Why is there so much opposition to ending birthright citizenship?

[Anonymous]

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?

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

Agree

[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.

The compromise would be unskilled temp worker visas, 3-5 year terms, no bringing “familia”. At taxable wages.

Yes Pelosi’s California will be upset their $4/hr labor went up to $6 plus room and board

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Concur

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you a Native American, OP?

I was thinking the same thing.

[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.

Whatever happened to DCUM is a bubble?

It won’t happen. No incentive for Dems to give Trump his top priority without a lot of quid pro quo.

Also, DCUM is a bubble.

[Anonymous]

American Indians would have loved this about 300 years ago

[Anonymous]

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?

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

Agree

It’s like ending Daylight Saving Time! Everyone agrees we need to get rid of that too.

[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.

Women who were here legally at the time of the birth?

So, if the mother is here legally under a tourist visa, then what? Or an H1 or J1 visa? What if she has remained here under an expired J1 visa, but with a still valid SEVIS record?

This would get incredibly messy.

And it's a pointless distraction. Birthright citizenship isn't going anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you a Native American, OP?

Why do people think this is a clever response? You aren't planning to move out of what you consider occupied land either so what does it matter?

[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.

Women who were here legally at the time of the birth?

So, if the mother is here legally under a tourist visa, then what? Or an H1 or J1 visa? What if she has remained here under an expired J1 visa, but with a still valid SEVIS record?

This would get incredibly messy.

And it's a pointless distraction. Birthright citizenship isn't going anywhere.

If I were pregnant and went to a foreign country to work on visa and then gave birth...my child would simply inherit my current citizenship. Period.

I came to the US as a toddler...with my legal immigrant parents who had green cards. One parent worked hard and earned US citizenship when I was 13. I and my older sibling were then able to apply for Naturalization to become US citizens. My DH had parents, also legal immigrants with green cards, who never became US citizens....he became a naturalized US citizen in adulthood.

The child should always inherit the citizenship of the one or both parents. Therefore, if one parent is a US citizen the child has birthright citizenship. If one or both parents is a green card holder/Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR), the child automatically becomes a LPR. Both the parents and children can apply for US citizenship according to LPR laws...if one parent becomes a naturalized US citizen, then any children also become eligible to be naturalized US citizens. I don't see the issue with this.

Those on visas are temporary visitors and don't hold green cards. Again, any children born to parents with visas should always inherit the citizenship of the one or both parents.

[Anonymous]

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.

Women who were here legally at the time of the birth?

So, if the mother is here legally under a tourist visa, then what? Or an H1 or J1 visa? What if she has remained here under an expired J1 visa, but with a still valid SEVIS record?

This would get incredibly messy.

And it's a pointless distraction. Birthright citizenship isn't going anywhere.

If I were pregnant and went to a foreign country to work on visa and then gave birth...my child would simply inherit my current citizenship. Period.

I came to the US as a toddler...with my legal immigrant parents who had green cards. One parent worked hard and earned US citizenship when I was 13. I and my older sibling were then able to apply for Naturalization to become US citizens. My DH had parents, also legal immigrants with green cards, who never became US citizens....he became a naturalized US citizen in adulthood.

The child should always inherit the citizenship of the one or both parents. Therefore, if one parent is a US citizen the child has birthright citizenship. If one or both parents is a green card holder/Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR), the child automatically becomes a LPR. Both the parents and children can apply for US citizenship according to LPR laws...if one parent becomes a naturalized US citizen, then any children also become eligible to be naturalized US citizens. I don't see the issue with this.

Those on visas are temporary visitors and don't hold green cards. Again, any children born to parents with visas should always inherit the citizenship of the one or both parents.

Many people living in the US under H1/J1/etc. visas will be here for years, often seeking permanent residency or citizenship along the way. If a child is born and grows up in the US, you don't think they should necessarily have citizenship?

I'd be open to the idea of pulling back elements of birthright citizenship, but going as far as you seem to be suggesting is nutty in my mind.

[Anonymous]

The 14th Amendment was rushed through as part of reconstruction and poorly worded. The real intent of - "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." - was to ensure children born during the Civil War in states that seceded would be American citizens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have a large international population at our school (diplomats) and they almost all have a new baby while stationed here.

Believe it or not, the children of diplomats do not automatically become US citizens. It’s the one exception to the rule.

[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.

Women who were here legally at the time of the birth?

So, if the mother is here legally under a tourist visa, then what? Or an H1 or J1 visa? What if she has remained here under an expired J1 visa, but with a still valid SEVIS record?

This would get incredibly messy.

And it's a pointless distraction. Birthright citizenship isn't going anywhere.

If I were pregnant and went to a foreign country to work on visa and then gave birth...my child would simply inherit my current citizenship. Period.

I came to the US as a toddler...with my legal immigrant parents who had green cards. One parent worked hard and earned US citizenship when I was 13. I and my older sibling were then able to apply for Naturalization to become US citizens. My DH had parents, also legal immigrants with green cards, who never became US citizens....he became a naturalized US citizen in adulthood.

The child should always inherit the citizenship of the one or both parents. Therefore, if one parent is a US citizen the child has birthright citizenship. If one or both parents is a green card holder/Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR), the child automatically becomes a LPR. Both the parents and children can apply for US citizenship according to LPR laws...if one parent becomes a naturalized US citizen, then any children also become eligible to be naturalized US citizens. I don't see the issue with this.

Those on visas are temporary visitors and don't hold green cards. Again, any children born to parents with visas should always inherit the citizenship of the one or both parents.

Many people living in the US under H1/J1/etc. visas will be here for years, often seeking permanent residency or citizenship along the way. If a child is born and grows up in the US, you don't think they should necessarily have citizenship?

I'd be open to the idea of pulling back elements of birthright citizenship, but going as far as you seem to be suggesting is nutty in my mind.

If a baby is born in the US to a parent on a temporary (work or student) visa, it gets the parent's citizenship. If and when the parent gets US permanent residency and eventually citizenship, the child's status is adjusted. If not, they will still have this other country's citizenship/passport.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whatever happened to DCUM is a bubble?

It won’t happen. No incentive for Dems to give Trump his top priority without a lot of quid pro quo.

Also, DCUM is a bubble.

So due to Dems politics and other irrational demands they want to tie to this rational demand it supposedly won’t happen?

Keep it up Dems. See where that attitude gets you with the voting. Pls have some of your non DCUM politicians get that on record too. Keep it up.