and impediment to abuse, perhaps birthright citizenship made sense.

The majority of the country does not believe that hopping on a flight from Beijing to Los Angeles, or driving across the border, while pregnant so you can get automatic "birthright" citizenship for your child, is a rational policy.

Citizenship bestows privileged and why should they be given to just anyone whose parents just show up here to give birth?

Go to Del Rio, TX and ask why there is an ambulance every 2 miles along the border.

Because pregnant illegals IN LABOR throw themselves across the border and demand to be taken to the Del Rio Hospitale. And they are. Ka Ching!

Do you actually believe your lies?

Lived there. Saw it on the regular. Still going one. Go there yourself like the PP challenged you to.

Flew f38s and drove for habaneros every week. Legally!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So my paternal grandparents came in thru Ellis Island. My father was born here. Is he not supposed to have had birthright citizenship in 1912? So then I am an alien too?
Oh, fortunately my maternal gggg-grandfather and ggg-garandfather fought in the American Revolution. Best carry my DAR card, huh!

Legal and documented entry at Ellis Island, congrats!

If your country has citizenship by birth your baby is automatically a citizen of USA and not only the parents’ citizenships (if they apply for the baby to have that too).

If your country does not have Citizenship by birth, your parents can apply for their child’s USA citizenship once said child has lived in American for five years to legal immigrant parents.

Enjoy!

Now we know who’s actually in our country!! Fascinating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s in the Constitution. If people want it changed, then they need to change the Constitution.

Let’s do it! It’s Go Time!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a Harris voter. I’d support a hybrid approach; we should maintain birthright citizenship, but only for babies born here to women who were here legally at the time of the birth. No documentation for mom, no citizenship for baby. If mom has a documented case for amnesty pending, baby gets full citizenship as a natural born citizen if/when amnesty is granted. No amnesty for mom, no citizenship for baby.

There are thousands of moms here legally on a tourist visa coming to visit and oops having the baby while they are here. A bunch of Chineses, Russians, Brazilians having babies in Miami, Pakistanis coming, having their babies and going back to their country. I mean…it is not possible people don’t see it as a huge problem.

I thought the problems that Republicans have with illegal immigration are 1) criminals coming here and 2) poor people coming here and costing taxpayers money and 3) immigrants taking jobs from our citizens. Birth tourism doesn’t involve any of those.

Birth tourism and sponsoring 20+ family members to pull in during their retirement to leech off our systems is indeed one of the perverse behaviors our Citizenship by Birth clause creates in this modern day and age.

But in that example, the problem is allowing an anchor baby or new citizens to sponsor 20+ family members, not the one baby who was born here.

Problem is illegal entry anchor baby loophole. Stop the citizenship by birth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why does it have to be eliminated?

Read the thread PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When virtually every other sane first world country doesn't have it? For starters, Spain, the UK, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, France, Greece, Australia, Japan, Singapore, China, Colombia, nor the Czech Republic and any of the many other countries liberals say they're going to move to do not have birth right citizenship.

What Trump is proposing isn't extreme at all, so why is there resistance to enacting common sense reform?

It's also funny too, because as these elections showed, many coming over the border who eventually establish themselves aren't even Democratic voters either, so the Dems may actually seriously want to rethink they're immigration and citizenship policies before they blindly stand up for making it extremely easy for letting in millions of super catholic people who are now showing to be socially conservative and supporters of traditional family values.

There was a time when the 14th amendment served a purpose, but it is the year 2024.

Birthright citizenship is now much more of a security liability than anything.

Why shouldn't we end it when most of the countries liberals espouse and hold up as role models don't even have it?

Agree. It should be taken out. Whatever procedure is needed to do so, should happen.

[Anonymous]

There not much real opposition.

It’s politics and bargaining chips mucking it all up.

Meanwhile illegal immigration runs rampant, greatly driven by the prospect of an anchor baby helping you avoid deportation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a Harris voter. I’d support a hybrid approach; we should maintain birthright citizenship, but only for babies born here to women who were here legally at the time of the birth. No documentation for mom, no citizenship for baby. If mom has a documented case for amnesty pending, baby gets full citizenship as a natural born citizen if/when amnesty is granted. No amnesty for mom, no citizenship for baby.

This approach would create many stateless children, which is highly problematic. Where are you going to deport a stateless child to? The receiving state has to agree to receive them.

Birthright citizenship has a long history in the US, it first applied only to white people, and African American slaves were not considered citizen nor Chinese who were born here during the railroad era.

The Republican desire to revoke birthright citizenship is an attempt to whiten the country. They're not going to be deporting the sones and daughters of Irish, Italian or other illegal white immigrants who were here illegally and had kids.

Plus, many think Rs can't revoke birthright citizenship because it's in the 14th amendment, but there is case law that says birthright citizenship doesn't apply in times of war or invasion. Rs are trying, via rhetoric, to characterize illegal immigration over the Mexican border as "invasion" so that they can get some Trump-appointed judges to suspend some
birthright citizenship under the "invasion" exception.

Sounds crazy, but everyone thought Dobbs would never fall.