Why is there so much opposition to ending birthright citizenship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you a Native American, OP?

I was thinking the same thing.

No one was thinking that BS.

Maybe the dinosaurs have a claim to everything?

If only the tribes weren’t so busy brutally fighting each other or doing human sacrifices they could have advanced more as a society and canoed over to europe and taken over that.

Or canoed over to Asia and dealt with the insanely brutal Chinese and Japanese cultures, militaries and regimes of lore.

Were you aware China has had 1b population for over hundreds and hundreds of years? Thank the Iranians for never giving them real horses for 1000 years, that stopped some advancement.

Were you aware that the slave trade to the Mideast was larger than to the Americas? More men. But they castrated them upon arrival. Read about it in the Smithsonian exhibit and maps.

[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?

+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.

Depends on your latitude. Do the math.

[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?

+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.

WTF.

DST isn’t dumping millions of illiterate, uneducated, unskilled illegal economic immigrants in our country every year.

[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.

90%++ of countries do NOT give a tourist woman who pops out her baby Citizenship if said baby.

America is stupid. And everyone’s taking advantages- rich and many poors.

[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.

This.

Close the loophole yesterday

[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.

In 10 years of solidly living here and in good standing and a formal application process, yes. Just like most other countries. Apply. For. Citizenship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

True. All of it. Shooting selves in the foot with this posturing and behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a liberal and most of my friends are for ending birthright citizenship. It's a major loophole in the US that needs fixed.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a liberal and most of my friends are for ending birthright citizenship. It's a major loophole in the US that needs fixed.

+1000

What's the "loophole"?

[Anonymous]

If we had ended birthright citizenship earlier, we wouldn't have Trump. So that's an argument for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If we had ended birthright citizenship earlier, we wouldn't have Trump. So that's an argument for it.

Amen. Mazel tov

Many reasons to end it. Many.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a liberal and most of my friends are for ending birthright citizenship. It's a major loophole in the US that needs fixed.

+1000

What's the "loophole"?

R u ESOL? Or no ESOL at all, just skip that part and never speak it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a liberal and most of my friends are for ending birthright citizenship. It's a major loophole in the US that needs fixed.

+1000

What's the "loophole"?

Getting citizenship of a country that you don't have an attachment to.

It's a national security risk with dual nationals that have 0 ties to the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a liberal and most of my friends are for ending birthright citizenship. It's a major loophole in the US that needs fixed.

+1000

What's the "loophole"?

The 14th Amendment of the Constitution is apparently a "loophole"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

And intl grad students who are married.
Lots of people arrive pregnant eager to have a USA citizen baby who can then pull in all the intl family members via family sponsoring.

One easy thing to get rid of the family sponsoring. they shoudl getrid of under 18s being able to sposner tehri non -citzen parenst as well. We have to end chain migration but birthright citizenship is a weird quirk we have- i'd be more supportive of even having clear pregnancy tests on someone who is applying- we have other types of hops, not being pregnant isnot really that invasive. There was massive amounts of immigration when the 14th amendment was written so the authors knew this woudl happen. Testing for pregnancy before granting visas (do it like we did for covid) would also end birth tourism without a constitutional amendment. As long as its not retroactiev and we can get rid of the 2a id be ok with it as well.