Why is there so much opposition to ending birthright citizenship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It is not complicated. Every other country in the world has this figured out.


One parent here illegally and the other is legal? Children are citizens. Simple. The illegal parent can be deported. It is up to that family to decide how they want to remain together.

If both parents are here legally but aren’t citizens and have kids? The kids are not citizens. Easy. Just like every other country in the world. Grad students who study in Europe and have kids don’t automatically get citizenship for their kids just because they’re legally in say Germany or the UK as students. If the parents become citizens, they can apply for citizenship for ther children as well.


This really isn’t hard as everyone is trying to claim. Every country in the world has this figured out and has already dealt with all of these scenarios. It isn’t rocket science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Let me correct: if one parent is here illegally and the other is a citizen, the children are citizens.

It is not complicated. Every other country in the world has this figured out.


One parent here illegally and the other is legal? Children are citizens. Simple. The illegal parent can be deported. It is up to that family to decide how they want to remain together.

If both parents are here legally but aren’t citizens and have kids? The kids are not citizens. Easy. Just like every other country in the world. Grad students who study in Europe and have kids don’t automatically get citizenship for their kids just because they’re legally in say Germany or the UK as students. If the parents become citizens, they can apply for citizenship for ther children as well.


This really isn’t hard as everyone is trying to claim. Every country in the world has this figured out and has already dealt with all of these scenarios. It isn’t rocket science.

[Anonymous]

Because it creates a citizenship-less underclass. That’s the opposite of what a functioning democracy needs.

[Anonymous]

More concepts of a plan

[Anonymous]

It is what makes us different from the rest of the world and exceptional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because it creates a citizenship-less underclass. That’s the opposite of what a functioning democracy needs.

The non-citizen "underclass" already exists in many democratic countries. It is divided into people who are in the country legally, and illegal aliens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It is not complicated. Every other country in the world has this figured out.


One parent here illegally and the other is legal? Children are citizens. Simple. The illegal parent can be deported. It is up to that family to decide how they want to remain together.

If both parents are here legally but aren’t citizens and have kids? The kids are not citizens. Easy. Just like every other country in the world. Grad students who study in Europe and have kids don’t automatically get citizenship for their kids just because they’re legally in say Germany or the UK as students. If the parents become citizens, they can apply for citizenship for ther children as well.

This really isn’t hard as everyone is trying to claim. Every country in the world has this figured out and has already dealt with all of these scenarios. It isn’t rocket science.

Moreover, USCIS already has the process, forms, fees etc for the bolded!

[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?

Careful what you wish for, OP. You could make the same argument about the 2nd amendment and "well regulated militias". Do I think that changes any time soon? Nope.

Let's make a trade. You can have your end to birthright citizenship and we'll get rid of these ridiculously permissive gun laws.

[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?

Careful what you wish for, OP. You could make the same argument about the 2nd amendment and "well regulated militias". Do I think that changes any time soon? Nope.

Let's make a trade. You can have your end to birthright citizenship and we'll get rid of these ridiculously permissive gun laws.

I'll throw in ending daylight savings time as well to get rid of all these guns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because it creates a citizenship-less underclass. That’s the opposite of what a functioning democracy needs.

They have citizenship via their parents' hoe country.

Also, let's not act like we don't have a vulnerable underclass now. Those are the people that you refer to when asking who will mow your lawn or clean your house or pick your organic strawberries every time the topic of deportation comes up.

[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?

Careful what you wish for, OP. You could make the same argument about the 2nd amendment and "well regulated militias". Do I think that changes any time soon? Nope.

Let's make a trade. You can have your end to birthright citizenship and we'll get rid of these ridiculously permissive gun laws.

DP but I would jump at the chance for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It is not complicated. Every other country in the world has this figured out.


One parent here illegally and the other is legal? Children are citizens. Simple. The illegal parent can be deported. It is up to that family to decide how they want to remain together.

If both parents are here legally but aren’t citizens and have kids? The kids are not citizens. Easy. Just like every other country in the world. Grad students who study in Europe and have kids don’t automatically get citizenship for their kids just because they’re legally in say Germany or the UK as students. If the parents become citizens, they can apply for citizenship for ther children as well.


This really isn’t hard as everyone is trying to claim. Every country in the world has this figured out and has already dealt with all of these scenarios. It isn’t rocket science.

Sure, it wouldn't be impossible for the US to switch from being like every country in the Americas to being like countries in Europe. It would just take a constitutional amendment to change the Fourteenth Amendment. Let's go. (There are really no sneaky "interpretations of the language" that could work. It has to be a for-real amendment. Sorry not sorry.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It is not complicated. Every other country in the world has this figured out.


One parent here illegally and the other is legal? Children are citizens. Simple. The illegal parent can be deported. It is up to that family to decide how they want to remain together.

If both parents are here legally but aren’t citizens and have kids? The kids are not citizens. Easy. Just like every other country in the world. Grad students who study in Europe and have kids don’t automatically get citizenship for their kids just because they’re legally in say Germany or the UK as students. If the parents become citizens, they can apply for citizenship for ther children as well.


This really isn’t hard as everyone is trying to claim. Every country in the world has this figured out and has already dealt with all of these scenarios. It isn’t rocket science.

Sure, it wouldn't be impossible for the US to switch from being like every country in the Americas to being like countries in Europe. It would just take a constitutional amendment to change the Fourteenth Amendment. Let's go. (There are really no sneaky "interpretations of the language" that could work. It has to be a for-real amendment. Sorry not sorry.)

Or SCOTUS could rule on birthright citizenship using an originalist interpretation

[Anonymous]

The names of both parents should be verified for legal status before issuing birth certificates, social security numbers, or any government benefits.

[Anonymous]

All the SC needs to do is correctly use the historical interpretation of the 14th amendment. As a reconstruction amendment its purpose was to guarantee US citizenship to those born in the Confederate States of America during the Civil War. Quite simple actually.