Why is there so much opposition to ending birthright citizenship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not on the list of the top 1000 concerns I have about this administration.

It's one of the things on the list of first things to change when Trump is sworn in. They seem to care a lot about it (although their knowledge of the issue is about on par with OP's).

Good luck with that constitutional amendment.

Unfortunately, we are entering the era of Trumpism, which means the Constitution isn't worth the paper it is written on anymore. Here is the f'ing Heritage Foundations end-run plan for the 14th Amendment: https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/commentary/does-the-constitution-mandate-universal-birthright-citizenship-heres

To quote: "...the government today needn’t amend the Constitution in order to restrict citizenship for the U.S.-born children of illegal or non-immigrant aliens. It could simply stop abiding by a broad policy never required by the Constitution in the first place." The last sentence is false, but that never stopped them from writing a long paper claiming it's true.

Don't rest on what you think is impossible. To these people, who don't respect this country or the Constitution, everything is possible and everything is up for grabs.

[Anonymous]

Its part of what makes America great. If you are born here, you are one of us. I realize that there is some degree of "birth tourism," so I could be convinced (perhaps) to exclude babies born to women here on tourist visas, but I think in general birthright citizenship is one of the sources of our country's strength.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have a large international population at our school (diplomats) and they almost all have a new baby while stationed here.

Children of diplomats born in the US are not eligible for US citizenship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have a large international population at our school (diplomats) and they almost all have a new baby while stationed here.

Children of actively serving diplomats do not get birthright citizenship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just to throw out the relevant fourteenth amendment language:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

There are those who believe that the bolded language could be used to disqualify as citizens those born in the US whose parents are not legally in the U.S.

Could be a stretch.

I do know that the EU has raised a fuss about what they call "accidental Americans," those born in the US to European parents who have long left the US and have never claimed citizenship but get caught up in FATCA requirements for foreign bank reporting and taxes because of their US birth.

If they aren't subject to our jurisdiction, how then can we bring them before our courts at all? They either are or they are not; you can't pick and choose for which things they are or aren't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a large international population at our school (diplomats) and they almost all have a new baby while stationed here.

Children of actively serving diplomats do not get birthright citizenship.

Because of diplomatic immunity. You can't take them to court: "not subject to the jurisdiction."

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

OP, there are a lot of things we are stuck with because it's very hard to pass a constitutional amendment. It's why you have to register your car, but not your handgun, and why the popular vote doesn't matter. The sooner you accept that, the happier you will be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a Harris voter. I’d support a hybrid approach; we should maintain birthright citizenship, but only for babies born here to women who were here legally at the time of the birth. No documentation for mom, no citizenship for baby. If mom has a documented case for amnesty pending, baby gets full citizenship as a natural born citizen if/when amnesty is granted. No amnesty for mom, no citizenship for baby.

There are thousands of moms here legally on a tourist visa coming to visit and oops having the baby while they are here. A bunch of Chineses, Russians, Brazilians having babies in Miami, Pakistanis coming, having their babies and going back to their country. I mean…it is not possible people don’t see it as a huge problem.

I thought the problems that Republicans have with illegal immigration are 1) criminals coming here and 2) poor people coming here and costing taxpayers money and 3) immigrants taking jobs from our citizens. Birth tourism doesn’t involve any of those.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a Harris voter. I’d support a hybrid approach; we should maintain birthright citizenship, but only for babies born here to women who were here legally at the time of the birth. No documentation for mom, no citizenship for baby. If mom has a documented case for amnesty pending, baby gets full citizenship as a natural born citizen if/when amnesty is granted. No amnesty for mom, no citizenship for baby.

There are thousands of moms here legally on a tourist visa coming to visit and oops having the baby while they are here. A bunch of Chineses, Russians, Brazilians having babies in Miami, Pakistanis coming, having their babies and going back to their country. I mean…it is not possible people don’t see it as a huge problem.

Not to say that it doesn't happen, but ICE routinely bars entry to women who try this trick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not on the list of the top 1000 concerns I have about this administration.

It's one of the things on the list of first things to change when Trump is sworn in. They seem to care a lot about it (although their knowledge of the issue is about on par with OP's).

Good luck with that constitutional amendment.

Unfortunately, we are entering the era of Trumpism, which means the Constitution isn't worth the paper it is written on anymore. Here is the f'ing Heritage Foundations end-run plan for the 14th Amendment: https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/commentary/does-the-constitution-mandate-universal-birthright-citizenship-heres

To quote: "...the government today needn’t amend the Constitution in order to restrict citizenship for the U.S.-born children of illegal or non-immigrant aliens. It could simply stop abiding by a broad policy never required by the Constitution in the first place." The last sentence is false, but that never stopped them from writing a long paper claiming it's true.

Don't rest on what you think is impossible. To these people, who don't respect this country or the Constitution, everything is possible and everything is up for grabs.

So much this. It CAN happen here. We have just elected a criminal enterprise to run our country. Take nothing for granted. Just because something has always been does not always mean it will always be.

Read
How Fascism Works
On Tyranny
How Democracies Die

[Anonymous]

The 14th amendment is written worse than most posts on this board.

Its intent was to guarantee blacks and really ancestors or slaves the right to vote and ensure they were treated as actual US citizens.

The bozos who wrote did not think about the illegals and tourist birthing having kids here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have a large international population at our school (diplomats) and they almost all have a new baby while stationed here.

Children born to foreign diplomats are not eligible for US citizenship unless one parent is American. A case in point: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59974939

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a large international population at our school (diplomats) and they almost all have a new baby while stationed here.

Children born to foreign diplomats are not eligible for US citizenship unless one parent is American. A case in point: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59974939

But if that American citizen parent was born overseas, they make them go through all sorts of hoops with regard to years of residency etc. before granting citizenship to the child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a large international population at our school (diplomats) and they almost all have a new baby while stationed here.

Children born to foreign diplomats are not eligible for US citizenship unless one parent is American. A case in point: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59974939

But if that American citizen parent was born overseas, they make them go through all sorts of hoops with regard to years of residency etc. before granting citizenship to the child.

No, there is a process, paperwork and a fee. There are a lot more "hoops" in the naturalization process for the adult/parent, and child's naturalization is easy in comparison.