Why is there so much opposition to ending birthright citizenship?

[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 would be similar to Australia. In Australia you are a citizen at birth if one of your parents is a citizen or permanent resident. So, it’s a mix of jus sanguini and jus soli.

[Anonymous]

Let’s compromise. We can end birthright citizenship when Americans decide they want to do the back breaking work that immigrants (or slaves) have done for centuries. For the same pay, with the same working conditions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s compromise. We can end birthright citizenship when Americans decide they want to do the back breaking work that immigrants (or slaves) have done for centuries. For the same pay, with the same working conditions.

So you are in favor of illegal aliens coming into this country and undercutting the labor market for native born Americans? Noted. This is why you lost.

[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 would be similar to Australia. In Australia you are a citizen at birth if one of your parents is a citizen or permanent resident. So, it’s a mix of jus sanguini and jus soli.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republicans absolutely don't have the votes for it. But I would support denying people birthright citizenship if both parents are here illegally.

+1 how do you prove who the father really was?

DNA test results to prove that the father is a US citizen or legal resident. No genetic proof of parenthood, no citizenship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s compromise. We can end birthright citizenship when Americans decide they want to do the back breaking work that immigrants (or slaves) have done for centuries. For the same pay, with the same working conditions.

More and more of this work is being automated, so we'll be good. Great, in fact.

[Anonymous]

Looks like SUPER MAJORITY of the people agree on doing away with birthright citizenship. Why can't we amend the constitution?
May be this thread should be about what kind of democracy we have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like SUPER MAJORITY of the people agree on doing away with birthright citizenship. Why can't we amend the constitution?
May be this thread should be about what kind of democracy we have.

The same democracy where the majority wants gun control and abortion rights.

[Anonymous]

Well, if we end birthrate citizenship, we can keep people like Elon Musk and Melania out...wait, that sound alike a great idea!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Birthright citizenship has outlived its usefulness and needs to be abolished.

Yep. This x a million. Should have been abolished long ago.

[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?

Because when it comes to immigration, Democrats have for the past 20 or so years—taken stances that are unpopular and lead to election losses.

They love to shoot themselves in the foot. We will never get economic policies that favor the working and middle classes without strictly limiting immigration, and ending things like birthright citizenship.

Canada can kinda have because we’re their buffer (they flipped out about getting 50,000 asylum seekers. Meanwhile there were points where we get that in a month). And then, I mean.. the rest of the countries im the New World that have it are also countries where people migrate from to the U.S.


This should be priority day one, end via executive order and let it go through the courts. At least TRY. If it ends up needing a constitutional amendment then that’s that. But at least TRY. because it’s ridiculous.

Most “mixed status families) where there’s all this fear mongering about deportation—is due to birthright citizenship. Anyone with a brain can see the ridiculousness of “oh we can’t end TPS because they’ve built lives here”, “oh we cant deport families because some of them are citizens”, “oh we cant deport people who have bought houses and built businesses”

ALLMOF THESE THINGS ARE BECAUSE OUR LAWS ENCOURAGE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION! Lets not give citizenship to kids of parents who have no right to be here,lets not encourage home loans to undocumented individuals, lets not continuously expand “temporary” to mean decades.

It’s just ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, if we end birthrate citizenship, we can keep people like Elon Musk and Melania out...wait, that sound alike a great idea!

That have nothing to do with birthright citizenship?… they were not born here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, there are a lot of things we are stuck with because it's very hard to pass a constitutional amendment. It's why you have to register your car, but not your handgun, and why the popular vote doesn't matter. The sooner you accept that, the happier you will be.

If we don’t amend this clause then we’ll have to get real about enforcing the border, visa overstayers, and deportations.

Buckle up!

We should do all of the above. Now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

No it isn’t. Vast majority of countries do NOT have citizenship by birth. It makes zero sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Enjoy your illegal immigration continued big mess