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?

There is resistance to it because historically the forces behind it are white supremacist. You know, they say things like immigrants are poisoning our blood.

If the House and the Senate want to get together and write and enact common sense immigration reform, implement that, and then want to pursue ending birthright citizenship I am all ears.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you really want to say people in the country illegally are "not subject to the jurisdiction" of the US? That means we can't prosecute them for crimes they commit while here.

We say diplomats aren't subject to US jurisdiction because we also don't want US diplomats subject to the jurisdiction of the countries they work in. Diplomacy could not work if US diplomats in Russia were subject to Russian jurisdiction and prosecution.

We also wouldn't typically prosecute alien soldiers in the US in a time of war, because they are treated as prisoners of war subject to separate judicial processes.

Spies are here illegally. We do consider them under US jurisdiction - and we prosecute them.

Every person who is not a diplomat or an invading soldier and is on US soil is subject to US jurisdiction and can be punished if they violate the law. I don't think we want to start exempting people here illegally from jurisdiction and thus criminal prosecution. Overstay your visa and murder someone - without jurisdiction, the best we could do is deport the murderer.

[Anonymous]

Yes stop Citizenship by Birth, starting now.

There are zero reasons for having it this or next century.

Then close the borders.

Then do the deportations, fines for employing illegals, require english at all hospitals, schools and govt buildings, etc. Like most other countries do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

EXCEPT - jus sanguinis is not quite as comprehensive as you seem to think.

For example:
Canadians apparently only follow jus sanguinis after the first generation born in Canada. Two immigrants to Canada who have been granted citizenship will not be able to pass that citizenship to their child unless he is born in Canada.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statelessness#:~:text=At%20the%20end%20of%202022,at%20the%20end%20of%202021.

Some countries only follow jus sanguinis through the father. “Consequently, children can be left stateless when fathers are stateless, unknown, missing or deceased. ”
https://www.unhcr.org/us/stateless-people#:~:text=Gender%20discrimination%20in%20nationality%20laws,%2C%20unknown%2C%20missing%20or%20deceased.

Then there are the millions of stateless people who don’t have a citizenship to begin with, much less pass along through “jus sanguinis”.

[Anonymous]

Birthright citizenship has become a business. They need to get rid of it.

[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?

Huh? You realize that people began settling here 400 years ago? That is a pretty long history.

Meanwhile, walk into a random store in Florence Italy and it opened 400 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes stop Citizenship by Birth, starting now.

There are zero reasons for having it this or next century.

Then close the borders.

Then do the deportations, fines for employing illegals, require english at all hospitals, schools and govt buildings, etc. Like most other countries do.

Yes and make it illegal for people who aren’t citizens or valid permanent residents to be educated in any of our schools. Or to be allowed to rent apartments. There’s no reason illegals or tourists should be able to rent apartments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes stop Citizenship by Birth, starting now.

There are zero reasons for having it this or next century.

Then close the borders.

Then do the deportations, fines for employing illegals, require english at all hospitals, schools and govt buildings, etc. Like most other countries do.

Yes and make it illegal for people who aren’t citizens or valid permanent residents to be educated in any of our schools. Or to be allowed to rent apartments. There’s no reason illegals or tourists should be able to rent apartments.

Then stop whining here and go fix the laws. MAGA has it all. Time to act!

[Anonymous]

To answer your question OP, I don’t think there is significant opposition to this. It has long past the point of birthright citizenship being a good thing for the country, and needs to be changed asap. The American people have spoken clearly with this election that we don’t want stuff like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To answer your question OP, I don’t think there is significant opposition to this. It has long past the point of birthright citizenship being a good thing for the country, and needs to be changed asap. The American people have spoken clearly with this election that we don’t want stuff like that.

Then change it.

[Anonymous]

Wow, look how hard it is to get Danish citizenship:

https://immigration-denmark.com/how-to-obtain-danish-citizenship/

This is the same country liberals and Democrats think is the best country in the world and they should be a model for the US. Totally agree, let's start by imposing the same exact rules for citizenship that the Danes do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To answer your question OP, I don’t think there is significant opposition to this. It has long past the point of birthright citizenship being a good thing for the country, and needs to be changed asap. The American people have spoken clearly with this election that we don’t want stuff like that.

Then change it.

They can’t because they don’t know how to create comprehensive legislation and work in a bipartisan manner which is what would be required to amend the constitution. That’s their biggest issue, they don’t know how to govern as has been shown over and over recently including when they last had control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, look how hard it is to get Danish citizenship:

https://immigration-denmark.com/how-to-obtain-danish-citizenship/

This is the same country liberals and Democrats think is the best country in the world and they should be a model for the US. Totally agree, let's start by imposing the same exact rules for citizenship that the Danes do.

Then amend U.S. citizenship laws. You have the whole government. Get to work!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Birthright citizenship has become a business. They need to get rid of it.

Moreover it’s an emotional tool that illegals use to stay here indefinitely: Oh my poor anchor child who doesn’t know anyplace else than silver spring, Maryland! They definitely cannot move; no child can withstand a relocation to the homeland or anywhere! We simply must all stay here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes stop Citizenship by Birth, starting now.

There are zero reasons for having it this or next century.

Then close the borders.

Then do the deportations, fines for employing illegals, require english at all hospitals, schools and govt buildings, etc. Like most other countries do.

Yes and make it illegal for people who aren’t citizens or valid permanent residents to be educated in any of our schools. Or to be allowed to rent apartments. There’s no reason illegals or tourists should be able to rent apartments.

This IS happening state by state.

Everyone is fed up. K-12 and common core and ESOL and free food/ dental/ health checks/backpack/ before and after care and summer programs for illegals’ 4.25 children per child eating woman days are ending.

Even it if punts up through the court systems, none of this BS makes sense for the neediness and magnitude of the illegal economic migrants and their anchor babies taking advantage of Americans systems.