Why is there so much opposition to ending birthright citizenship?

[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?

I think the question premised is backward. The burden is on those opposed to make a case that this is so important and needed that we need to go through the process of amending the constitution.

There isn’t strong opposition because the vast majority don’t care or think it’s much of an issue. You may have strong personal feelings, but the country does not. Maybe we should have an amendment for something most of the country supports and many are passionate about, like a right to bodily autonomy for women.

[Anonymous]

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

Except if you’re here as a diplomat, your kid born in the US doesn’t have US citizenship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unf I don’t seem the assimilation amongst many illegal immigrant groups here much.

Their allegiance remains to their homeland.

They send millions and billions to the homeland each year - for their extended families’ education there, new homes there, clothes there.

The adults don’t care to learn English, nor need to if they stay in their enclaves.

They certainly don’t care about baseball, or US history, or national parks (beyond a free place to have a 100 person party and leave the trash (rock creek park!)).

Wow, only a baseball fan is a good citizen? If you make knowledge of US history and support of national parks a litmus test, many US citizens would get the boot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You seem really naive. There are literal sex slaves trafficked into the US. No it’s not as pervasive as the US slave trade was but yes there are people that are slaves in the US.

Yes, sex slavery is terrible. What does it have to do with birthright citizenship?

Um, they are trafficked into the US and many get pregnant. If they have a baby, you’ll also kick it out as a non-citizen, in spite of being a victim of crime?

Unless your hypothetical was adopted by some legal Americans the baby will return to the homeland of its illegal immigrant mother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unf I don’t seem the assimilation amongst many illegal immigrant groups here much.

Their allegiance remains to their homeland.

They send millions and billions to the homeland each year - for their extended families’ education there, new homes there, clothes there.

The adults don’t care to learn English, nor need to if they stay in their enclaves.

They certainly don’t care about baseball, or US history, or national parks (beyond a free place to have a 100 person party and leave the trash (rock creek park!)).

Wow, only a baseball fan is a good citizen? If you make knowledge of US history and support of national parks a litmus test, many US citizens would get the boot

Culture of trashing up parks and hit & runs and ID fraud and tax fraud and violent gangs can stay in the central triangle

[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?

I think the question premised is backward. The burden is on those opposed to make a case that this is so important and needed that we need to go through the process of amending the constitution.

There isn’t strong opposition because the vast majority don’t care or think it’s much of an issue. You may have strong personal feelings, but the country does not. Maybe we should have an amendment for something most of the country supports and many are passionate about, like a right to bodily autonomy for women.

No one knows what the country thinks, hasn’t been on a voters ballot.

Certainly those cultures who support birth tourism and illegal immigration anchor babies (who pull in and sponsor 10+ relatives on their 18s bdays via CASa de Maryland lawyer support) love it.

[Anonymous]

[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure why there is so much sniping here. It’s written clearly in an amendment, ffs. Is someone wants to start a movement to amend the Constitution, have at it. Voters don’t get to weigh in on it. It seems like we have more pressing matters, but knock yourselves out. Wasting time here is pointless.

Hope so.

Citizenship by Birth in a developed country should have ceased to exist 50 years ago.

Let’s be done with it.

Creates utterly perverse behavior with illegal economic migrants and crafty rich intl birth tourists.

Hoping isn’t going to accomplish anything. That was the point of my post. We can’t wish away amendments. Put some effort into it other than whining on a message board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because America has always had it. We are better than Germany. It promotes assimilation too.

we should be better than germany! they only grant citizenship through the german MALE line, that is bonkers! so if your mom is German, you can only clain German citizenship as a minor, once you are 18- you are no longer elogible eventhrouggh your own MOTHER!

OTH if your great great great great grandfather moved to Pennsylvania as a Hessian soldier and you can prove it- you are eligble for german citizenship b/c being german is through the patriatchal line. We should definitely borrow from Nazis and yes hitler had a lot of willing supporters and they just lost, if the had won they wouldve cherished nazi ideas.thats actually the ADF's whole appeal.

That’s not true. It was changed to mother or father for children born after 1975. 1914-1963 it was father because citizenship was mainly proven by what army you served in. People didn’t have passports and the birth certificate usually didn’t state citizenship.
For children of unmarried women, they always got German citizenship.
And your claim that you can get German citizenship as a descendant of Hessian soldiers is nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:European countries have histories of bloodlines, people who have lived in an area for a long time, have a shared culture, shared history, some shared DNA and have a similar look/features.

Countries in the western hemisphere were formed by immigration, by people moving to those countries. The United States does not have a long history of people who have lived in an area for a long time, with shared culture, shared history, shared DNA, similar look, etc. What we have is a shared culture that we all create, that is built upon chosen unity.

If we were to abolish birthright citizenship and switch to jus sanguinis, I assume that those of us who are currently citizens would be grandfathered in? Where would the cutoff be? People who have bloodlines as of 2024? Or were you thinking of something else?

This is why I think this will not happen. It’s too big a switch.

It’s not a big switch, unless that’s your anchor baby illegal immigration, anti-deportation strategy.

It should be put up for a vote every year.

Then the public and voters can see which Senators are politicizing and weaponizing it to horsetrade other terms.

Meanwhile, illiterate, uneducated, unskilled illegal migrants and their kids are everywhere. Including your own non-border city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure why there is so much sniping here. It’s written clearly in an amendment, ffs. Is someone wants to start a movement to amend the Constitution, have at it. Voters don’t get to weigh in on it. It seems like we have more pressing matters, but knock yourselves out. Wasting time here is pointless.

Hope so.

Citizenship by Birth in a developed country should have ceased to exist 50 years ago.

Let’s be done with it.

Creates utterly perverse behavior with illegal economic migrants and crafty rich intl birth tourists.

Hoping isn’t going to accomplish anything. That was the point of my post. We can’t wish away amendments. Put some effort into it other than whining on a message board.

We all know why Democrat politicians don’t touch this with a 10 foot pool.

The same reason they do race based policies instead of SES-based ones.

[Anonymous]

Why so much opposition to deporting people who came here under false pretenses and fraudulently got their citizenship, like Melania Trump and Elon Musk?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why so much opposition to deporting people who came here under false pretenses and fraudulently got their citizenship, like Melania Trump and Elon Musk?

I'm here for their deportation, but you know it's not going to happen to people with money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:European countries have histories of bloodlines, people who have lived in an area for a long time, have a shared culture, shared history, some shared DNA and have a similar look/features.

Countries in the western hemisphere were formed by immigration, by people moving to those countries. The United States does not have a long history of people who have lived in an area for a long time, with shared culture, shared history, shared DNA, similar look, etc. What we have is a shared culture that we all create, that is built upon chosen unity.

If we were to abolish birthright citizenship and switch to jus sanguinis, I assume that those of us who are currently citizens would be grandfathered in? Where would the cutoff be? People who have bloodlines as of 2024? Or were you thinking of something else?

This is why I think this will not happen. It’s too big a switch.

It’s not a big switch, unless that’s your anchor baby illegal immigration, anti-deportation strategy.

It should be put up for a vote every year.

Then the public and voters can see which Senators are politicizing and weaponizing it to horsetrade other terms.

Meanwhile, illiterate, uneducated, unskilled illegal migrants and their kids are everywhere. Including your own non-border city.

We don't put the Constitution up for a vote every year. We are not that unstable as a country.

[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.

I have friends who worked here for their child's entire life. The kids were born here and are in their 20s and have never lived anywhere else in the world. What other citizenship makes sense? Some country they've never been to?

[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.

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.

I have friends who worked here for their child's entire life. The kids were born here and are in their 20s and have never lived anywhere else in the world. What other citizenship makes sense? Some country they've never been to?

So these kids don't have dual citizenship with their parents' native country?