Why is there so much opposition to ending birthright citizenship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The 14th amendment is written worse than most posts on this board.

Its intent was to guarantee blacks and really ancestors or slaves the right to vote and ensure they were treated as actual US citizens.

The bozos who wrote did not think about the illegals and tourist birthing having kids here.

The brilliant men who wrote it knew they had a large country to fill, needed a workforce, and were ready to take all comers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Even if they still do at age 20, are you suggesting they need to leave home and start over in a foreign country? US born and educated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In an age when traveling to/from the United States was a major ordeal and impediment to abuse, perhaps birthright citizenship made sense.

The majority of the country does not believe that hopping on a flight from Beijing to Los Angeles, or driving across the border, while pregnant so you can get automatic "birthright" citizenship for your child, is a rational policy.

Citizenship bestows privileged and why should they be given to just anyone whose parents just show up here to give birth?

Because that's what makes America great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unlike mass deportation, I doubt this will come to be because it actually requires a constitutional amendment. But if it were to go through, it would apply only after a certain date.

This is a really hare-brained idea. Not even the crazed GOP is going to try to amend the constitution.

It can only happen if SCOTUS just does away with the 14th amendment. I’m sure there’s some originalist argument there. And who knows, maybe dispense with everything but the bill of rights. Could be useful. Take away voting rights from women and blacks, dispense with term limits.

Actually you do not need to change the 14th amendment.

It is not a blanket birthright citizenship claim there. It carves out some cases where it does not apply!


Here it is.

Section 1.

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.


The important part is “jurisdiction thereof”

This was written in to ex life citizenship for people in this country who are under the “jurisdiction” of their home countries.

This included children of diplomats who are serving a foreign country, their kids do not get citizenship.

Thai was also written to include children of for example of enemy soldiers in this country who have kids here, as they are under the jurisdiction of a foreign govt.


So no changes need to be made to the 14th amendment. All that needs to be done is get a legal case to the Supreme Court.

Then they can interprete illegal aliens as not under the jurisdiction of the United States, and are under the jurisdiction of their home countries. This no birthright citizenship.

Example is a Mexican National crosses the border in Texas, had a kid in Texas, then goes back to Mexico. They would still be legally Mexican citizens and under the jurisdiction of Mexico. Hence their kids would not be US citizens.

Oh, hi there, Heritage Foundation shill! Your argument is stupid and doesn't work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t you guys being led by someone who thinks we have a population crisis?

Our population is declining. Millennials and gen Z aren’t having kids like generations past especially the liberal millennials and gen Z which is why democrats wanted to bus millions of illegals and make them citizens to vote in elections for the Dem Party.

Everything is about stupid elections to you people.

[Anonymous]

I oppose ending birthright citizenship.

I favor stronger border enforcement. That’s where we need to address the problem. If you’re concerned with chain immigration, then rewrite those laws.

Since different countries handle citizenship differently, some children born in America might not have citizenship through their parents and end up stateless, through no fault of their own, if denied birthright citizenship. Are we really going to condemn a newborn to a life of limbo? Which country are you going to deport it to?

Of all the rights we should protect, citizenship, as the guarantor of all other rights, should be guarded most strenuously. Babies, who are both completely innocent and completely vulnerable, should not lose their citizenship rights as a class through political action.

If you really want to tinker with Constitutional amendments for citizenship, I think you ought to start with the American nationals in American Samoa. I don’t know for certain whether they want citizenship, but I think we should at least offer.

[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?

Yes. Why would the US responsible for fixing problems the parents created?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I oppose ending birthright citizenship.

I favor stronger border enforcement. That’s where we need to address the problem. If you’re concerned with chain immigration, then rewrite those laws.

Since different countries handle citizenship differently, some children born in America might not have citizenship through their parents and end up stateless, through no fault of their own, if denied birthright citizenship. Are we really going to condemn a newborn to a life of limbo? Which country are you going to deport it to?

Of all the rights we should protect, citizenship, as the guarantor of all other rights, should be guarded most strenuously. Babies, who are both completely innocent and completely vulnerable, should not lose their citizenship rights as a class through political action.

If you really want to tinker with Constitutional amendments for citizenship, I think you ought to start with the American nationals in American Samoa. I don’t know for certain whether they want citizenship, but I think we should at least offer.

Let parents protect their vulnerable babies, ideally before they are even conceived.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I oppose ending birthright citizenship.

I favor stronger border enforcement. That’s where we need to address the problem. If you’re concerned with chain immigration, then rewrite those laws.

Since different countries handle citizenship differently, some children born in America might not have citizenship through their parents and end up stateless, through no fault of their own, if denied birthright citizenship. Are we really going to condemn a newborn to a life of limbo? Which country are you going to deport it to?

Of all the rights we should protect, citizenship, as the guarantor of all other rights, should be guarded most strenuously. Babies, who are both completely innocent and completely vulnerable, should not lose their citizenship rights as a class through political action.

If you really want to tinker with Constitutional amendments for citizenship, I think you ought to start with the American nationals in American Samoa. I don’t know for certain whether they want citizenship, but I think we should at least offer.

It’s over 200 years old. Society has changed a lot. Are you still getting medical treatment based on documents from 200 years ago?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I tell you to make an effort, and the blaming starts immediately. How predictable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I oppose ending birthright citizenship.

I favor stronger border enforcement. That’s where we need to address the problem. If you’re concerned with chain immigration, then rewrite those laws.

Since different countries handle citizenship differently, some children born in America might not have citizenship through their parents and end up stateless, through no fault of their own, if denied birthright citizenship. Are we really going to condemn a newborn to a life of limbo? Which country are you going to deport it to?

Of all the rights we should protect, citizenship, as the guarantor of all other rights, should be guarded most strenuously. Babies, who are both completely innocent and completely vulnerable, should not lose their citizenship rights as a class through political action.

If you really want to tinker with Constitutional amendments for citizenship, I think you ought to start with the American nationals in American Samoa. I don’t know for certain whether they want citizenship, but I think we should at least offer.

I don’t think anywhere in the world has the requirement that “regardless of your parents’ citizenship status. You MUST be born on the country’s soil to be a citizen”.

Most places do it by blood, jus sanguinis.

And a few do it jus soli, by soil. But those also allow “by blood”. It’s not JUST by soil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unlike mass deportation, I doubt this will come to be because it actually requires a constitutional amendment. But if it were to go through, it would apply only after a certain date.

This is a really hare-brained idea. Not even the crazed GOP is going to try to amend the constitution.

It can only happen if SCOTUS just does away with the 14th amendment. I’m sure there’s some originalist argument there. And who knows, maybe dispense with everything but the bill of rights. Could be useful. Take away voting rights from women and blacks, dispense with term limits.

Actually you do not need to change the 14th amendment.

It is not a blanket birthright citizenship claim there. It carves out some cases where it does not apply!


Here it is.

Section 1.

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.


The important part is “jurisdiction thereof”

This was written in to ex life citizenship for people in this country who are under the “jurisdiction” of their home countries.

This included children of diplomats who are serving a foreign country, their kids do not get citizenship.

Thai was also written to include children of for example of enemy soldiers in this country who have kids here, as they are under the jurisdiction of a foreign govt.


So no changes need to be made to the 14th amendment. All that needs to be done is get a legal case to the Supreme Court.

Then they can interprete illegal aliens as not under the jurisdiction of the United States, and are under the jurisdiction of their home countries. This no birthright citizenship.

Example is a Mexican National crosses the border in Texas, had a kid in Texas, then goes back to Mexico. They would still be legally Mexican citizens and under the jurisdiction of Mexico. Hence their kids would not be US citizens.

Oh, hi there, Heritage Foundation shill! Your argument is stupid and doesn't work.

Thanks for your amazing input. But it actually is the easiest path to ending birthright citizenship for illegals. This would not end it for legal residents in the US, as they would under US jurisdiction.

Just ending it for illegals. Just take a simple indrepretsrion of the “jurisdiction therof” by the Supreme Court.

Done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes. Why would the US responsible for fixing problems the parents created?

No, it is a stupid idea to kick out 20 year old children of illegal immigrants or take away their citizenship. The USG and state governments have just invested 12 years of public education in them and they are at the age where they can start to return that investment to the US taxpayer by working and becoming taxpaying citizens. It makes no sense to throw away that ROI.

My kid is in school at a top 3 law school. Her classmate is the US citizen son of an illegal alien. When he graduates from law school this year, he will make 200K a year and the USG and state government will take 50-100k in taxes. Not to mention all the jobs his income
will fund thru his purchasing power and employment of others. It makes no sense to deport him or revoke his citizenship. It hurts our tax base and the economy. Talk about cutting off our nose to spite our face.

[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?

Careful what you wish for, OP. You could make the same argument about the 2nd amendment and "well regulated militias". Do I think that changes any time soon? Nope.

The 1st and 2nd amendments should be the only ones not allowed to be changed by any President. I don't mind any other ones going away.

Really? What about the 19th amendment - the one that gave women the right to vote - do you think presidents should be able to change that one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OMG

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?

Even if they still do at age 20, are you suggesting they need to leave home and start over in a foreign country? US born and educated?

I assume their 20s kid is a US citizen? Ending birthright citizen would only apply going forward.