Why is there so much opposition to ending birthright citizenship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He is signing an executive order today. No doubt Democrats will sue in an attempt to protect the illegal alien squatters. They use the citizenship of their anchor babies to access welfare, food stamps, health care and a whole host of public benefits. Trump needs to take this case all the way to the Supreme Court in order to restore integrity to our citizenship process.

+1. I wish him (and our nation) great success in this endeavor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Australia, New Zealand, Colombia, Ireland have all recently revised birth rite citizenship.

“A person born in Australia acquires Australian citizenship by birth only if at least one parent was an Australian citizen or permanent resident; or else after living the first ten years of their life in Australia, regardless of their parents' citizenship status”

There are tens of thousands of rich Russians, Chinese, Koreans, South Americans amongst others who fly to the US tu have children then within weeks fly home. The children have US citizenship so can attend college in the US (often for free because it is so much easier to hide assets overseas) and come and work when they are adults.

This really shouldn’t be allowed. Australia’s law seems reasonable. If you are the child jf a citizen or permanent resident then you get citizenship. If your parents are undocumented you need to live in the US the first ten years of your life.

Fly in/fly out citizenship shouldn’t be allowed.

Then maybe Congress will revise the Constitution. They just need 2/3 of both chambers.

[Anonymous]

I'm curious to see the text of the EO. I suppose they could attempt to interpret "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and wait to be sued and see if it's upheld. More likely it will be a request to the AG to study the issue and nothing will happen.

[Anonymous]

Just finding a way to end birthright citizenship would be worth eight years of Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just finding a way to end birthright citizenship would be worth eight years of Trump.

Only eight?

[Anonymous]

Nearly every single civilized first world country does not have birthright citizenship. All those Nordics Dems espouse? Ha, no such thing as birthright citizenship.

Canada has it, but they have a gigantic buffer zone known as the United States. Canadians right now are highly questioning how much immigration they're letting in. It's only a fraction the US gets too..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nearly every single civilized first world country does not have birthright citizenship. All those Nordics Dems espouse? Ha, no such thing as birthright citizenship.

Canada has it, but they have a gigantic buffer zone known as the United States. Canadians right now are highly questioning how much immigration they're letting in. It's only a fraction the US gets too..

This is more of a continent issue than a "civilized country" issue, whatever that means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Australia, New Zealand, Colombia, Ireland have all recently revised birth rite citizenship.

“A person born in Australia acquires Australian citizenship by birth only if at least one parent was an Australian citizen or permanent resident; or else after living the first ten years of their life in Australia, regardless of their parents' citizenship status”

There are tens of thousands of rich Russians, Chinese, Koreans, South Americans amongst others who fly to the US tu have children then within weeks fly home. The children have US citizenship so can attend college in the US (often for free because it is so much easier to hide assets overseas) and come and work when they are adults.

This really shouldn’t be allowed. Australia’s law seems reasonable. If you are the child jf a citizen or permanent resident then you get citizenship. If your parents are undocumented you need to live in the US the first ten years of your life.

Fly in/fly out citizenship shouldn’t be allowed.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just finding a way to end birthright citizenship would be worth eight years of Trump.

Only eight?

Eight will be eight years too many.

[Anonymous]

Yall funny. It’s is the darn constitution. Change that. Oh wait, there aren’t enough votes to do it.

With that said, something about immigration has to be done. My target use to be so nice and quiet. And clean cut people. You saw the occasional black or Latino. But now, it’s been overtaken by all these brown people that are likely illegal. And my lovely target feels like chaos every time I go!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yall funny. It’s is the darn constitution. Change that. Oh wait, there aren’t enough votes to do it.

With that said, something about immigration has to be done. My target use to be so nice and quiet. And clean cut people. You saw the occasional black or Latino. But now, it’s been overtaken by all these brown people that are likely illegal. And my lovely target feels like chaos every time I go!

Oh no The days of the 'occasional black or Latino" have changed at your target? And now there's a lot of brown people that you're describing as not "clean cut". White equals lovely and brown equals chaos. Yikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yall funny. It’s is the darn constitution. Change that. Oh wait, there aren’t enough votes to do it.

With that said, something about immigration has to be done. My target use to be so nice and quiet. And clean cut people. You saw the occasional black or Latino. But now, it’s been overtaken by all these brown people that are likely illegal. And my lovely target feels like chaos every time I go!

The only thing needed is a re-interpretation of the amendment. Birthright citizenship only extends to people under the jurisdiction of the US. You can make an argument that foreign nationals here illegally or those who are here temporarily are not under our jurisdiction and are still the primary responsibility of the countries where they’re from.

No constitutional changes needed. Just get scotus to review the interpretation. Done.

[Anonymous]

I HATE these fringe issues that tear apart the country.
These small little things are what tear Dems apart.
If one dem feels differently on ONE issue then they can never be voted for again it seems.
Trump does an amazing job at creating thousands of these little issues that 1% of people feel strongly about. Then he uses it over and over again to show why you can NEVER vote for a person who feels X when you feel Y about that issue. Even if you agree with 99.9999999% of everything else.
AND we fall for it.
How many people couldn't vote for Hillary or Kamala even though they were quallified (more so than Trump) and have NO criminal records and a history of public service.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yall funny. It’s is the darn constitution. Change that. Oh wait, there aren’t enough votes to do it.

With that said, something about immigration has to be done. My target use to be so nice and quiet. And clean cut people. You saw the occasional black or Latino. But now, it’s been overtaken by all these brown people that are likely illegal. And my lovely target feels like chaos every time I go!

Oh no The days of the 'occasional black or Latino" have changed at your target? And now there's a lot of brown people that you're describing as not "clean cut". White equals lovely and brown equals chaos. Yikes.

I think that PP was trying to imitate what they think MAGA sounds like.

[Anonymous]

It's the motivation that pisses me off (in addition to the need for it). It's rooted in bigotry plain and simple. And no, I don't care that other countries have reined that in.

You want to have a real and productive discussion on immigration restrictions? Fine. But, by ALL accounts we had a good compromise for a starting point last year that TRUMP and Maga republicans torpedoed. All so they can pile on and punish a vulnerable group of people who are at the bottom of the caste system. It's disgusting. So, yeah, it's not really about "immigration" but making immigrants the scapegoats for all of our problems. It's vile.