Why is there so much opposition to ending birthright citizenship?

[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.)

Words have meaning, and you have trouble with both.

Oh what a compelling argument! You sure showed me!

[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.

+1

+ 10000000000000

[Anonymous]

JD’s wife and Vivek wouldn’t be US citizens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nope. It is discretionary and in no way guaranteed. There is nothing on the books.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nobody here believes you're a lawyer.

[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

Not necessarily. I have a Canadian friend here on a NAFTA visa and years worked and lived here do not count towards a green card.

[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

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.

The lack of precision in the media’s reporting of this EO is painful and results in a lot of misunderstandings. The wording of the EO is very clear that it only applies to babies born in the US from February 20, 2025 onwards. It is not retrospective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nope. It is discretionary and in no way guaranteed. There is nothing on the books.

Correct. Discretionary. And I would bet a lot of money that is the basis for many discretionary grants for parole in place. If the kids were not citizens that would undermine the request.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:JD’s wife and Vivek wouldn’t be US citizens.

Kamala Harris wouldn't be either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nobody here believes you're a lawyer.

What you believe has no bearing on reality. Sorry you aren’t able to make an actual argument and must resort to impotent seething.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:JD’s wife and Vivek wouldn’t be US citizens.

That's what MAGAs want.

[Anonymous]

The birthrate in the US is declining.

Ending birthright citizenship will speed up that decline.

Suddenly the 'concern' about that will lead to discussion and action promoting American women's obligations to bear children and here we come, Gilead.

[Anonymous]

so he is going after children of visa workers, too. Some on this thread stated he won't be going after them. They were wrong.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-birthright-citizenship-does-trump-090010884.html

Notably, the executive order targets kids born to both unauthorized immigrants and people legally in the US on temporary visas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JD’s wife and Vivek wouldn’t be US citizens.

Kamala Harris wouldn't be either.

But Harris' party isn't the one trying to end the program. That would be the VP's party. Lotta self hate in that group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

Words have meaning, and you have trouble with both.

Oh what a compelling argument! You sure showed me!

Are there any laws or obligations that foreign citizens have to obey from their country of origin if they reside in the USA such as military service or taxes on US income?

The answer is yes. Only one other country taxes residents abroad, and several countries require military service or registering a deferment at a consulate for overseas citizens.

Clearly those people are subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign government. Like I posted earlier when an act of Congress defined terms and gave native Americans citizenship, you can have the government be it via EO or Congress redefine the term.