Why is there so much opposition to ending birthright citizenship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We have never had 10 million illegals come here in a 4 year period. The 14th will need to be defined to exclude illegals as not “under the jurisdiction there of”

The Wong Ark case is different as he was a legal resident of the US. Illegals are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We have never had 10 million illegals come here in a 4 year period. The 14th will need to be defined to exclude illegals as not “under the jurisdiction there of”

The Wong Ark case is different as he was a legal resident of the US. Illegals are not.

This is a legislative, not judicial, argument. It's in every way irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We have never had 10 million illegals come here in a 4 year period. The 14th will need to be defined to exclude illegals as not “under the jurisdiction there of”

The Wong Ark case is different as he was a legal resident of the US. Illegals are not.

The EO covers people here legally

[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.

I guess one big change is that those people (born 30 days after the EO unless the courts strike it down) can't run for the presidency. Also, the immigration system is dysfunctional as is, do we really need to add more complications to it? (I know these things get processed as families, but still...) Finally, I think birthright citizenship makes the US special in a good way. No matter where you come from, if your kids are born here, they're American. This is not the case in Europe and it takes immigrants much longer to integrate as a result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If SCOTUS agrees this is the right reading of the 14th amendment, then that interpretation will be retroactive. Nothing in the text of the 14th has changed since 1868.

[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 don't know the specifics of their immigration status; however, just like the Reagan amnesty thing, it will happen to things in the present and moving forward. So this argument is not worth discussing as it won't be retroactive. A good start is to stop the illegals in their tracks now rather than make it retroactive. Basically stop the invasion and prevent it from continuing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 don't know the specifics of their immigration status; however, just like the Reagan amnesty thing, it will happen to things in the present and moving forward. So this argument is not worth discussing as it won't be retroactive. A good start is to stop the illegals in their tracks now rather than make it retroactive. Basically stop the invasion and prevent it from continuing.

That's not really a legal argument. That's a rando message board post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If SCOTUS agrees this is the right reading of the 14th amendment, then that interpretation will be retroactive. Nothing in the text of the 14th has changed since 1868.

It would make no logical sense: Naturalized citizens would still be naturalized citizens because it's not a birthright issue. The only people theoretically affected would be children of people naturalized after they were born. These children often have no other citizenship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Lets be real, someone like elon and grimes, if the law was they had to be of legal status then they would have followed that path but the law says birthright. With immigration you want to have best and brightest so they would be good candidates for citizenship

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If SCOTUS agrees this is the right reading of the 14th amendment, then that interpretation will be retroactive. Nothing in the text of the 14th has changed since 1868.

It would make no logical sense: Naturalized citizens would still be naturalized citizens because it's not a birthright issue. The only people theoretically affected would be children of people naturalized after they were born. These children often have no other citizenship.

People born in the US of parents who are not citizens or permanent residents don’t get naturalized because they are already citizens. Usha, Vivek, Kamala, Barron, etc were never naturalized. It would definitely affect them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 don't know the specifics of their immigration status; however, just like the Reagan amnesty thing, it will happen to things in the present and moving forward. So this argument is not worth discussing as it won't be retroactive. A good start is to stop the illegals in their tracks now rather than make it retroactive. Basically stop the invasion and prevent it from continuing.

For the 100th time, the EO covers people who are here legally.

Also, it will stop only one type of illegal. Young men working in Home Depot parking lots will still be there, and your drywall will still be hung by them.

[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.

Why do you keep pretending that this EO excludes just the illegals? Are you hoping it will make your argument stronger? The EO denies citizenship to children of people who are here legally if they are not citizens or permanent residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

There wasn’t really such a thing as “being here legally” or “illegally” at that time he was born. The modern immigration law concepts like permanent lawful residency, work visas, tourist visas, etc didn’t exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Why do you keep pretending that this EO excludes just the illegals? Are you hoping it will make your argument stronger? The EO denies citizenship to children of people who are here legally if they are not citizens or permanent residents.

That's a good thing - a tourist is here legally, but her baby born on the US soil will not automatically become citizen. The baby will have the same citizenship as mother/parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why do you keep pretending that this EO excludes just the illegals? Are you hoping it will make your argument stronger? The EO denies citizenship to children of people who are here legally if they are not citizens or permanent residents.

That's a good thing - a tourist is here legally, but her baby born on the US soil will not automatically become citizen. The baby will have the same citizenship as mother/parents.

+1. I said earlier that I don’t think the EO is legal and will almost certainly get tied up in court, but on the merits I think it is completely fine to have a policy that only the children of legal immigrants (permanent residents) or citizens are granted citizenship at birth. Basically every other developed country does it this way. I am totally okay with the children of tourists, student visa holders, and H1-B/non-immigrant visa holders not getting citizenship at birth. The child will have the same citizenship as their parents at birth, and if the family continues to live in the US and the parents are eventually naturalized, then the child will get citizenship then.

If the parents have no intention of staying in the US permanently or raising the child here, I think it’s actively preferable that the child is not given citizenship. I know someone who was born to Italian PhD students doing a postdoc in the US and was raised 100% in Italy, identifies as Italian, and has no real connection to the US besides the circumstances of his birth. IMO there is no reason for that person to be a citizen.