Why is there so much opposition to ending birthright citizenship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a world where you can jump on a plane and land in the US, and have a baby a week later, and jump on a plane home, this just doesn't work. It has to be overhauled somehow.

In a world where you can kill a 100 people in a minute or so, this just doesn't work. The 2nd needs to be overhauled.

(Also my scenario actually happens yours never has)

Maternity tourism is very common.

But you go for it. Propose a new amendment.

Your so-called birth tourism is already illegal. No need to scrap an entire amendment for what 25-30,000 people who attempt it?

Up to you. I disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a world where you can jump on a plane and land in the US, and have a baby a week later, and jump on a plane home, this just doesn't work. It has to be overhauled somehow.

In a world where you can kill a 100 people in a minute or so, this just doesn't work. The 2nd needs to be overhauled.

(Also my scenario actually happens yours never has)

Maternity tourism is very common.

But you go for it. Propose a new amendment.

Your so-called birth tourism is already illegal. No need to scrap an entire amendment for what 25-30,000 people who attempt it?

Up to you. I disagree.

So I'm just trying to be clear here. The 30,000 women who come here a year and by the way leave again, as birthdays, are more pressing issues than the almost 17,000 who died by gun violence last year, excluding suicides I just want to be clear here but you're okay with keeping an amendment that legitimately contributes to the death of thousands of US citizens a year. But you're wanting to scrap one that doesn't kill people? Just want to get your priorities straight here

So you're saying guns are more fundamental to the American dream and principles of our founding than citizenship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a world where you can jump on a plane and land in the US, and have a baby a week later, and jump on a plane home, this just doesn't work. It has to be overhauled somehow.

In a world where you can kill a 100 people in a minute or so, this just doesn't work. The 2nd needs to be overhauled.

(Also my scenario actually happens yours never has)

Maternity tourism is very common.

But you go for it. Propose a new amendment.

Your so-called birth tourism is already illegal. No need to scrap an entire amendment for what 25-30,000 people who attempt it?

Up to you. I disagree.

So I'm just trying to be clear here. The 30,000 women who come here a year and by the way leave again, as birthdays, are more pressing issues than the almost 17,000 who died by gun violence last year, excluding suicides I just want to be clear here but you're okay with keeping an amendment that legitimately contributes to the death of thousands of US citizens a year. But you're wanting to scrap one that doesn't kill people? Just want to get your priorities straight here

So you're saying guns are more fundamental to the American dream and principles of our founding than citizenship?

I'm an American citizen. No, I do not care if under a new amendment someone who comes here illegally or under false pretenses no longer is awarded free citizenship for their kid. It is literally a no cost change for American citizens. I cherish my right to keep and bear arms. You are welcome to propose an amendment to take away one of my rights as an American.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a world where you can jump on a plane and land in the US, and have a baby a week later, and jump on a plane home, this just doesn't work. It has to be overhauled somehow.

In a world where you can kill a 100 people in a minute or so, this just doesn't work. The 2nd needs to be overhauled.

(Also my scenario actually happens yours never has)

Maternity tourism is very common.

But you go for it. Propose a new amendment.

Your so-called birth tourism is already illegal. No need to scrap an entire amendment for what 25-30,000 people who attempt it?

Up to you. I disagree.

So I'm just trying to be clear here. The 30,000 women who come here a year and by the way leave again, as birthdays, are more pressing issues than the almost 17,000 who died by gun violence last year, excluding suicides I just want to be clear here but you're okay with keeping an amendment that legitimately contributes to the death of thousands of US citizens a year. But you're wanting to scrap one that doesn't kill people? Just want to get your priorities straight here

So you're saying guns are more fundamental to the American dream and principles of our founding than citizenship?

I'm an American citizen. No, I do not care if under a new amendment someone who comes here illegally or under false pretenses no longer is awarded free citizenship for their kid. It is literally a no cost change for American citizens. I cherish my right to keep and bear arms. You are welcome to propose an amendment to take away one of my rights as an American.

So you agree that this EO is blatantly unconstitutional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a world where you can jump on a plane and land in the US, and have a baby a week later, and jump on a plane home, this just doesn't work. It has to be overhauled somehow.

In a world where you can kill a 100 people in a minute or so, this just doesn't work. The 2nd needs to be overhauled.

(Also my scenario actually happens yours never has)

DP. I agree with both of you and think both amendments need to be overhauled. I wish we had started with the 2nd, but the 14th also makes very little sense today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a world where you can jump on a plane and land in the US, and have a baby a week later, and jump on a plane home, this just doesn't work. It has to be overhauled somehow.

In a world where you can kill a 100 people in a minute or so, this just doesn't work. The 2nd needs to be overhauled.

(Also my scenario actually happens yours never has)

DP. I agree with both of you and think both amendments need to be overhauled. I wish we had started with the 2nd, but the 14th also makes very little sense today.

Pay a little more attention to negative population growth and low birth rates and population cliffs. Every baby is needed, in this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a world where you can jump on a plane and land in the US, and have a baby a week later, and jump on a plane home, this just doesn't work. It has to be overhauled somehow.

In a world where you can kill a 100 people in a minute or so, this just doesn't work. The 2nd needs to be overhauled.

(Also my scenario actually happens yours never has)

Maternity tourism is very common.

But you go for it. Propose a new amendment.

Your so-called birth tourism is already illegal. No need to scrap an entire amendment for what 25-30,000 people who attempt it?

Up to you. I disagree.

So I'm just trying to be clear here. The 30,000 women who come here a year and by the way leave again, as birthdays, are more pressing issues than the almost 17,000 who died by gun violence last year, excluding suicides I just want to be clear here but you're okay with keeping an amendment that legitimately contributes to the death of thousands of US citizens a year. But you're wanting to scrap one that doesn't kill people? Just want to get your priorities straight here

So you're saying guns are more fundamental to the American dream and principles of our founding than citizenship?

I'm an American citizen. No, I do not care if under a new amendment someone who comes here illegally or under false pretenses no longer is awarded free citizenship for their kid. It is literally a no cost change for American citizens. I cherish my right to keep and bear arms. You are welcome to propose an amendment to take away one of my rights as an American.

So you agree that this EO is blatantly unconstitutional.

I do agree the EO is likely to be unconstitutional under the current amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a world where you can jump on a plane and land in the US, and have a baby a week later, and jump on a plane home, this just doesn't work. It has to be overhauled somehow.

In a world where you can kill a 100 people in a minute or so, this just doesn't work. The 2nd needs to be overhauled.

(Also my scenario actually happens yours never has)

DP. I agree with both of you and think both amendments need to be overhauled. I wish we had started with the 2nd, but the 14th also makes very little sense today.

Pay a little more attention to negative population growth and low birth rates and population cliffs. Every baby is needed, in this country.

I'm another poster. Although I am concerned about population growth, a country's per capita wealth is not a function of its birth rate or immigration rate. A country can be wealthy, prosperous, and peaceful, with a declining population. The problem we have is we fund our government and issue debt based on a belief that we'll have an ever increasing population, which we won't, be it in 10 years, or 30.

Here's the simple reality: all countries will be dealing with declining populations at some point soon. So get over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a world where you can jump on a plane and land in the US, and have a baby a week later, and jump on a plane home, this just doesn't work. It has to be overhauled somehow.

In a world where you can kill a 100 people in a minute or so, this just doesn't work. The 2nd needs to be overhauled.

(Also my scenario actually happens yours never has)

DP. I agree with both of you and think both amendments need to be overhauled. I wish we had started with the 2nd, but the 14th also makes very little sense today.

Pay a little more attention to negative population growth and low birth rates and population cliffs. Every baby is needed, in this country.

I'm another poster. Although I am concerned about population growth, a country's per capita wealth is not a function of its birth rate or immigration rate. A country can be wealthy, prosperous, and peaceful, with a declining population. The problem we have is we fund our government and issue debt based on a belief that we'll have an ever increasing population, which we won't, be it in 10 years, or 30.

Here's the simple reality: all countries will be dealing with declining populations at some point soon. So get over it.

This is impossible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a world where you can jump on a plane and land in the US, and have a baby a week later, and jump on a plane home, this just doesn't work. It has to be overhauled somehow.

In a world where you can kill a 100 people in a minute or so, this just doesn't work. The 2nd needs to be overhauled.

(Also my scenario actually happens yours never has)

DP. I agree with both of you and think both amendments need to be overhauled. I wish we had started with the 2nd, but the 14th also makes very little sense today.

Pay a little more attention to negative population growth and low birth rates and population cliffs. Every baby is needed, in this country.

I'm another poster. Although I am concerned about population growth, a country's per capita wealth is not a function of its birth rate or immigration rate. A country can be wealthy, prosperous, and peaceful, with a declining population. The problem we have is we fund our government and issue debt based on a belief that we'll have an ever increasing population, which we won't, be it in 10 years, or 30.

Here's the simple reality: all countries will be dealing with declining populations at some point soon. So get over it.

This is impossible.

No, it isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a world where you can jump on a plane and land in the US, and have a baby a week later, and jump on a plane home, this just doesn't work. It has to be overhauled somehow.

In a world where you can kill a 100 people in a minute or so, this just doesn't work. The 2nd needs to be overhauled.

(Also my scenario actually happens yours never has)

Maternity tourism is very common.

But you go for it. Propose a new amendment.

Your so-called birth tourism is already illegal. No need to scrap an entire amendment for what 25-30,000 people who attempt it?

Up to you. I disagree.

Fine go ahead and propose your new amendment and see how that goes

[Anonymous]

It’s in the Constitution. You want to repeal it? Article 5 lays out the process. Hint: it can’t be amended by Executive Order.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a world where you can jump on a plane and land in the US, and have a baby a week later, and jump on a plane home, this just doesn't work. It has to be overhauled somehow.

In a world where you can kill a 100 people in a minute or so, this just doesn't work. The 2nd needs to be overhauled.

(Also my scenario actually happens yours never has)

Maternity tourism is very common.

But you go for it. Propose a new amendment.

Your so-called birth tourism is already illegal. No need to scrap an entire amendment for what 25-30,000 people who attempt it?

It isn't illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When virtually every other sane first world country doesn't have it? For starters, Spain, the UK, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, France, Greece, Australia, Japan, Singapore, China, Colombia, nor the Czech Republic and any of the many other countries liberals say they're going to move to do not have birth right citizenship. What Trump is proposing isn't extreme at all, so why is there resistance to enacting common sense reform? It's also funny too, because as these elections showed, many coming over the border who eventually establish themselves aren't even Democratic voters either, so the Dems may actually seriously want to rethink they're immigration and citizenship policies before they blindly stand up for making it extremely easy for letting in millions of super catholic people who are now showing to be socially conservative and supporters of traditional family values. There was a time when the 14th amendment served a purpose, but it is the year 2024. Birthright citizenship is now much more of a security liability than anything. Why shouldn't we end it when most of the countries liberals espouse and hold up as role models don't even have it?

I suggest that the real motive here is to reduce the percentage of residents that are not "white". In a prior century, the focus would be on Irish and Italian immigrants. The fact is that most of these non-"white" residents are far more American that the earlier Irish and Italian immigrants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:European countries have histories of bloodlines, people who have lived in an area for a long time, have a shared culture, shared history, some shared DNA and have a similar look/features.

Countries in the western hemisphere were formed by immigration, by people moving to those countries. The United States does not have a long history of people who have lived in an area for a long time, with shared culture, shared history, shared DNA, similar look, etc. What we have is a shared culture that we all create, that is built upon chosen unity.

If we were to abolish birthright citizenship and switch to jus sanguinis, I assume that those of us who are currently citizens would be grandfathered in? Where would the cutoff be? People who have bloodlines as of 2024? Or were you thinking of something else?

What about bloodlines from 1776? MAGA!