Why is there so much opposition to ending birthright citizenship?

[Anonymous]

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

Going forward, parents should be able to show their passport or Green card in order for the child to be considered a US citizen.
This is not going to be retroactive, so someone whose parents are dead will not have the burden of proof. Nor will Vivek, Melania etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is my only beef with this. I'd be perfectly fine changing the parameters around birthright citizenship to be more in line with reality and avoid the birthing tourism that is a real problem. Do it properly.
signed, lifelong Democrat

[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.)

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.

No I'm pointing out that they're not soley under the jurisdiction of the USA which is why the native americans were not citizens until 1924.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is my only beef with this. I'd be perfectly fine changing the parameters around birthright citizenship to be more in line with reality and avoid the birthing tourism that is a real problem. Do it properly.
signed, lifelong Democrat

This is not changing the constitution - just a policy of interpretation. Just like Congress interpreted the Commerce Clause as providing it enumerated authority to pass civil rights laws regulating small in-state businesses.

[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

The parents location of birth is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is my only beef with this. I'd be perfectly fine changing the parameters around birthright citizenship to be more in line with reality and avoid the birthing tourism that is a real problem. Do it properly.
signed, lifelong Democrat

This is not changing the constitution - just a policy of interpretation. Just like Congress interpreted the Commerce Clause as providing it enumerated authority to pass civil rights laws regulating small in-state businesses.

Apparently the wife of the vice president of the United States is a beneficiary of this policy. It's good enough for the wife of the vice president of the United States of America, but it's not a good policy?

[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.

Im reading it as - if you came here illegally, your kids can't be a US citizen. If you came here legally, but aren't yourself a US citizen, they can be a US citizen.

[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?

Can we deport the descendants of the illegal immigrants from Ireland and Italy? Can we deport the descendants of the mafia families in the big cities?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Can we deport the descendants of the illegal immigrants from Ireland and Italy? Can we deport the descendants of the mafia families in the big cities?

Of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is my only beef with this. I'd be perfectly fine changing the parameters around birthright citizenship to be more in line with reality and avoid the birthing tourism that is a real problem. Do it properly.
signed, lifelong Democrat

This is not changing the constitution - just a policy of interpretation. Just like Congress interpreted the Commerce Clause as providing it enumerated authority to pass civil rights laws regulating small in-state businesses.

Apparently the wife of the vice president of the United States is a beneficiary of this policy. It's good enough for the wife of the vice president of the United States of America, but it's not a good policy?

Not addressing the “goodness” of the policy, just that its an interpretation of the Constitution- not changing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Going forward, parents should be able to show their passport or Green card in order for the child to be considered a US citizen.
This is not going to be retroactive, so someone whose parents are dead will not have the burden of proof. Nor will Vivek, Melania etc.

Please just stop. It will be retroactive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Can we deport the descendants of the illegal immigrants from Ireland and Italy? Can we deport the descendants of the mafia families in the big cities?

Of course.

They will deport anyone who was brought here by force- slaves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is my only beef with this. I'd be perfectly fine changing the parameters around birthright citizenship to be more in line with reality and avoid the birthing tourism that is a real problem. Do it properly.
signed, lifelong Democrat

This is not changing the constitution - just a policy of interpretation. Just like Congress interpreted the Commerce Clause as providing it enumerated authority to pass civil rights laws regulating small in-state businesses.

Apparently the wife of the vice president of the United States is a beneficiary of this policy. It's good enough for the wife of the vice president of the United States of America, but it's not a good policy?

There is no constitution.
Not addressing the “goodness” of the policy, just that its an interpretation of the Constitution- not changing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is my only beef with this. I'd be perfectly fine changing the parameters around birthright citizenship to be more in line with reality and avoid the birthing tourism that is a real problem. Do it properly.
signed, lifelong Democrat

This is not changing the constitution - just a policy of interpretation. Just like Congress interpreted the Commerce Clause as providing it enumerated authority to pass civil rights laws regulating small in-state businesses.

Apparently the wife of the vice president of the United States is a beneficiary of this policy. It's good enough for the wife of the vice president of the United States of America, but it's not a good policy?

Not addressing the “goodness” of the policy, just that its an interpretation of the Constitution- not changing it.

I do not want presidents reinterpreting the Constitution every time there's a new administration. It's stupid and exhausting and causes a lot more problems on its solves. The next president could just reinterpret it back to the way it was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is my only beef with this. I'd be perfectly fine changing the parameters around birthright citizenship to be more in line with reality and avoid the birthing tourism that is a real problem. Do it properly.
signed, lifelong Democrat

This is not changing the constitution - just a policy of interpretation. Just like Congress interpreted the Commerce Clause as providing it enumerated authority to pass civil rights laws regulating small in-state businesses.

Apparently the wife of the vice president of the United States is a beneficiary of this policy. It's good enough for the wife of the vice president of the United States of America, but it's not a good policy?

Not addressing the “goodness” of the policy, just that its an interpretation of the Constitution- not changing it.

I do not want presidents reinterpreting the Constitution every time there's a new administration. It's stupid and exhausting and causes a lot more problems on its solves. The next president could just reinterpret it back to the way it was.

Sure they could - and it is an argument with some merit (although the administrative procedures act is a hurdle). But that is a totally different argument than this EO is unconstitutional.