Why is there so much opposition to ending birthright citizenship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

These accidental Americans have faced no end of problems financially. The US considers them US citizens who must pay US taxes on all their worldwide income. Banks in their native countries often won't let them open bank accounts for fear of becoming subject to requirements to report to the IRS. See FATCA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The court wouldn’t need to make it retroactive.

The Court wouldn't opine on whether it's retroactive or not. They'd opine on the legality of the EO. If it's legal, then a future President (or Trump himself) could issue a new EO that says it is retroactive.

The Court can, and does, rewrite things so that they work.

No it doesn’t

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The court wouldn’t need to make it retroactive.

The Court wouldn't opine on whether it's retroactive or not. They'd opine on the legality of the EO. If it's legal, then a future President (or Trump himself) could issue a new EO that says it is retroactive.

Which would then be challenged in court. Or the court could decide it’s not retroactive. There are multiple ways this could play out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about i am here on tourist visa or student visa and have a baby ?

The baby will be the citizen of your country of origin.

On what legal ground.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A condition of these visas is a declared intent to return to their home countries. So why would they want their children to be US citizens? Or did they lie on their visa applications? If they lied on their visa applications, they are not lawfully present.

H1 is a double intent visa.

Fair point. But their children born should be put in a similar visa category. And we should only grant visas to people whose countries would grant citizenship if an H1 holder has a child while abroad here in the United States.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about i am here on tourist visa or student visa and have a baby ?

The baby will be the citizen of your country of origin.

On what legal ground.

We should only grant visas to people whose countries extend citizenship to children born abroad. This is not rocket science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

These accidental Americans have faced no end of problems financially. The US considers them US citizens who must pay US taxes on all their worldwide income. Banks in their native countries often won't let them open bank accounts for fear of becoming subject to requirements to report to the IRS. See FATCA.

They could always renounce their US citizenship, right? I was in a grad school program and almost all of the international students would have babies while in the US, so it seems like they saw it as beneficial to have a US citizen child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about i am here on tourist visa or student visa and have a baby ?

The baby will be the citizen of your country of origin.

On what legal ground.

On the basis of the mother's passport.
One of consular functions is issuance of identification documents for newborns.
https://miami.consulfrance.org/french-passport-or-national-identity-card-appointment-required

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

These accidental Americans have faced no end of problems financially. The US considers them US citizens who must pay US taxes on all their worldwide income. Banks in their native countries often won't let them open bank accounts for fear of becoming subject to requirements to report to the IRS. See FATCA.

In most of these cases, their bank would have no idea they have US citizenship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

These accidental Americans have faced no end of problems financially. The US considers them US citizens who must pay US taxes on all their worldwide income. Banks in their native countries often won't let them open bank accounts for fear of becoming subject to requirements to report to the IRS. See FATCA.

They could always renounce their US citizenship, right? I was in a grad school program and almost all of the international students would have babies while in the US, so it seems like they saw it as beneficial to have a US citizen child.

That’s a big assumption. How do you know they wouldn’t have had their babies even if they hadn’t gotten US citizenship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

These accidental Americans have faced no end of problems financially. The US considers them US citizens who must pay US taxes on all their worldwide income. Banks in their native countries often won't let them open bank accounts for fear of becoming subject to requirements to report to the IRS. See FATCA.

They could always renounce their US citizenship, right? I was in a grad school program and almost all of the international students would have babies while in the US, so it seems like they saw it as beneficial to have a US citizen child.

You realise you have to pay $2,500 to renounce your citizenship. Plus you have to travel to your capital city for an appointment with the embassy and produce all of the documentation required, including your US birth certificate which is obvious a problem if you don’t have it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about i am here on tourist visa or student visa and have a baby ?

The baby will be the citizen of your country of origin.

On what legal ground.

Umm, children of citizens of a given country are almost always eligible for citizenship of the country of their parents, usually requiring some form of notification to that country. This isn't news.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

These accidental Americans have faced no end of problems financially. The US considers them US citizens who must pay US taxes on all their worldwide income. Banks in their native countries often won't let them open bank accounts for fear of becoming subject to requirements to report to the IRS. See FATCA.

There are a lot of Israelis like this. Biden and the pro Israeli crowd kept talking about the Americans take prisoners by Hamas. If you look them up they were living in Israel full time for 20-25 years. This duel citizenship crap must end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

These accidental Americans have faced no end of problems financially. The US considers them US citizens who must pay US taxes on all their worldwide income. Banks in their native countries often won't let them open bank accounts for fear of becoming subject to requirements to report to the IRS. See FATCA.

They could always renounce their US citizenship, right? I was in a grad school program and almost all of the international students would have babies while in the US, so it seems like they saw it as beneficial to have a US citizen child.

You realise you have to pay $2,500 to renounce your citizenship. Plus you have to travel to your capital city for an appointment with the embassy and produce all of the documentation required, including your US birth certificate which is obvious a problem if you don’t have it

Either pay the fee and get the paperwork done, or face the consequences.

[Anonymous]

Where is the data here? If this abomination somehow survives court challenges how many people would have their citizenship revoked?