Why is there so much opposition to ending birthright citizenship?

[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

Will be interesting watching the “originalists” twist themselves into pretzels to explain how citizenship depends on whether your parents were “lawful permanent residents,” which is a concept that didn’t even exist in 1868, or citizens. Also I can’t wait to hear their explanation for why thus is the correct interpretation of the 14th amendment even though the slaves wouldn’t be citizens if it’s right. Come to think of it, Thomas likely isn’t a citizen if this is the right interpretation since his ancestry certainly traces back to two slaves (ie non-citizens) who had a child.

[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.

Birth certificate and immigration status are different things

[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

Will be interesting watching the “originalists” twist themselves into pretzels to explain how citizenship depends on whether your parents were “lawful permanent residents,” which is a concept that didn’t even exist in 1868, or citizens. Also I can’t wait to hear their explanation for why thus is the correct interpretation of the 14th amendment even though the slaves wouldn’t be citizens if it’s right. Come to think of it, Thomas likely isn’t a citizen if this is the right interpretation since his ancestry certainly traces back to two slaves (ie non-citizens) who had a child.

I don’t have a crystal ball, so obviously I don’t actually know how this will shake out. I just don’t think it’ll be as torturous of an interpretation process as you seem to think. If the amendment drafters wanted BRC to apply to anyone born on US soil, they could’ve stopped at “born in the US.” Instead they continued with “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Words have meaning. (And no, jurisdiction is not synonymous with laws.)

[Anonymous]

If birthright citizenship is so terrible, why hasn’t it been addressed by earlier administrations? Why the urgency? Why now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Birth certificate and immigration status are different things

No shit Sherlock. The issue is how prove you are a citizen under the EOs new rules. Right now, a birth certificate showing you were born in the US is enough. Under the EO, you would instead have to produce proof your parents were citizens or lawful permanent residents at the time if your birth. Many people who are citizens living and working in the US today cannot do this for many reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Will be interesting watching the “originalists” twist themselves into pretzels to explain how citizenship depends on whether your parents were “lawful permanent residents,” which is a concept that didn’t even exist in 1868, or citizens. Also I can’t wait to hear their explanation for why thus is the correct interpretation of the 14th amendment even though the slaves wouldn’t be citizens if it’s right. Come to think of it, Thomas likely isn’t a citizen if this is the right interpretation since his ancestry certainly traces back to two slaves (ie non-citizens) who had a child.

I don’t have a crystal ball, so obviously I don’t actually know how this will shake out. I just don’t think it’ll be as torturous of an interpretation process as you seem to think. If the amendment drafters wanted BRC to apply to anyone born on US soil, they could’ve stopped at “born in the US.” Instead they continued with “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Words have meaning. (And no, jurisdiction is not synonymous with laws.)

There is a bunch of legislative history about what that phrase means. It’s not some kind of mystery

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Will be interesting watching the “originalists” twist themselves into pretzels to explain how citizenship depends on whether your parents were “lawful permanent residents,” which is a concept that didn’t even exist in 1868, or citizens. Also I can’t wait to hear their explanation for why thus is the correct interpretation of the 14th amendment even though the slaves wouldn’t be citizens if it’s right. Come to think of it, Thomas likely isn’t a citizen if this is the right interpretation since his ancestry certainly traces back to two slaves (ie non-citizens) who had a child.

I don’t have a crystal ball, so obviously I don’t actually know how this will shake out. I just don’t think it’ll be as torturous of an interpretation process as you seem to think. If the amendment drafters wanted BRC to apply to anyone born on US soil, they could’ve stopped at “born in the US.” Instead they continued with “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Words have meaning. (And no, jurisdiction is not synonymous with laws.)

Jurisdiction comes first, then the laws. If you don't have jurisdiction, then the law does not apply. Without jurisdiction, there is nothing.

They aren't synonymous. Learn what that means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have good friends in the US on work visas. I think they have Green Cards, but I’m not sure. Their 14 year old and 7 year old haven’t ever lived anywhere else. The idea, in the future, that children born in those circumstances could be “sent back” seems complicated or disturbing to me. In cases where the children might not have family or know the language it seems pretty inhumane.

There is a big difference between being on a work visa and having a green card. I guess you don't know essential information about your "good friends", but feel qualified to pass judgment.
If someone is on a work visa and returns to their home country, their family will go with them. You wouldn't separate kids from their parents, would you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have good friends in the US on work visas. I think they have Green Cards, but I’m not sure. Their 14 year old and 7 year old haven’t ever lived anywhere else. The idea, in the future, that children born in those circumstances could be “sent back” seems complicated or disturbing to me. In cases where the children might not have family or know the language it seems pretty inhumane.

There is a big difference between being on a work visa and having a green card. I guess you don't know essential information about your "good friends", but feel qualified to pass judgment.
If someone is on a work visa and returns to their home country, their family will go with them. You wouldn't separate kids from their parents, would you?

Many people on work visas eventually get green cards and stay permanently

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have good friends in the US on work visas. I think they have Green Cards, but I’m not sure. Their 14 year old and 7 year old haven’t ever lived anywhere else. The idea, in the future, that children born in those circumstances could be “sent back” seems complicated or disturbing to me. In cases where the children might not have family or know the language it seems pretty inhumane.

There is a big difference between being on a work visa and having a green card. I guess you don't know essential information about your "good friends", but feel qualified to pass judgment.
If someone is on a work visa and returns to their home country, their family will go with them. You wouldn't separate kids from their parents, would you?

Many people on work visas eventually get green cards and stay permanently

Right and they could apply for the same for their kids. The way it works now is they have US citizens kids, so they get special treatment to get a green card.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have good friends in the US on work visas. I think they have Green Cards, but I’m not sure. Their 14 year old and 7 year old haven’t ever lived anywhere else. The idea, in the future, that children born in those circumstances could be “sent back” seems complicated or disturbing to me. In cases where the children might not have family or know the language it seems pretty inhumane.

There is a big difference between being on a work visa and having a green card. I guess you don't know essential information about your "good friends", but feel qualified to pass judgment.
If someone is on a work visa and returns to their home country, their family will go with them. You wouldn't separate kids from their parents, would you?

Many people on work visas eventually get green cards and stay permanently

Right and they could apply for the same for their kids. The way it works now is they have US citizens kids, so they get special treatment to get a green card.

You are incorrect. There is no special treatment for parents of minor US citizens; it confers no immigration benefit to the parent at all.

[Anonymous]

You sound ignorant and entitled OP. It's in the US Constitution, and we have different laws than other countries. Leave if you don't like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have good friends in the US on work visas. I think they have Green Cards, but I’m not sure. Their 14 year old and 7 year old haven’t ever lived anywhere else. The idea, in the future, that children born in those circumstances could be “sent back” seems complicated or disturbing to me. In cases where the children might not have family or know the language it seems pretty inhumane.

There is a big difference between being on a work visa and having a green card. I guess you don't know essential information about your "good friends", but feel qualified to pass judgment.
If someone is on a work visa and returns to their home country, their family will go with them. You wouldn't separate kids from their parents, would you?

Many people on work visas eventually get green cards and stay permanently

Right and they could apply for the same for their kids. The way it works now is they have US citizens kids, so they get special treatment to get a green card.

You are incorrect. There is no special treatment for parents of minor US citizens; it confers no immigration benefit to the parent at all.

Untrue. It is a basis to be paroled in place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Will be interesting watching the “originalists” twist themselves into pretzels to explain how citizenship depends on whether your parents were “lawful permanent residents,” which is a concept that didn’t even exist in 1868, or citizens. Also I can’t wait to hear their explanation for why thus is the correct interpretation of the 14th amendment even though the slaves wouldn’t be citizens if it’s right. Come to think of it, Thomas likely isn’t a citizen if this is the right interpretation since his ancestry certainly traces back to two slaves (ie non-citizens) who had a child.

I don’t have a crystal ball, so obviously I don’t actually know how this will shake out. I just don’t think it’ll be as torturous of an interpretation process as you seem to think. If the amendment drafters wanted BRC to apply to anyone born on US soil, they could’ve stopped at “born in the US.” Instead they continued with “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Words have meaning. (And no, jurisdiction is not synonymous with laws.)

Words have meaning, and you have trouble with both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Will be interesting watching the “originalists” twist themselves into pretzels to explain how citizenship depends on whether your parents were “lawful permanent residents,” which is a concept that didn’t even exist in 1868, or citizens. Also I can’t wait to hear their explanation for why thus is the correct interpretation of the 14th amendment even though the slaves wouldn’t be citizens if it’s right. Come to think of it, Thomas likely isn’t a citizen if this is the right interpretation since his ancestry certainly traces back to two slaves (ie non-citizens) who had a child.

I don’t have a crystal ball, so obviously I don’t actually know how this will shake out. I just don’t think it’ll be as torturous of an interpretation process as you seem to think. If the amendment drafters wanted BRC to apply to anyone born on US soil, they could’ve stopped at “born in the US.” Instead they continued with “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Words have meaning. (And no, jurisdiction is not synonymous with laws.)

Jurisdiction comes first, then the laws. If you don't have jurisdiction, then the law does not apply. Without jurisdiction, there is nothing.

They aren't synonymous. Learn what that means.

I didn’t say they were synonymous and I am well aware of the meaning of synonymous. I said that “jurisdiction” and “law” are NOT synonymous - and I’m right. And your assertion that if you don’t have jurisdiction, then the law does not apply, is factually incorrect. I’m a lawyer. I sure hope you’re not.