Why is there so much opposition to ending birthright citizenship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of the major problems is the practice of "anchor babies".

Usha Vance is an anchor baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am glad I live in Virginia and not a state choosing up spend its money to fight this. If you are against the EO you get the brilliant legal minds of Letitia James, Keith Ellison, and Rob Bonta fighting for you.

If you are for this EO, you're against the Constitution and traditional lawmaking processes. So why are you living in Virginia?

Explain to me how the EO is unconstitutional? Provide case citations as the plain language of the amendment caveats that those born here must be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I’m the PP poster that explained this is a matter of interpretation, just like the authority of Congress to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a matter of interpretation.

"Subject to the jurisdiction" means that somebody, unless specifically excluded, who is physically present on US soil is under the authority of the US government and its legal system. Being subject to the jurisdiction is how illegal immigrants are rounded up and deported in the first place.

You're the pretend lawyer who has been posting here so do your own research on 150 years of precedent. Go ahead and log into your Westlaw instance and tell us what you find.

You’re responding to a different poster than me, the “pretend” lawyer. I already posted, pages back, what it means to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in the context of the 14th amendment, based on discussion of the amendment as it was being adopted and SCOTUS case law. And guess what? You’re still wrong. I always heard growing up that government workers were stupid, and you’re proving it to me in real time.

[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.

This. I think it's hilarious to watch all the staunch defenders of the 2nd Amendment doing mental gymnastics trying to justify why changing the 14th Amendment by EO is fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am glad I live in Virginia and not a state choosing up spend its money to fight this. If you are against the EO you get the brilliant legal minds of Letitia James, Keith Ellison, and Rob Bonta fighting for you.

If you are for this EO, you're against the Constitution and traditional lawmaking processes. So why are you living in Virginia?

Explain to me how the EO is unconstitutional? Provide case citations as the plain language of the amendment caveats that those born here must be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I’m the PP poster that explained this is a matter of interpretation, just like the authority of Congress to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a matter of interpretation.

First step: what would it mean to be not subject to the jurisdiction of the US?

My understanding is that this referred to Native Americans who were on US but also tribal lands. The tribal authorities have the jurisdiction there.

It’s why it took an additional act in 1924 to give them auto citizenship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am glad I live in Virginia and not a state choosing up spend its money to fight this. If you are against the EO you get the brilliant legal minds of Letitia James, Keith Ellison, and Rob Bonta fighting for you.

If you are for this EO, you're against the Constitution and traditional lawmaking processes. So why are you living in Virginia?

Explain to me how the EO is unconstitutional? Provide case citations as the plain language of the amendment caveats that those born here must be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I’m the PP poster that explained this is a matter of interpretation, just like the authority of Congress to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a matter of interpretation.

"Subject to the jurisdiction" means that somebody, unless specifically excluded, who is physically present on US soil is under the authority of the US government and its legal system. Being subject to the jurisdiction is how illegal immigrants are rounded up and deported in the first place.

You're the pretend lawyer who has been posting here so do your own research on 150 years of precedent. Go ahead and log into your Westlaw instance and tell us what you find.

You’re responding to a different poster than me, the “pretend” lawyer. I already posted, pages back, what it means to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in the context of the 14th amendment, based on discussion of the amendment as it was being adopted and SCOTUS case law. And guess what? You’re still wrong. I always heard growing up that government workers were stupid, and you’re proving it to me in real time.

I am not wrong, nor am I a government worker. You're getting worked up about something that has no chance of success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the major problems is the practice of "anchor babies".

Usha Vance is an anchor baby.

Supposedly this EO is aimed at Harris, but isn't Usha in the same category?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I support ending birth right citizenship but don’t think SCOTUS will allow the change except through a constitutional amendment.

I need to re-read the Wong case because it's been awhile, but I thought the reason why they found he was a citizen was because he was born to parents who were here legally at the time. The issue was that later the US passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, but at the time of Wong's birth he was born on US soil to two immigrant parents who were here legally. So isn't the precedent already there to support the EO, assuming it is narrowly construed to only apply to children born here to parents who were here illegally?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the major problems is the practice of "anchor babies".

Usha Vance is an anchor baby.

I’m the same kind of “anchor baby” as Usha Vance (born in the US to two Indian parents here on student visas), and also a Democrat who voted for Harris. I don’t think the legal basis for the EO is sound based on the language of the 14th Amendment, but I’m fine with the policy. Birthright citizenship is pretty dumb in this day and age.

My parents got their green cards when I was in elementary school and were naturalized when I was 12. I think it would have been perfectly reasonable for me to become a naturalized citizen, as their minor child, at the same time as them. That’s the type of policy change that would affect the children of legal immigrants and it’s the commonly used method for citizenship for the children of immigrants in most other first world countries. It’s not inhumane or really a bad policy at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the major problems is the practice of "anchor babies".

Usha Vance is an anchor baby.

I’m the same kind of “anchor baby” as Usha Vance (born in the US to two Indian parents here on student visas), and also a Democrat who voted for Harris. I don’t think the legal basis for the EO is sound based on the language of the 14th Amendment, but I’m fine with the policy. Birthright citizenship is pretty dumb in this day and age.

My parents got their green cards when I was in elementary school and were naturalized when I was 12. I think it would have been perfectly reasonable for me to become a naturalized citizen, as their minor child, at the same time as them. That’s the type of policy change that would affect the children of legal immigrants and it’s the commonly used method for citizenship for the children of immigrants in most other first world countries. It’s not inhumane or really a bad policy at all.

The only thing that matters is how the conservatives on the Supreme Court see things. They will just say it is constitutional without any comments.

[Anonymous]

Are Elon's kids citizens? He came here fraudulently on a student visa and illegally went to work instead of going to college. So his citizenship should be challenged.

And I think the moms of most of his kids (Grimes, Justine Wilson) are Canadian. So apart from the kids he had with Shivon Zills they aren't American.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the major problems is the practice of "anchor babies".

Usha Vance is an anchor baby.

I’m the same kind of “anchor baby” as Usha Vance (born in the US to two Indian parents here on student visas), and also a Democrat who voted for Harris. I don’t think the legal basis for the EO is sound based on the language of the 14th Amendment, but I’m fine with the policy. Birthright citizenship is pretty dumb in this day and age.

My parents got their green cards when I was in elementary school and were naturalized when I was 12. I think it would have been perfectly reasonable for me to become a naturalized citizen, as their minor child, at the same time as them. That’s the type of policy change that would affect the children of legal immigrants and it’s the commonly used method for citizenship for the children of immigrants in most other first world countries. It’s not inhumane or really a bad policy at all.

So you, Usha Vance, Kash Patel, Vivek Ramaswamy and hundreds of thousands of others born under the same circumstances are all ready to move to India because you're fine with Trump's policies to strip them of citizenship claims?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the major problems is the practice of "anchor babies".

Usha Vance is an anchor baby.

I’m the same kind of “anchor baby” as Usha Vance (born in the US to two Indian parents here on student visas), and also a Democrat who voted for Harris. I don’t think the legal basis for the EO is sound based on the language of the 14th Amendment, but I’m fine with the policy. Birthright citizenship is pretty dumb in this day and age.

My parents got their green cards when I was in elementary school and were naturalized when I was 12. I think it would have been perfectly reasonable for me to become a naturalized citizen, as their minor child, at the same time as them. That’s the type of policy change that would affect the children of legal immigrants and it’s the commonly used method for citizenship for the children of immigrants in most other first world countries. It’s not inhumane or really a bad policy at all.

So you, Usha Vance, Kash Patel, Vivek Ramaswamy and hundreds of thousands of others born under the same circumstances are all ready to move to India because you're fine with Trump's policies to strip them of citizenship claims?

NP- This EO is not retroactive so not sure why you are cooking up scenarios that won't happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the major problems is the practice of "anchor babies".

Usha Vance is an anchor baby.

I’m the same kind of “anchor baby” as Usha Vance (born in the US to two Indian parents here on student visas), and also a Democrat who voted for Harris. I don’t think the legal basis for the EO is sound based on the language of the 14th Amendment, but I’m fine with the policy. Birthright citizenship is pretty dumb in this day and age.

My parents got their green cards when I was in elementary school and were naturalized when I was 12. I think it would have been perfectly reasonable for me to become a naturalized citizen, as their minor child, at the same time as them. That’s the type of policy change that would affect the children of legal immigrants and it’s the commonly used method for citizenship for the children of immigrants in most other first world countries. It’s not inhumane or really a bad policy at all.

So you, Usha Vance, Kash Patel, Vivek Ramaswamy and hundreds of thousands of others born under the same circumstances are all ready to move to India because you're fine with Trump's policies to strip them of citizenship claims?

I’m the PP you’re responding to. You are being hysterical (I’m not sure whether in good faith or not) and are actually undermining the point you think you’re making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't have strong feelings about birthright citizenship, but I do have strong feelings about creating more chaos and creating a permanent, ongoing part of society that has no legal status in the US. Those chickens will eventually come home to roost, and not in a good way.

It's time for Congress to grow up and face reality - we aren't going to realistically deport 11 million people and we aren't going to stop people from coming. Time for Congress to actually do the work. We need an extensive guest worker program with a path to citizenship, or even better, other incentives for those workers to maintain their families in their home countries.

And if we want to amend the Constitution to disallow birthright citizenship, then let's go through the process and do it. Not through an executive order that can just be overturned after the next election.

Again,

You don’t really understand…………


Yo do not need to amend the constitution. The work of is already in the 14th. It excludes birthright citizenship if a person giving birth is under the jurisdiction of another country.

The 14th excluded birthright citizenship for diplomats who are here as they are under the jurisdiction of their home country.

So if you are here illegally, the argument is that you are under the jurisdiction of your home country and also are disallowed citizenship.

All the Supreme Court has to do is define the “under the justification there of” clause to exclude illegals.


The 14th does not grant blanket birthright citizens to everyone.

Also it was written to exclude citizenship from invading armies. If a British soldier had a kid here while invading America, they would also be excluded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have strong feelings about birthright citizenship, but I do have strong feelings about creating more chaos and creating a permanent, ongoing part of society that has no legal status in the US. Those chickens will eventually come home to roost, and not in a good way.

It's time for Congress to grow up and face reality - we aren't going to realistically deport 11 million people and we aren't going to stop people from coming. Time for Congress to actually do the work. We need an extensive guest worker program with a path to citizenship, or even better, other incentives for those workers to maintain their families in their home countries.

And if we want to amend the Constitution to disallow birthright citizenship, then let's go through the process and do it. Not through an executive order that can just be overturned after the next election.

Again,

You don’t really understand…………


Yo do not need to amend the constitution. The work of is already in the 14th. It excludes birthright citizenship if a person giving birth is under the jurisdiction of another country.

The 14th excluded birthright citizenship for diplomats who are here as they are under the jurisdiction of their home country.

So if you are here illegally, the argument is that you are under the jurisdiction of your home country and also are disallowed citizenship.

All the Supreme Court has to do is define the “under the justification there of” clause to exclude illegals.


The 14th does not grant blanket birthright citizens to everyone.

Also it was written to exclude citizenship from invading armies. If a British soldier had a kid here while invading America, they would also be excluded.

And you don't understand. It is beyond unlikely that even this SCOTUS will upend immigration precedent. It's very easy to see Roberts and Barrett siding with 150 years of history.