Why is there so much opposition to ending birthright citizenship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Birthright citizenship for kids whose parents are here legally. I've heard of wealthy who come here only to give birth and get babies citizenship.

This happens in the few countries that do have birthright citizenship (Brazil is one), the rich fly there to give their child an additional passport and options for the family.

[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?

In countries that have parental citizenship the children are eligible for both their parents’ citizenship. In your example, once one parent becomes a US citizen, they apply for their kids, but not before, and it’s a straightforward process, not the multi-year ordeal that is legal immigration here.

[Anonymous]

It’s outdated and doesn’t even begin to cover the outright abuse of a system that has outliars, druggies and other cretins in charge!!
Look at the stats and then talk.

[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

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.

It's a bad thing when it contradicts the plain language of the Constitution, but the Supreme Court already did this with the Second Amendment so I don't imagine people will really notice or care.

[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.

It's about size and location.

People aren't trying to immigrate to China en masse. Germany, UK, ... countries are small, but they do still have illegal immigrants.

The US is huge, and shares a border with Mexico, which shares a border with Guatemala. It's easier for the poor to cross the US border because of location. Plus, the US is a melting pot of many different races and languages, so it's also much easier to blend in.

Non Asians would not be able to blend into society in Asian countries. But, it's much easier to do that here, and even the UK, which is why the UK has issues with illegal immigrants. Also, in the UK, you can get hospital services without a national ID. I know because DC went to urgent care while in the UK, and they don't have a national ID. BTW, the visit was free, and we didn't have to wait but like 10min.

When Poles, Germans, Norwegians, Swedes, first immigrated to the US, they didn't speak the language. While the younger generation absolutely assimilated, the older generation found it harder. That is the same today.

More than likely, your ancestors found it difficult to assimilate, and many barely spoke any English in their lifetime. It's just much harder for older people, especially those without an education, to the learn a new language. I think people romanticize what immigration and immigrants were like 100 years ago. You should visit Ellis Island. Very informative of how there were so many non English speaking immigrants, and some who lied to get in.

[Anonymous]

Europe is a collection of nation states. People there get citizenship because they are of a certain ethnicity. For example, during the 1970s and 1980s, ethnic Germans living in Transylvania (present day Romania), whose ancestors settled there 700 years earlier, were recognized as German citizen by the German government, and were thus able to move to Germany with full benefits.

The United States, by contrast, is a country of immigrants.

[Anonymous]

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).

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,

Because women get sh!t done?

[Anonymous]

If we had ended birthright citizenship and naturalized citizenship earlier, we wouldn't have Trump, his children, two of his wives, Elon or Vivek.

It sounds like a good idea at this point. Can we denaturalize some of these folks as well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If we had ended birthright citizenship and naturalized citizenship earlier, we wouldn't have Trump, his children, two of his wives, Elon or Vivek.

It sounds like a good idea at this point. Can we denaturalize some of these folks as well?

Musk especially. He lied on his citizenship application. Same for Melania.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

#LameDeflectionAgain

[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

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.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

It's a bad thing when it contradicts the plain language of the Constitution, but the Supreme Court already did this with the Second Amendment so I don't imagine people will really notice or care.

Do you realize the Constitution has been amended 27 times since it was ratified in 1787? Amending the Constitution has led to many positive outcomes - guaranteed fundamental rights to Americans, including protection of life, liberty, and property.

Amendments to the Constitution are meant to address concerns that were not anticipated - to reflect changing times.

[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.

Just because they come here illegally and give birth shouldn't afford their child citizenship. I'm on board if they stop that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

It's a bad thing when it contradicts the plain language of the Constitution, but the Supreme Court already did this with the Second Amendment so I don't imagine people will really notice or care.

This change was introduced...H.R. 4864: To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify the application of birthright citizenship, and for other purposes.

I think this should be a ballot issue - let all US Citizens vote on whether they are in favor or not of amending the Constitution to end birthright citizenship.

Do you realize the Constitution has been amended 27 times since it was ratified in 1787? Amending the Constitution has led to many positive outcomes - guaranteed fundamental rights to Americans, including protection of life, liberty, and property.

Amendments to the Constitution are meant to address concerns that were not anticipated - to reflect changing times.

[Anonymous]

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).

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,

And it would be harder to enforce without a Dep of Education!