Why is there so much opposition to ending birthright citizenship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Up is down, and right is left. Did you not get the memo?

[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.

Fine.
Then let’s have a constitutional convention and hash this out. My sense is that there are a lot of constitutional provisions that no longer suit our needs. So let’s open the whole thing up and fix it and make it fit for the 21st century.

[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.

Fine.
Then let’s have a constitutional convention and hash this out. My sense is that there are a lot of constitutional provisions that no longer suit our needs. So let’s open the whole thing up and fix it and make it fit for the 21st century.

+1 Let's start from the first amendment, then move to the second... then the 14th.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Fine.
Then let’s have a constitutional convention and hash this out. My sense is that there are a lot of constitutional provisions that no longer suit our needs. So let’s open the whole thing up and fix it and make it fit for the 21st century.

+1 Let's start from the first amendment, then move to the second... then the 14th.

Exactly. We should also consider search and seizure in light of technology that didn’t exist in the 18th century.

[Anonymous]

the right has been calling for a constitutional convention for decades...because they want to install a christian nationalist state and that pesky document provides a foundation against it.

[Anonymous]

Not happening

https://www.salon.com/2024/12/11/experts-pour-cold-water-on-plan-to-end-birthright-citizenship--but-issue-a-stark-warning/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn’t all people in the US have to past a citizenship test?

Should all people driving in Maryland pass a written Maryland drivers test and a behind the wheel drivers test?

No and no. Fraud galore and zero road rules

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well clearly these people are not obeying US laws, whether they “are subject to” them or not. If they are subject to US laws and they entered illegally then they should have been promptly deported, and then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s the latest argument. I don’t think they’ve considered that it would also mean murderers can’t be charged with murder if they’re not subject to our laws.

[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.

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.

Christ, some of you need a history lesson.

[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.

Fine.
Then let’s have a constitutional convention and hash this out. My sense is that there are a lot of constitutional provisions that no longer suit our needs. So let’s open the whole thing up and fix it and make it fit for the 21st century.

Oooh, I hope the argument that "no other country does it this way" comes up. (Looking at you Electoral College).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s the latest argument. I don’t think they’ve considered that it would also mean murderers can’t be charged with murder if they’re not subject to our laws.

I apologize for dropping an "actually" in here, but the latest argument is that illegal immigration is an invasion:

"No one to my knowledge has ever argued that the children of invading aliens are entitled to birthright citizenship. And I can’t imagine what the legal argument for that would be."

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/11/11/an-interview-with-judge-james-c-ho/

[Anonymous]

Just because Trump pulls something out of his a** ("I will end birthright citizenship"), it doesn't mean it's possible.

[Anonymous]

Well, he's signing the executive order today.

What will happen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Well, he's signing the executive order today.

What will happen?

It will be some meaningless gobbledygook that Trump will wave around so he can whine that the evil Democrat politicians won’t let him get rid of it.

And then MAGA will be on this thread every day bringing up obscure events from when Clinton was POTUS something something Fauci something something Biden crime family something something