Why is there so much opposition to ending birthright citizenship?

[Anonymous]

[twitter]

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

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.

The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. What possible basis would there be for applying it only on Feb 20 2025 onward?

[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.)

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.

It is possible to be subject to the jurisdiction that of multiple governments

[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.)

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.

You're saying that people here with a work visa are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Scratches head. Hmm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The US has over 345 million people and is the 3rd largest nation on Earth. We do not need more and have plenty of bloodlines to draw from. Ending birthright citizenship would apply going forward. It wouldn't impact current citizens at all.

We should impose common sense reform like simply requiring one parent be a citizen for a child to obtain citizenship. This is exactly what so many other countries do. It closes huge security holes that could be exploited too.

This exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A few pages back, it's pretty clear that you read the 14th Amendment for the first time and were like "hey guys, I found this language 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'...I think it could work!"

Go back to playing pretend lawyer, though.

[Anonymous]

Adopting the notion that illegal immigrants could be classified as an "invading force" aligns with discussions that have been publicly and repeatedly raised by figures like Donald Trump. This perspective suggests that the sheer volume and impact of illegal immigration could logically be visualized by the American public as constituting an invading force. This framing taps into broader national security concerns and aligns with repeated mentions by political figures, thus reinforcing its plausibility in public discourse.

Such a classification would prompt a reevaluation of the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause of the 14th Amendment. If illegal immigrants were recognized under this new definition, their U.S.-born children might not automatically qualify for birthright citizenship. The traditional application of the 14th Amendment ensures citizenship to nearly all born on U.S. soil, excluding those whose parents are part of an invading force. By redefining illegal immigrants as such, this could fundamentally shift the practice of granting automatic citizenship to children of unauthorized immigrants.

This concept could be pursued through Executive Order or Congressional action, given its resonance with established concerns about immigration and national security. However, it would necessitate substantial legal revisions, likely involving both legislative changes and judicial interpretations to redefine what it means to be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.

[Anonymous]

Who are you quoting? Please cite.

[Anonymous]

Is Maryland part of either of the lawsuits filed today by AGs to overturn the executive order eliminating birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants? If not, why not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is Maryland part of either of the lawsuits filed today by AGs to overturn the executive order eliminating birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants? If not, why not?

Maybe they want to strip citizenship from former slave descendants and deport them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

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

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.

The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. What possible basis would there be for applying it only on Feb 20 2025 onward?

Practicality?

[Anonymous]

Let’s use practicality to on the second amendment as well!

[Anonymous]

Since people's citizenship is now based on their parents' citizenship, how are they going to prove that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

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

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.

The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. What possible basis would there be for applying it only on Feb 20 2025 onward?

Practicality?

So no constitutional basis at all then? Just that the consequences of his interpretation would be rather inconvenient

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s use practicality to on the second amendment as well!

Well pregnant women can still travel home in 30 days.
For those who think there is nothing we should do, do you support birth tourism?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna836121

[Anonymous]

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

And lots of other people. This is really silly to have a president just be able to change the Constitution with an order. They're going to get rid of every other piece of the Constitution depending on who is in office. Change the amendment the way you're supposed to change the amendment.