Why is there so much opposition to ending birthright citizenship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, I think he's changing it. This ....he's just reinterpreting is a whole lot of b*******.

[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.

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.

No, even if your parents are here legally, you still are not a US citizen unless your parents have permanent resident status. Many people here legally have other types of status.

[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.

Yes, it is changing it. It has meant one thing for 156 years and now he's saying it actually means the opposite.

[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.

Great, then President Ocasio-Cortez can just "re-interpret" the second amendment to require membership in a well regulated militia as a condition of firearm ownership.

[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.

Yes, it is changing it. It has meant one thing for 156 years and now he's saying it actually means the opposite.

From 1788 until 1964 the interstate Commerce Clause was read to limit Congress’s regulation of intrastate commerce. Until it was interpreted that because a BBQ restaurant sources products from out of state, Congress’s proscription on discrimination against customers was actually regulation of interstate commerce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, it is changing it. It has meant one thing for 156 years and now he's saying it actually means the opposite.

From 1788 until 1964 the interstate Commerce Clause was read to limit Congress’s regulation of intrastate commerce. Until it was interpreted that because a BBQ restaurant sources products from out of state, Congress’s proscription on discrimination against customers was actually regulation of interstate commerce.

Which pre-1964 case said Congress couldn't regulate intrastate commerce?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, it is changing it. It has meant one thing for 156 years and now he's saying it actually means the opposite.

From 1788 until 1964 the interstate Commerce Clause was read to limit Congress’s regulation of intrastate commerce. Until it was interpreted that because a BBQ restaurant sources products from out of state, Congress’s proscription on discrimination against customers was actually regulation of interstate commerce.

Which pre-1964 case said Congress couldn't regulate intrastate commerce?

Well the Constitution says Congress can only regulate “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among states, and with the Indian tribes.” And then what is not specifically enumerated is reserved to States in the 10th Amendment. So there’s that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Thousands of parents with US citizen children are deported every year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please do us the favor of taking the couple of minutes necessary to read the EO. It states very clearly that it only applies to babies born 30 days after the order was signed. Misinformation isn’t helpful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Thousands of parents with US citizen children are deported every year.

Yes - of illegal aliens. Very few visa holders who are lawfully present with US citizen children get deported. Those visa holders have money and hire immigration attorneys to apply for permanent residence and parole in place while they wait for their cases. If these visa holders dis not have US citizen children, their applications for parole in place would be weak.
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/ice_-_deportation_of_parents_of_u.s.-born_children_second_half_cy_2020_0.pdf

[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.

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.

No, the EO is specific in allowing citizenship only for children of US citizens and permanent residents. Guest workers, though they are here legally, are not eligible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Thousands of parents with US citizen children are deported every year.

Yes - of illegal aliens. Very few visa holders who are lawfully present with US citizen children get deported. Those visa holders have money and hire immigration attorneys to apply for permanent residence and parole in place while they wait for their cases. If these visa holders dis not have US citizen children, their applications for parole in place would be weak.
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/ice_-_deportation_of_parents_of_u.s.-born_children_second_half_cy_2020_0.pdf

You don't understand how this system works. You don't understand immigrants, either.

[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.

Great, then President Ocasio-Cortez can just "re-interpret" the second amendment to require membership in a well regulated militia as a condition of firearm ownership.

Yup!

[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.

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.

No, the EO is specific in allowing citizenship only for children of US citizens and permanent residents. Guest workers, though they are here legally, are not eligible.

Work visas are dual intent. People on work visas can apply for green cards, and many do.

[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.

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.

No, the EO is specific in allowing citizenship only for children of US citizens and permanent residents. Guest workers, though they are here legally, are not eligible.

Work visas are dual intent. People on work visas can apply for green cards, and many do.

They can't apply, employers must sponsor and it's not automatic at all.