Why is there so much opposition to ending birthright citizenship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the overwhelming majority of the country would support removing this amendment. Can there be a referendum on this one issue to ask the people directly? Or do we need to go through the elected officials for a state by state vote?

No, the overwhelming majority of states would not support repealing the 14th Amendment. Christ Almighty, what is wrong with you people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the overwhelming majority of the country would support removing this amendment. Can there be a referendum on this one issue to ask the people directly? Or do we need to go through the elected officials for a state by state vote?

No, the overwhelming majority of states would not support repealing the 14th Amendment. Christ Almighty, what is wrong with you people?

+1 I can’t. Do these people even know what’s in the 14th?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the overwhelming majority of the country would support removing this amendment. Can there be a referendum on this one issue to ask the people directly? Or do we need to go through the elected officials for a state by state vote?

No, the overwhelming majority of states would not support repealing the 14th Amendment. Christ Almighty, what is wrong with you people?

+1 I can’t. Do these people even know what’s in the 14th?

Most people don't, and all they will hear is "illegal immigrants are using anchor babies to get free money". That will be enough to have (dumb) people support overturning the 14th.

I mean... look at what's going on with Rs wanting to cut social security, medicare, ACA, VA, Ed Dept, rounding up illegals,... these are all subject matters that (dumb) people who voted for Trump are panicking about even as MAGA/R have said that this is what they will go after.

It's almost like they are dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1 I’d support it as a constitutional amendment as a compromise on tightening gun control.

I think the compromise will likely be for the dreamers. They get green cards and at the same time we deport all the rest and close the floodgates once and for all.

I'm all for the dreamers but we're going to go for gun control. End of birthright citizenship for the end of access to inappropriate weapons. That will be the deal.

-1 no to dreamers. That's a good way to have people flooding our border dropping off their kids like they did back in 2014, 1.5 years after DACA was announced. They recently found 100 unaccompanied kids at the border with their relatives names written on their shirts. No need to encourage more to come. The humane thing to do is send everyone home so that no one risks their life or their children's lives to walk through multiple countries to get here.

At first I was open to making a deal about the dreamers in order to get rid of birthright citizenship but you’re right that maybe it’s too big a concession.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1 I’d support it as a constitutional amendment as a compromise on tightening gun control.

I think the compromise will likely be for the dreamers. They get green cards and at the same time we deport all the rest and close the floodgates once and for all.

I'm all for the dreamers but we're going to go for gun control. End of birthright citizenship for the end of access to inappropriate weapons. That will be the deal.

-1 no to dreamers. That's a good way to have people flooding our border dropping off their kids like they did back in 2014, 1.5 years after DACA was announced. They recently found 100 unaccompanied kids at the border with their relatives names written on their shirts. No need to encourage more to come. The humane thing to do is send everyone home so that no one risks their life or their children's lives to walk through multiple countries to get here.

At first I was open to making a deal about the dreamers in order to get rid of birthright citizenship but you’re right that maybe it’s too big a concession.

Make a deal about weapons to get rid of birthright citizenship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1 I’d support it as a constitutional amendment as a compromise on tightening gun control.

I think the compromise will likely be for the dreamers. They get green cards and at the same time we deport all the rest and close the floodgates once and for all.

I'm all for the dreamers but we're going to go for gun control. End of birthright citizenship for the end of access to inappropriate weapons. That will be the deal.

-1 no to dreamers. That's a good way to have people flooding our border dropping off their kids like they did back in 2014, 1.5 years after DACA was announced. They recently found 100 unaccompanied kids at the border with their relatives names written on their shirts. No need to encourage more to come. The humane thing to do is send everyone home so that no one risks their life or their children's lives to walk through multiple countries to get here.

At first I was open to making a deal about the dreamers in order to get rid of birthright citizenship but you’re right that maybe it’s too big a concession.

Make a deal about weapons to get rid of birthright citizenship.

Nobody is getting rid of weapons. Especially with what’s been happening in the country. What I think could be possible is making it harder for someone to get an assault rifle. Like they need to have special training, ex military etc. That would probably prevent a lot of mass shootings. But it would also need to be combined with a lot harsher sentences for criminals (and mandatory convictions - absolutely no more catch and release) so that it’s not just the criminals running around with those weapons. And in return we remove birthright citizenship. Would you make that deal?

[Anonymous]

FedSoc is wants the fed reduced to what it was before 14A. I wouldn’t be surprised if all this talk about birthright citizenship is an effort to get rid of the Equal Protection Clause.

[Anonymous]

U.S. Constitution

"...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."

/thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:U.S. Constitution

"...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."

/thread

I really hope our SC interprets the law this way. It’s clear from that restriction that our founders did NOT intend to give American citizenship to everyone and anyone if they make it over our border before they give birth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:U.S. Constitution

"...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."

/thread

I really hope our SC interprets the law this way. It’s clear from that restriction that our founders did NOT intend to give American citizenship to everyone and anyone if they make it over our border before they give birth.

.. and if those people were truly subject to our laws then they would have been deported already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:U.S. Constitution

"...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."

/thread

I really hope our SC interprets the law this way. It’s clear from that restriction that our founders did NOT intend to give American citizenship to everyone and anyone if they make it over our border before they give birth.

Given that we didn't really have a border back in the 1700s or a DHS or ICE, I don't agree that this was NOT their intent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:U.S. Constitution

"...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."

/thread

I really hope our SC interprets the law this way. It’s clear from that restriction that our founders did NOT intend to give American citizenship to everyone and anyone if they make it over our border before they give birth.

If it’s not meant to cover birthright citizenship, then that means the government can strip citizenship from every person born on U.S. soil of parents who were not citizens.

Be careful of the chaos you seek to sow. You are advocating for the ultimate in Big Government power.

[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?

Because it is enshrined in the US Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:U.S. Constitution

"...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."

/thread

I really hope our SC interprets the law this way. It’s clear from that restriction that our founders did NOT intend to give American citizenship to everyone and anyone if they make it over our border before they give birth.

.. and if those people were truly subject to our laws then they would have been deported already.

Are you arguing that foreigners in the U.S. are not subject to U.S. laws?

That’s the implication of the (radical) reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to not include birthright citizenship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I really hope our SC interprets the law this way. It’s clear from that restriction that our founders did NOT intend to give American citizenship to everyone and anyone if they make it over our border before they give birth.

the language is clear and plain. Yes, they did.