Why is there so much opposition to ending birthright citizenship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:European countries have histories of bloodlines, people who have lived in an area for a long time, have a shared culture, shared history, some shared DNA and have a similar look/features.

Countries in the western hemisphere were formed by immigration, by people moving to those countries. The United States does not have a long history of people who have lived in an area for a long time, with shared culture, shared history, shared DNA, similar look, etc. What we have is a shared culture that we all create, that is built upon chosen unity.

If we were to abolish birthright citizenship and switch to jus sanguinis, I assume that those of us who are currently citizens would be grandfathered in? Where would the cutoff be? People who have bloodlines as of 2024? Or were you thinking of something else?

Ummm... lots of us have ancestors that came in the 1600s and 1700s. We are no longer welcome as citizens in Europe (and of course, we include the descendants of African slaves as long term and real Americans. Until 1965, the culture was predominately Christian, European (with African influence). We have shared history, shared culture and shared DNA. We deserve to continue that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Except it’s in the constitution

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because that's what the Fourteenth Amendment says. Also, I think the reasons for it, to reduce/eliminate statelessness and to increase the US population (which is currently on the road to decline), at still valid.

[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.

Scotus will uphold it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

This^.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Scotus will uphold it

Agree. But Gorsuch, Alito, Barrett, and Justice Rapey are liars, cheats, and biased. And have no shame or dignity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Scotus will uphold it

The mother and father's citizenship and status are not on the birth certificate.

This is going to create thousands, millions of stateless babies. When we need all the people we can get, as we approach population decline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Scotus will uphold it

The mother and father's citizenship and status are not on the birth certificate.

This is going to create thousands, millions of stateless babies. When we need all the people we can get, as we approach population decline.

Even if they are illiterate in any language, lack skills, and have no concept of birth control. Right.

[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 granted citizenship to the slaves. The ones that didn’t ask to immigrat in the first place and also, everybody else is not from the USA. Only the original peoples are from here. Pick up a book and read it comrade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Scotus will uphold it

The mother and father's citizenship and status are not on the birth certificate.

This is going to create thousands, millions of stateless babies. When we need all the people we can get, as we approach population decline.

The birth certificate form asks for the parent's place of birth and send. Citizenship of the parents can be easily verified to determine whether the baby should be granted citizenship. The babies won't be stateless. They will be citizens of their parents home country.

[Anonymous]

It is in the constitution. Clearly stated.

He had just taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is in the constitution. Clearly stated.

He had just taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Pish. He violated that oath in 2021. He'll violate it now, no problem.

[Anonymous]

US has always relied on immigration and birthright citizenship to achieve its goals. That was the only way to displace the American Indians. They were losing the numbers game before they started bringing in reinforcements.

[Anonymous]

Simply, because they don’t understand the issue.

[Anonymous]

So it appears that under this EO, Vivek is not a citizen. As I understand it, neither of his parents were lawful permanent residents at the he was born. Wonder if this is why they fired him from DOGE.