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:
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.

What consequences?

[Anonymous]

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

None - it is not retroactive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. Presumably this is cheaper than paying US taxes on your worldwide income for life.

[Anonymous]

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

The order is shaky legally (unless the Supreme Court reinterprets the 14th Amendment), but if it stands, it’s not retroactive. It applies to babies born after February 19.

[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.

We don't make it easy to renounce US citizenship. Plus we continue to tax those who denounce their citizenship on their worldwide income for five years after the denouncement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

The order is shaky legally (unless the Supreme Court reinterprets the 14th Amendment), but if it stands, it’s not retroactive. It applies to babies born after February 19.

The EO itself isn’t. But if the Supreme Court reinterprets the 14th amendment, there will inevitably be follow on lawsuits citing that interpretation challenging the newly non-citizens on voter rolls, getting various government benefits, etc.

[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.

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

Untrue. Identification documents almost always include place of birth. If it's the US, they know they are automatically US citizens. Treasury has spent a lot of time educating foreign financial institutions on FATCA requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. Presumably this is cheaper than paying US taxes on your worldwide income for life.

You clearly don’t understand. You are required to file a tax return, but that doesn’t mean you pay any US taxes. And if you don’t think $2,500 is much money perhaps you should check the average incomes of most countries in the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

The order is shaky legally (unless the Supreme Court reinterprets the 14th Amendment), but if it stands, it’s not retroactive. It applies to babies born after February 19.

The EO itself isn’t. But if the Supreme Court reinterprets the 14th amendment, there will inevitably be follow on lawsuits citing that interpretation challenging the newly non-citizens on voter rolls, getting various government benefits, etc.

Look what happened post-Dobbs. If SCOTUS ignores precedent, they've seen the chaos that will be unleashed by Red State AGs. I don't think Roberts and Barrett will play along.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. Presumably this is cheaper than paying US taxes on your worldwide income for life.

You clearly don’t understand. You are required to file a tax return, but that doesn’t mean you pay any US taxes. And if you don’t think $2,500 is much money perhaps you should check the average incomes of most countries in the world.

OK, so if you’re not paying US taxes (despite filing a tax return) and you can’t afford to renounce because $2,500 is too expensive, then there’s no pressing financial reason to renounce. The $2,500 fee isn’t relevant.

And if you are renouncing because you don’t want to pay US taxes, then in almost all cases you earn enough that yes, $2,500 upfront will be less than your lifetime US tax liability.

All of this is a sideshow to the initial point that (many people, including me) feel that it’s stupid that people who were born to foreign parents in the US because of a random circumstance or birth tourism or whatever, and aren’t raised in the US, and don’t identify as American or otherwise have connections to the US, are US citizens. I’m okay with that path to citizenship closing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s not rocket science but under the US constitution you can be a citizen of US if you are born here.
Conservative Judges like to interpret the constitution as it is written.
So you have a big hill to climb.
Personally I oppose birth tourism to US more than anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s not rocket science but under the US constitution you can be a citizen of US if you are born here.
Conservative Judges like to interpret the constitution as it is written.
So you have a big hill to climb.
Personally I oppose birth tourism to US more than anything.

I think the Constitution can be interpreted differently. We shall see. At least we now have a case to have this played out.

[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.

PP here. No, I understand. You are making what was once considered a fringe legal argument that is now being championed by right wingers as they ignore over 100 years of legal precedent. I'm all good, but you ought to go do some reading.

[Anonymous]

If two wrongs don’t make a right, than how can 2 illegals make a legal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If two wrongs don’t make a right, than how can 2 illegals make a legal?

Times were different when that was enacted. It does need to be overhauled.