Birthright Citizenship

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do folks not want more citizens? Our birthrate is declining. Immigration can save us from the grey spiral. Do folks not look around? Look at Europe and Japan (even China now). Their declining broth rates are going to destroy their economies. We have (had) hope with immigration.

Because they used to be white but now they're brown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Riddle us this:
Why WOULD a developed country want Citizenship by Birth in this day and age?

They thought the Jodie Foster character was the hero in Elysium? They view their world as a giant perpetual game of King of the Hill?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My neighbors who are both citizens (but naturalized originally from other countries) had their brother and pregnant wife visit.

They came in early January. I only saw the wife once walking and when I met the brother I said hello introduced myself and asked how long they were staying. He said they were leaving in a couple weeks.

Saw neighbors again a few weeks later and brother was still there. Neighbor told me how the wife was pregnant but they were keeping it secret because of Trump. Brother and wife were not US citizens and from India. I honestly couldn’t believe what I was hearing.

They had a baby in late spring and baby has US citizenship and Indian citizenship. They left a couple weeks after baby was born.

This to me is totally wrong. They lied and so did my neighbors (who are wealthy and have graduate degrees including PhDs).

I am not pro Trump but I was alarmed by the way this was handled by all of them.

My sibling lived in another country (years ago) and knew of countless people who came to the US so their baby could also be a US citizen. They knew to come not right when close to due date either. I thought my sibling was exaggerating until I saw what happened with my neighbors.

Something needs to change.

There is a process outlined in the constitution for changing the constitution.

Good luck repealing part of the 14th amendment.

So cool! Guess we’re stuck with millions of annual illegal immigrants, anchor babies, and birth tourism forever.

Come one, come all!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do folks not want more citizens? Our birthrate is declining. Immigration can save us from the grey spiral. Do folks not look around? Look at Europe and Japan (even China now). Their declining broth rates are going to destroy their economies. We have (had) hope with immigration.

Because they used to be white but now they're brown.

Because we don’t need nor want 2.5 million additional uneducated, illiterate, unskilled cash pay illegal economic migrants a year nor their 4.38 anchor babies per female.

[Anonymous]

I’m just glad that I was a green card holder when my oldest was born and a citizen when the youngest was born. And that their father is American by birth as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My neighbors who are both citizens (but naturalized originally from other countries) had their brother and pregnant wife visit.

They came in early January. I only saw the wife once walking and when I met the brother I said hello introduced myself and asked how long they were staying. He said they were leaving in a couple weeks.

Saw neighbors again a few weeks later and brother was still there. Neighbor told me how the wife was pregnant but they were keeping it secret because of Trump. Brother and wife were not US citizens and from India. I honestly couldn’t believe what I was hearing.

They had a baby in late spring and baby has US citizenship and Indian citizenship. They left a couple weeks after baby was born.

This to me is totally wrong. They lied and so did my neighbors (who are wealthy and have graduate degrees including PhDs).

I am not pro Trump but I was alarmed by the way this was handled by all of them.

My sibling lived in another country (years ago) and knew of countless people who came to the US so their baby could also be a US citizen. They knew to come not right when close to due date either. I thought my sibling was exaggerating until I saw what happened with my neighbors.

Something needs to change.

There is a process outlined in the constitution for changing the constitution.

Good luck repealing part of the 14th amendment.

So cool! Guess we’re stuck with millions of annual illegal immigrants, anchor babies, and birth tourism forever.

Come one, come all!

I didn’t write 14A, so spare me the attitude.

If you don’t like an amendment, then work to amend the Constitution. Like I said, we have a process for changing the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Riddle us this:
Why WOULD a developed country want Citizenship by Birth in this day and age?

Why not? I would argue that NOT allowing citizenship by birth indicates a country that sees itself as having an ethnic identity that cannot be acquired unless one is descended from that ethnicity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They didn’t actually rule on the content of the executive order. It was more that they ruled that District courts couldn’t make national injunctions. So, everyone one has to file their own lawsuit. If the administration chooses not to fight on appeal if they lose, that one person gets citizenship. As a result, everyone born in U.S. with an undocumented person as their mother will have to sue for citizenship. If they don’t sue, they don’t get it. At least, that is my understanding. I’ll be happy to hear other opinions. Nice way to clog up the courts.

Red state judges are just as guilty of trying to establish ruling for the entire country.

Easily falsified by the number of nationwide injunctions we’ve seen in previous presidents vs Trump.

You realize the reason for that it is the sheer number of EOs he has issued and the nature of these EOs? You realize that these injunctions have been issued by judges appointed by Reagan, Clinton, GW, Obama, Trump, and Biden? (I don't think I have come across any GHW Bush appointees but could be wrong). How many other presidents have tried to rewrite the Constitution, overturn laws enacted by Congress, or use key statutes in ways they have never been used in history?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do folks not want more citizens? Our birthrate is declining. Immigration can save us from the grey spiral. Do folks not look around? Look at Europe and Japan (even China now). Their declining broth rates are going to destroy their economies. We have (had) hope with immigration.

Really getting tired of the narrative of 'If you don't see things my way, things will be destroyed'.

Our birthrate is declining because people see things aren't sustainable and are down shiffting. Some populations that come here through mass uncontrolled immigration don't get that same signal/feedback.

Eh, worldwide birthrates are dropping, and in every case where people improve their economic lot birth rates decline. And immigrants aren't going to rural areas and having their children herd goats and plant sweet potatoes and gather firewood to cook tonight's dinner and buckets of water from the river.

[Anonymous]

Predicting now that the class members who join the law suit will be deported if they have been here less than 2 years - their potential US citizen babies will accompany them. Where it will get interesting is whether the social security administration will issue SSNs to the babies before going with their mothers. Without an SSN it would be very difficult for these babies to claim their US citizenship in the future.
It seems to me that they will have a difficult home getting people to join the class - if they are not in the class their babies will not get birth certificates or SSNs until the case works through the courts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do folks not want more citizens? Our birthrate is declining. Immigration can save us from the grey spiral. Do folks not look around? Look at Europe and Japan (even China now). Their declining broth rates are going to destroy their economies. We have (had) hope with immigration.

Because they used to be white but now they're brown.

Because we don’t need nor want 2.5 million additional uneducated, illiterate, unskilled cash pay illegal economic migrants a year nor their 4.38 anchor babies per female.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is holding a news conference. Help me understand what's happening.

Nothing is happening.

We all want Citizenship by Birth to go away because it’s rampantly being taken advantage of by illegals, foreign tourists, foreign students, etc.

Foreigners do it to have an anchor baby or 18 yo child file 10+ family sponsor pull-ins from other countries. It’s a handy call option for the rich to move to America and it’s a sob story to tell Immigration Control once caught.

Problem is there is mainly one almost impossible mechanic to get it cleaned up. And senators want to tie other proposals to it for their vote. So it’s a serious matter but constantly used as a pawn by legislature.

I wish a president had the balls to put it to the house and senate as a standalone vote.

No “we” don’t, just you and your punching down cohorts that need to feel special by always having someone beneath you.

That’s a weird accusation of all the countries who don’t gift Citizenship by Birth.

Ah yes, they don’t it because their legal citizens like to “punch down” on visitors.

Things you learn about No Borders Activists on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Riddle us this:
Why WOULD a developed country want Citizenship by Birth in this day and age?

Why not? I would argue that NOT allowing citizenship by birth indicates a country that sees itself as having an ethnic identity that cannot be acquired unless one is descended from that ethnicity.

Or fill out the immigration application paperwork like millions do.

Or are you talking about Japan or China where there are extremely low fixed numbers of cultural visas, student visas, work visas, etc.?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction of” is firmly settled law. It is a legal concept in English Common Law, and was addressed by the Supreme Court over a hundred years ago in the Wong Kim Ark case:l, an consists of :
“the two classes of cases – children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State – both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. . . .

The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court. “

There is a third class of cases- Indian tribes. Congress passed a separate law conferring citizenship. Somehow this group that was residing and seemingly subject to the jurisdiction did not have automatic citizenship.

Idian relations are governed by treaty. That's why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Riddle us this:
Why WOULD a developed country want Citizenship by Birth in this day and age?

Why not? I would argue that NOT allowing citizenship by birth indicates a country that sees itself as having an ethnic identity that cannot be acquired unless one is descended from that ethnicity.

What praytell is the current “ethnic identity” in America, England or France?

Spell it out. Use data. It’s 2025.