Why is there so much opposition to ending birthright citizenship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

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.

So anyone who you deem not American becomes no longer subject to our jurisdiction. That means they are no longer subject to our laws. They can break traffic laws with impunity, steal, murder, without repercussions.

What a brilliant thing for SCOTUS to do! It'll be great!

Yep, if you come from Britain, you're now allowed to drive on the left side of the road because you're still under the jurisdiction of British, not American, law.

Please, oh enlightened one, show me a definition indicating that law and jurisdiction are synonymous.

The more I look into and think about the meaning of jurisdiction, the more I think this could end up being a successful bid to end BRC at the Supreme Court level.

So when Trump says "all the best legal scholars agree with him", he clearly means the likes of you. I mean the more you look into it, the more you're convinced. You spent all of 10 minutes deep diving it after all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

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.

So anyone who you deem not American becomes no longer subject to our jurisdiction. That means they are no longer subject to our laws. They can break traffic laws with impunity, steal, murder, without repercussions.

What a brilliant thing for SCOTUS to do! It'll be great!

Yep, if you come from Britain, you're now allowed to drive on the left side of the road because you're still under the jurisdiction of British, not American, law.

Please, oh enlightened one, show me a definition indicating that law and jurisdiction are synonymous.

The more I look into and think about the meaning of jurisdiction, the more I think this could end up being a successful bid to end BRC at the Supreme Court level.

Everyone in the United States right now is subject to the jurisdiction (laws) thereof except diplomats. That's why you should be careful of cars with diplomat plates.

This is not the good idea you think it is.

Show me a definition indicating that jurisdiction and laws are synonymous and interchangeable.

Hint: they’re not.

Provide the legal definition and precedent for what jurisdiction means in this context. Hint: don't bother, you're far out of your depth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

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.

So anyone who you deem not American becomes no longer subject to our jurisdiction. That means they are no longer subject to our laws. They can break traffic laws with impunity, steal, murder, without repercussions.

What a brilliant thing for SCOTUS to do! It'll be great!

Yep, if you come from Britain, you're now allowed to drive on the left side of the road because you're still under the jurisdiction of British, not American, law.

Please, oh enlightened one, show me a definition indicating that law and jurisdiction are synonymous.

The more I look into and think about the meaning of jurisdiction, the more I think this could end up being a successful bid to end BRC at the Supreme Court level.

Everyone in the United States right now is subject to the jurisdiction (laws) thereof except diplomats. That's why you should be careful of cars with diplomat plates.

This is not the good idea you think it is.

Show me a definition indicating that jurisdiction and laws are synonymous and interchangeable.

Hint: they’re not.

They're not synonymous but they go together.

If you go to another country, you will be subject to their laws and in their jurisdiction. Same for people who come here.

We can change the Fourteenth Amendment, through another amendment. But we cannot get a different meaning from the words. They are clear and plain. There's no fancy way to get around them.

[Anonymous]

Actually no.


The “jurisdiction” clause was meant to exclude invading military and foreign diplomats.

So if an embassy employee from Japan had a kid here, they would not be giver US citizenship as they were here under the jurisdiction of the Japanese govt.

Also, if British military officers who were invading the US, had a wife who had kids on US soil, they would also not be given American citizenship.

So if you are here illegally, not granted parole or a court date, then you are under the jurisdiction of your home country. Hence also not given citizenship.


All the Supreme Court has to do is apply the “jurisdiction” clause to exclude illegals. A simple ruling in defining the scope of that term is all you need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

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.

So anyone who you deem not American becomes no longer subject to our jurisdiction. That means they are no longer subject to our laws. They can break traffic laws with impunity, steal, murder, without repercussions.

What a brilliant thing for SCOTUS to do! It'll be great!

Yep, if you come from Britain, you're now allowed to drive on the left side of the road because you're still under the jurisdiction of British, not American, law.

Please, oh enlightened one, show me a definition indicating that law and jurisdiction are synonymous.

The more I look into and think about the meaning of jurisdiction, the more I think this could end up being a successful bid to end BRC at the Supreme Court level.

Everyone in the United States right now is subject to the jurisdiction (laws) thereof except diplomats. That's why you should be careful of cars with diplomat plates.

This is not the good idea you think it is.

Show me a definition indicating that jurisdiction and laws are synonymous and interchangeable.

Hint: they’re not.

Provide the legal definition and precedent for what jurisdiction means in this context. Hint: don't bother, you're far out of your depth.

Subject to the jurisdiction of the US in the context of the 14th amendment requires a person to be completely subject to US sovereign authority and political jurisdiction and not owing allegiance or being subject to any other country/nation/power. Illegal border crossers and other noncitizens entering the US are still citizens of their country of origin and it logically follows that their children would be as well (just like the child of two Americans born outside of the US is still a US citizen). There was a reason the amendment was drafted to say born in the US *and* subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

I could see Wong being overturned.

[Anonymous]

It’s a logistical nightmare.

[Anonymous]

Here's the EO. It's long but this is the relevant portion. It applies to births starting 30 days from today.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/

Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's the EO. It's long but this is the relevant portion. It applies to births starting 30 days from today.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/

Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

Good. This is common sense and should have been implemented long ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the EO. It's long but this is the relevant portion. It applies to births starting 30 days from today.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/

Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

Good. This is common sense and should have been implemented long ago.

+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's the EO. It's long but this is the relevant portion. It applies to births starting 30 days from today.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/

Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

Very rational. People who are temporarily visiting or illegally present are not subject Tim the jurisdiction of this country. Few other countries allow people to obtain citizenship this way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's the EO. It's long but this is the relevant portion. It applies to births starting 30 days from today.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/

Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

Unless we change the definition of "subject to the jurisdiction", this is just dumb. However, SCOTUS recently said that "adjacent" does not mean adjacent. So maybe they'll say jurisdiction doesn't mean jurisdiction. That won't cause any other problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the EO. It's long but this is the relevant portion. It applies to births starting 30 days from today.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/

Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

Very rational. People who are temporarily visiting or illegally present are not subject Tim the jurisdiction of this country. Few other countries allow people to obtain citizenship this way.

Yes they are. Of course they are.

[Anonymous]

Wow, the United States finally joins the rest of the world in 2025 where citizenship requires at least one parent be a citizen. Way to go with common sense USA. Birthright citizenship as it was previously done was nutso.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, the United States finally joins the rest of the world in 2025 where citizenship requires at least one parent be a citizen. Way to go with common sense USA. Birthright citizenship as it was previously done was nutso.

Sorry, but this EO is unconstitutional.

If you don't like the Fourteenth Amendment, then propose an amendment to change it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, the United States finally joins the rest of the world in 2025 where citizenship requires at least one parent be a citizen. Way to go with common sense USA. Birthright citizenship as it was previously done was nutso.

Sorry, but this EO is unconstitutional.

If you don't like the Fourteenth Amendment, then propose an amendment to change it.

DP. Sounds like you're defending birthright citizenship. Please explain why.