Why is there so much opposition to ending birthright citizenship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

This is up in a few states legislatures: No free k-12 education if parents and child are: not documented (no have any docs!), or not a citizen or legal green card holder or legal visa (no phony asylum).

State law cannot overturn Federal law & SCOTUS decisions - Doe v Plyer - stating that children cannot be denied a free public education on the basis of their immigration status. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/public_education_for_immigrant_students_understanding_plyer_v_doe.pdf

“ In June 1982, the Supreme Court issued Plyler v. Doe, a landmark decision holding that states cannot
constitutionally deny students a free public education on account of their immigration status. By a 5-4 vote,
the Court found that any resources which might be saved from excluding undocumented children from public
schools were far outweighed by the harms imposed on society at large from denying them an education.
For more than thirty years, Plyler has ensured equal access to education for children regardless of status, but
anti-immigrant sentiment continues to threaten that right. States and localities have passed measures and
adopted unofficial policies that violate the spirit —if not the letter —of the Court’s decision. For example, in
2011 the state of Alabama enacted a law requiring school administrators to determine the immigration status
of newly enrolling students, which in turn resulted in markedly higher rates of absenteeism for Latino school
children and caused much fear and confusion in schools. Supporters of the Alabama law wanted to challenge
Plyler itself, claiming the Court implied that its ruling could change if sufficient evidence established that the
enrollment of undocumented children harmed the overall quality of education, but that challenge was
blocked by the Courts.”

Just like roe, pyler needs to go, send this up to the supreme Court to overturn. We need to look at all the crazy left supreme Court rulings of the 70s and early 80s before the normal Reagan supreme Court appointees were put in

SCOTUS is going to overturn this precedent soon . I think it will be overturned in the next 4 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Absolutely. Go back and apply to legally live in America or any other country.

Go back? The pp was referring to people that have never lived anywhere other than the United States.

Nutty ideas like this are why birthright citizenship isn't going to change.

[Anonymous]

This might put a monkey wrench in trump's stopping birthright citizenship!

https://www.kqed.org/news/12015449/a-129-year-old-san-francisco-lawsuit-could-stop-trump-from-ending-birthright-citizenship

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

This is up in a few states legislatures: No free k-12 education if parents and child are: not documented (no have any docs!), or not a citizen or legal green card holder or legal visa (no phony asylum).

Who the hell is getting the documentation? The school? Do you really think public schools have the means to go through and verify the legal documents when businesses can’t even get it together enough to use e-verify.

Stop making the schools responsible for every single f-ing thing, get some balls and make businesses accountable.

Why are schools staffed with women the only people who have to hold people accountable? Grow up,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This might put a monkey wrench in trump's stopping birthright citizenship!

https://www.kqed.org/news/12015449/a-129-year-old-san-francisco-lawsuit-could-stop-trump-from-ending-birthright-citizenship

Precedent didn’t stop them with Roe V. Wade. I doubt it will stop them with birthright citizenship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This might put a monkey wrench in trump's stopping birthright citizenship!

https://www.kqed.org/news/12015449/a-129-year-old-san-francisco-lawsuit-could-stop-trump-from-ending-birthright-citizenship

Precedent didn’t stop them with Roe V. Wade. I doubt it will stop them with birthright citizenship.

But they claimed Roe v. Wade was flawed. The 14th Amendment was passed by Congress on June 13, 1866 and ratified on July 9, 1868. That's 156 years of precedent.

[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?

NP. I think birthright citizenship is what has caused this country to become the massive economic engine it is. None of the countries you list has the economic productivity that the US does.

I’m actually fine with socially conservative immigrants voting. Voting is good overall, in the long term. People with a citizenship stake become more productive and after a few generations, they assimilate.

I recently did some digging and basically if you look at the past 120 years, the number of immigrants relative to the population averaged 5x as many per year from 1900-1960 as from 1960-2020. Of course, the graph is very uneven. But in terms of overall averages we are FAR less willing to provide legal immigration than in the past and I do believe it is to our detriment. Opening more doors to legal immigration could also address illegal immigration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This might put a monkey wrench in trump's stopping birthright citizenship!

https://www.kqed.org/news/12015449/a-129-year-old-san-francisco-lawsuit-could-stop-trump-from-ending-birthright-citizenship

Precedent didn’t stop them with Roe V. Wade. I doubt it will stop them with birthright citizenship.

But they claimed Roe v. Wade was flawed. The 14th Amendment was passed by Congress on June 13, 1866 and ratified on July 9, 1868. That's 156 years of precedent.

And an amendment is a way different thing than a court decision or legislation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This might put a monkey wrench in trump's stopping birthright citizenship!

https://www.kqed.org/news/12015449/a-129-year-old-san-francisco-lawsuit-could-stop-trump-from-ending-birthright-citizenship

per that article, this could be why Trump calls undocumented people "invaders", though they are not part of an official army.

Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, there were three exceptions to the citizenship clause:
..
If, at the time of your birth, your parents are in the U.S. as an invading army.

But I do wonder if that is the argument they will try to use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the birthright babies were white nobody would be whining about them.
But they should want Asian and South Asian brbs because they will work hard, get into colleges, be our bosses.
The brush no one wants are doing jobs no "natural born americun" wants. You want to have your kids working gutting chickens, cutting up beef, milking cows, curring my laen?

Nope

Get rid of it

Western expansion days and populating to protect the border and fight off the French and Spaniards are long gone.

Abolish Citizenship by Birth.

we should also abolish the 2A. No need for a militia anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

This is up in a few states legislatures: No free k-12 education if parents and child are: not documented (no have any docs!), or not a citizen or legal green card holder or legal visa (no phony asylum).

State law cannot overturn Federal law & SCOTUS decisions - Doe v Plyer - stating that children cannot be denied a free public education on the basis of their immigration status. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/public_education_for_immigrant_students_understanding_plyer_v_doe.pdf

“ In June 1982, the Supreme Court issued Plyler v. Doe, a landmark decision holding that states cannot
constitutionally deny students a free public education on account of their immigration status. By a 5-4 vote,
the Court found that any resources which might be saved from excluding undocumented children from public
schools were far outweighed by the harms imposed on society at large from denying them an education.
For more than thirty years, Plyler has ensured equal access to education for children regardless of status, but
anti-immigrant sentiment continues to threaten that right. States and localities have passed measures and
adopted unofficial policies that violate the spirit —if not the letter —of the Court’s decision. For example, in
2011 the state of Alabama enacted a law requiring school administrators to determine the immigration status
of newly enrolling students, which in turn resulted in markedly higher rates of absenteeism for Latino school
children and caused much fear and confusion in schools. Supporters of the Alabama law wanted to challenge
Plyler itself, claiming the Court implied that its ruling could change if sufficient evidence established that the
enrollment of undocumented children harmed the overall quality of education, but that challenge was
blocked by the Courts.”

Just like roe, pyler needs to go, send this up to the supreme Court to overturn. We need to look at all the crazy left supreme Court rulings of the 70s and early 80s before the normal Reagan supreme Court appointees were put in

Repealing the 14th amendment would do the trick.

It seems noone really likes it anymore. The left doesn't like that it restricts affirmative action and the right doesn't like the birthright citizenship.

good luck with that. I don't think most people know how an amendment to the Constitution works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This might put a monkey wrench in trump's stopping birthright citizenship!

https://www.kqed.org/news/12015449/a-129-year-old-san-francisco-lawsuit-could-stop-trump-from-ending-birthright-citizenship

Yes, this case is the whole enchilada. That's why you have a hack judge from the 5th Circuit who has suddenly decided there's a new definition of "invasion" cited in that article. This is a deliberate and concerted effort by right wingers to overturn birthright citizenship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This might put a monkey wrench in trump's stopping birthright citizenship!

https://www.kqed.org/news/12015449/a-129-year-old-san-francisco-lawsuit-could-stop-trump-from-ending-birthright-citizenship

Yes, this case is the whole enchilada. That's why you have a hack judge from the 5th Circuit who has suddenly decided there's a new definition of "invasion" cited in that article. This is a deliberate and concerted effort by right wingers to overturn birthright citizenship.

And this is a bad thing? I'm in favor of overturning birthright citizenship. It needs to be modified to align more with what almost every other country does.

[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?

NP. I think birthright citizenship is what has caused this country to become the massive economic engine it is. None of the countries you list has the economic productivity that the US does.

I’m actually fine with socially conservative immigrants voting. Voting is good overall, in the long term. People with a citizenship stake become more productive and after a few generations, they assimilate.

I recently did some digging and basically if you look at the past 120 years, the number of immigrants relative to the population averaged 5x as many per year from 1900-1960 as from 1960-2020. Of course, the graph is very uneven. But in terms of overall averages we are FAR less willing to provide legal immigration than in the past and I do believe it is to our detriment. Opening more doors to legal immigration could also address illegal immigration.

Agree, legal immigration has been a dismal process and no administration has made any efforts to address legal immigration. It’s a decade plus process, with numerous road blocks and high expenses, and there are almost no categories to apply for, at least for anyone coming from a country that is not in turmoil. On the other hand, for the last several decades, illegal immigration has been the easiest of perhaps any country on Earth, with unparalleled benefits to any country on Earth. So… you get what you advertise for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The US has over 345 million people and is the 3rd largest nation on Earth. We do not need more and have plenty of bloodlines to draw from. Ending birthright citizenship would apply going forward. It wouldn't impact current citizens at all.

We should impose common sense reform like simply requiring one parent be a citizen for a child to obtain citizenship. This is exactly what so many other countries do. It closes huge security holes that could be exploited too.

Yes we do need more. The only reason our population is not declining is because we have strong immigration. Without our immigration we'd be struggling with the same demographic issues countries in Asia are dealing with because they are so strict about immigration.

I don't disagree with your last point though. I think that's a totally fair requirement.

No we would not be struggling more or suffering like whatever Asian countries you think are actually suffering right now.
Dont make that up.

Unskilled, illiterate, uneducated Illegal immigrants are net negative. They are not some magic growth engine because they can do manual labor like dishes washing or cutting blades of grass. Those cash pay contractor jobs aren’t driving GDP. Maybe if they manage to become skilled home builders but even those are being replaced by mini factories that do walls, etc

Agree with all of this.

Also the Asian countries may have a population problem but you know what they also don’t have? Crime, trash in their streets, broken communities, lack of national identity, a welfare state.

It’s a fair trade.

There’s also zero enabling of illiterate people with Dial 1 for Spanish and multiple sheets of instructions. No CASA de Maryland in China or Canada either

Japan has visa rules (tourist, student, work, cultural, temp worker) and it enforces them. Unlike USA.

Same as China, Germany, Uk, etc.

Every country you mention, and most I know, and many dozens I’ve visited have several things in common: Universal ID (nothing goes without it, no job, no rental home, no school, no health care), no birthright citizenship. Legal immigration varies from fairly straight forward and quick (marriage or immediate family member) to difficult with strict enforcement of all rules. Anyone who enters illegally is documented - what happens depends on individual case.