Why is there so much opposition to ending birthright citizenship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

In a divided country? I don’t know about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Nope. You don't have to change the constitution. SCOTUS most needs to weigh in on what 'jurisdiction thereof' means. Getting rid of birthright citizenship shouldn't be that hard if there's strong enough challenge. No constitutional change at all.

Spoken like not a lawyer. They are definitely subject to our jurisdiction. If they weren’t, we wouldn’t arrest and deport them. Heck, they could take an Ak and mow down a school yard, and nothing could be done. To some extent, diplomats are not subject to our jurisdiction (which basically means, they have to follow our laws, and can be arrested by our police, etc.

Even with this SCOTUS, you won’t win this one.

[Anonymous]

It sounds like a sneaky white supremacist tactic. If denaturalization occurs, technically Native Americans are the only real Amuricans. Everybody else came from a different continent

[Anonymous]

I'm all for keeping conservative Latin American Carholics on their side of the Rio Grande. Cone here to work, fine, but no to voting in our elections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

What are you giving Nlue States far from the border in return? Repeal 2A? Kill the Electoral college? My vote for this ain’t free.

[Anonymous]

That would mean four of Trumps kids would lose US citizenship because their mothers are foreigners.

That’s ridiculous. Where you’re born is what you are nationality wise. Birther tourism Where women travel while pregnant just to have either anchor babies in the US or give their kids US citizenship then travel back to their home country is also a huge money maker for the US. U.S. citizenship is only valuable because we are seen as the strongest and best country in the world.

If we denaturalize people and Lose half our population of US citizens and the other half to reverse migration, we will be in for economic decline and American exceptionalism is no longer believable

[Anonymous]

Not sure. I voted for Harris but IMO this would be a good thing Trump could do. No Democrat would touch it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t you guys being led by someone who thinks we have a population crisis?

Our population is declining. Millennials and gen Z aren’t having kids like generations past especially the liberal millennials and gen Z which is why democrats wanted to bus millions of illegals and make them citizens to vote in elections for the Dem Party.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Are they going to bring 3/5 a human back too?

The Republicans are very obvious in their agenda. When someone loses citizenship, they lose their rights and are easy to deport or detain without needing to heed by their Miranda rights or due process. Of course white illegal immigrants or descendants of like Melania Trump or Rudy Giuliani won’t be denaturalized. It will start with this and then they’ll denaturalize based on religion so all non-Christians get kicked out of the country. Then, they’ll de-naturalize by wealth so all citizens are not citizens unless they are property owners. Then, women won’t be allowed to own property-only their parents or husband.

It’s a shame foreigners who voted here didn’t see this trick. He’s going to deport all of the voters who voted for him starting with Muslims then Latinos. Black people obviously knew the play and voted for Democrat accordingly

[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.

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.

What about Citizenship by Marriage? Green card marriages for Us residency are so notorious. There is even a show about it: 90 Day Fiancee. The mail order bribe or foreign Prince scam is notorious

[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.

What about Citizenship by Marriage? Green card marriages for Us residency are so notorious. There is even a show about it: 90 Day Fiancee. The mail order bribe or foreign Prince scam is notorious

Is there such thing as "citizenship by marriage?"

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

If other countries don’t have birthright citizenship, then how do their citizens’ newborns acquire citizenship? I’m assuming citizenship is conveyed by their parents having citizenship. So it doesn’t matter that they were born here. They’ll have citizenship in their parents’ home countries because those countries don’t convey citizenship based on where you’re born. They won’t be stateless.

[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?

+100 I didn't vote for Trump, but I would support this 100%

[Anonymous]

Here is the language of the 14th Amendment: Section 1: "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."
Birthright citizenship has served us well for many years. It is easy to administer, and does not create different classes of citizens--those who have lived here many years, legally, but who are ineligible for citizenship (Germany, Scandanavian countries), and who raise children in the country who are also non-citizens. It creates great unrest. Also, it seems to many of the people who don't want birthright citizenship are eager to question the citizenship of people who ARE US citizens--remember "birthers" who didn't think Obama was a US citizen? Sheesh. This is settled law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not sure. I voted for Harris but IMO this would be a good thing Trump could do. No Democrat would touch it.

Of course Dems would touch it. Google “how to change the Constitution”. You need 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate and 3/4 of the States. All three of these. Good luck getting one. I’m in VA. If either of my Congressmen voted for this without pairing it with a BIG constitutional win for Dems, that would be the last time I would vote for them. If birthright citizenship is antiquated, God knows the EC is. We can start there. Throw in statehood for PR and DC while you are at it.