Why is there so much opposition to ending birthright citizenship?

[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.

The good news is that we enough bona fide conservatives, a century of warping the Constitution can be repaired quite quickly.

It's silly to give citizenship away to people who haven't earned it.

[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.

The good news is that we enough bona fide conservatives, a century of warping the Constitution can be repaired quite quickly.

It's silly to give citizenship away to people who haven't earned it.

How did you "earn" citizenship?
How will your children "earn" citizenship?
Maybe we should require military service for citizenship.

[Anonymous]

Consider what the strict form of ending birthright citizenship could actually mean, that being if your parents weren't both citizens, you lose citizenship

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The good news is that we enough bona fide conservatives, a century of warping the Constitution can be repaired quite quickly.

It's silly to give citizenship away to people who haven't earned it.

How did you "earn" citizenship?
How will your children "earn" citizenship?
Maybe we should require military service for citizenship.

How did people who were merely born here ever "earn" their citizenship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Consider what the strict form of ending birthright citizenship could actually mean, that being if your parents weren't both citizens, you lose citizenship

This is probably not accurate. The 14th amendment would still apply to people born in the US “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Presumably, any reasonable interpretation of this would include anyone that has at least one parent who is US citizen or a legal resident of the US. It would not include someone who is illegally present in the US. However, the applicability for people on a tourist visa, TPS, or other statuses that do not confer a pathway to resident status is uncertain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Consider what the strict form of ending birthright citizenship could actually mean, that being if your parents weren't both citizens, you lose citizenship

This is probably not accurate. The 14th amendment would still apply to people born in the US “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Presumably, any reasonable interpretation of this would include anyone that has at least one parent who is US citizen or a legal resident of the US. It would not include someone who is illegally present in the US. However, the applicability for people on a tourist visa, TPS, or other statuses that do not confer a pathway to resident status is uncertain.

You believe that a child born in the United States to an undocumented mother is not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Consider what the strict form of ending birthright citizenship could actually mean, that being if your parents weren't both citizens, you lose citizenship

This is probably not accurate. The 14th amendment would still apply to people born in the US “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Presumably, any reasonable interpretation of this would include anyone that has at least one parent who is US citizen or a legal resident of the US. It would not include someone who is illegally present in the US. However, the applicability for people on a tourist visa, TPS, or other statuses that do not confer a pathway to resident status is uncertain.

You believe that a child born in the United States to an undocumented mother is not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States?

+1

Making children/adults not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States would be a huge problem. People are not thinking any of this through. It's understandable when Trump doesn't think things through, because that's not what he does. But everyone else is smart enough to think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you a Native American, OP?

Native Americans got conquered and lost. Just like all for the Native Indians in South and Central, America, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. History is written and countries are formed by the winners. Sorry you can't cope with the fact that many countries on Earth are founded on land once held by considered individuals. World history is what it is.

So is hypocrisy.

[Anonymous]

Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chad, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Lesotho, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uruguay and Venezuela.



Why does the U.S. want to be like those countries? Canada is the only other advanced country with birthright citizenship. They have a giant buffer zone though known as the USA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Consider what the strict form of ending birthright citizenship could actually mean, that being if your parents weren't both citizens, you lose citizenship

This is probably not accurate. The 14th amendment would still apply to people born in the US “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Presumably, any reasonable interpretation of this would include anyone that has at least one parent who is US citizen or a legal resident of the US. It would not include someone who is illegally present in the US. However, the applicability for people on a tourist visa, TPS, or other statuses that do not confer a pathway to resident status is uncertain.

If at least one parent is a natural born citizen and they are born in the US they shall be granted birthright citizenship.

Maybe make the rule that both naturalized is required to grant birth right citizenship, or maybe at least one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The good news is that we enough bona fide conservatives, a century of warping the Constitution can be repaired quite quickly.

It's silly to give citizenship away to people who haven't earned it.

How did you "earn" citizenship?
How will your children "earn" citizenship?
Maybe we should require military service for citizenship.

That happens now if an immigrant served they have a pathway to citizenship. The idea is to pledge allegiance we've become to liberal and loose on ensuring immigrant citizen paths don't pledge allegiance to the United States.

[Anonymous]

It’s really not hard people.

Citizenship would only require at least one parent be a citizen. That’s pretty much it. So many other countries in the world have figured this out.

Not hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s really not hard people.

Citizenship would only require at least one parent be a citizen. That’s pretty much it. So many other countries in the world have figured this out.

Not hard.

So if one parent is here illegally, but the other is a citizen (what about other legal status holders? Green Cards, student visas, etc.?), would the children still have birthright citizenship?

If both parents are here legally but not citizens when they had their children, what's their legal status? If those parents later become citizens, would the children get their citizenship at that point?

I feel that this will get complicated quickly. Maybe something along the lines of conferring citizenship to children born to parents who are both in the country on non-temporary legal status is less complicated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Consider what the strict form of ending birthright citizenship could actually mean, that being if your parents weren't both citizens, you lose citizenship

This is probably not accurate. The 14th amendment would still apply to people born in the US “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Presumably, any reasonable interpretation of this would include anyone that has at least one parent who is US citizen or a legal resident of the US. It would not include someone who is illegally present in the US. However, the applicability for people on a tourist visa, TPS, or other statuses that do not confer a pathway to resident status is uncertain.

Meaning someone like the South African Musk, who came the US on a student Visa from Canada, and never left?

[Anonymous]

I'm all for ending birth right citizenship at this point. It's the amendment that gave us Musk and Trump.