Why is there so much opposition to ending birthright citizenship?

[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.

There are thousands of moms here legally on a tourist visa coming to visit and oops having the baby while they are here. A bunch of Chineses, Russians, Brazilians having babies in Miami, Pakistanis coming, having their babies and going back to their country. I mean…it is not possible people don’t see it as a huge problem.

Why is it a problem?

Because they are not committed to our community/society and they are just using us for personal benefit. Takers and not givers. When things get tough they can go home but the rest of us are stuck with the mess.

That's not a problem. Is that really the worst thing you can think of that would necessitate a constitutional amendment? SMH

[Anonymous]

Just to throw out the relevant fourteenth amendment language:

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.

There are those who believe that the bolded language could be used to disqualify as citizens those born in the US whose parents are not legally in the U.S.

Could be a stretch.

I do know that the EU has raised a fuss about what they call "accidental Americans," those born in the US to European parents who have long left the US and have never claimed citizenship but get caught up in FATCA requirements for foreign bank reporting and taxes because of their US birth.

[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?

So, how would it work in your mind? Someone on a valid visa (say H-1B) applies for a green card, gets it and waits 5 years and gets citizenship. Will that process stay or go? What happens to their three kids one of whom was born on the legal visa, one during GC and one after they became a citizen?

What about the same children scenario for folks that entered illegally and later 'normalized' and eventually became citizen?

[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.

This, 100%

[Anonymous]

It’s not on the list of the top 1000 concerns I have about this administration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s not on the list of the top 1000 concerns I have about this administration.

It's one of the things on the list of first things to change when Trump is sworn in. They seem to care a lot about it (although their knowledge of the issue is about on par with OP's).

[Anonymous]

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.

There are thousands of moms here legally on a tourist visa coming to visit and oops having the baby while they are here. A bunch of Chineses, Russians, Brazilians having babies in Miami, Pakistanis coming, having their babies and going back to their country. I mean…it is not possible people don’t see it as a huge problem.

While we all focus on the mainland, I read somewhere that American Samoa is crawling with chinese tourists who show up there just to give birth. Also helps that chinese dominate the economy there and provide a bunch of jobs.

[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.

There are thousands of moms here legally on a tourist visa coming to visit and oops having the baby while they are here. A bunch of Chineses, Russians, Brazilians having babies in Miami, Pakistanis coming, having their babies and going back to their country. I mean…it is not possible people don’t see it as a huge problem.

Why is it a problem?

Because they are not committed to our community/society and they are just using us for personal benefit. Takers and not givers. When things get tough they can go home but the rest of us are stuck with the mess.

This is a feature, not a bug.

[Anonymous]

Republicans absolutely don't have the votes for it. But I would support denying people birthright citizenship if both parents are here illegally.

[Anonymous]

I actually don’t care. But it takes a constitutional amendment to do away with it, and I want something big in return: eliminate the electoral college, repeal 2A, or add “privacy” (abortion, gay marriage, contraception) protections to the constitution. Any of those are a fair trade. Otherwise, I’ll keep watching conservative tears.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not on the list of the top 1000 concerns I have about this administration.

It's one of the things on the list of first things to change when Trump is sworn in. They seem to care a lot about it (although their knowledge of the issue is about on par with OP's).

Good luck with that constitutional amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I actually don’t care. But it takes a constitutional amendment to do away with it, and I want something big in return: eliminate the electoral college, repeal 2A, or add “privacy” (abortion, gay marriage, contraception) protections to the constitution. Any of those are a fair trade. Otherwise, I’ll keep watching conservative tears.

Love this. Agree.

[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?

So, how would it work in your mind? Someone on a valid visa (say H-1B) applies for a green card, gets it and waits 5 years and gets citizenship. Will that process stay or go? What happens to their three kids one of whom was born on the legal visa, one during GC and one after they became a citizen?

What about the same children scenario for folks that entered illegally and later 'normalized' and eventually became citizen?

Why is this hard to understand. You apply for citizenship while you have a green card. If you have kids while on a green card, they're not citizens but citizens of your home country. You simply apply for their citizenship as well. The kid born after you are a citizen is a citizen.

As if this same scenario doesn't happen in Germany, the UK, or Japan. Not hard to figure out. You act like this is advanced calculus and no other countries in the world have this figured out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's called Uni-Party, the swamp, whatever. Both sides are just theater kid puppets controlled by the same open borders bankers, multi-national corps, and PACs.

Theatre kid puppets?
You still mad you didn’t get cast in the spring musical?
No everyone can be the lead, babe. 😉

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know that there is a lot of resistance. I don't think a lot of us give a flying

This 1000!

However, you cannot make it retroactive. Until you change the law/amendment, anyone who already has it should be allowed to keep it