Why is there so much opposition to ending birthright citizenship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think most people support ending it.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In an age when traveling to/from the United States was a major ordeal and impediment to abuse, perhaps birthright citizenship made sense.

The majority of the country does not believe that hopping on a flight from Beijing to Los Angeles, or driving across the border, while pregnant so you can get automatic "birthright" citizenship for your child, is a rational policy.

Citizenship bestows privileged and why should they be given to just anyone whose parents just show up here to give birth?

Go to Del Rio, TX and ask why there is an ambulance every 2 miles along the border.

Because pregnant illegals IN LABOR throw themselves across the border and demand to be taken to the Del Rio Hospitale. And they are. Ka Ching!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unlike mass deportation, I doubt this will come to be because it actually requires a constitutional amendment. But if it were to go through, it would apply only after a certain date.

This is a really hare-brained idea. Not even the crazed GOP is going to try to amend the constitution.

It can only happen if SCOTUS just does away with the 14th amendment. I’m sure there’s some originalist argument there. And who knows, maybe dispense with everything but the bill of rights. Could be useful. Take away voting rights from women and blacks, dispense with term limits.

Actually you do not need to change the 14th amendment.

It is not a blanket birthright citizenship claim there. It carves out some cases where it does not apply!


Here it is.

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.


The important part is “jurisdiction thereof”

This was written in to ex life citizenship for people in this country who are under the “jurisdiction” of their home countries.

This included children of diplomats who are serving a foreign country, their kids do not get citizenship.

Thai was also written to include children of for example of enemy soldiers in this country who have kids here, as they are under the jurisdiction of a foreign govt.


So no changes need to be made to the 14th amendment. All that needs to be done is get a legal case to the Supreme Court.

Then they can interprete illegal aliens as not under the jurisdiction of the United States, and are under the jurisdiction of their home countries. This no birthright citizenship.

Example is a Mexican National crosses the border in Texas, had a kid in Texas, then goes back to Mexico. They would still be legally Mexican citizens and under the jurisdiction of Mexico. Hence their kids would not be US citizens.

And, like diplomats and their children, they are not subject to our jurisdiction. So traffic violations, small crimes, large crimes, immunity for all of it.

Your "easy" solution is a huge problem.

They are already immune to these.



At the highest level, actual Diplomatic Agents and their immediate families are considered immune from criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits.


So they are immune to our laws, and thus their children are not granted birthright citizenship per the 14rh amendment. Since they are serving here under the jurisdiction of a foreign country.


So yeah, it’s that easy.

Huh? Every child born in this country to an immigrant, legal or illegal, is subject to our law, as they should be. If you want to deny them jurisdiction, you will grant them immunity from our laws. That would be a huge problem.

[Anonymous]

Two words: anchor babies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone wants it gone.

For the last several decades it has created perverse incentives with anchor babies and economic migrants bringing kids (theirs or other relatives’) to hurry the detention line up and be released forever in USA.

Most countries got rid of it in the 1970s when Uk did.

It’s archaic.

But it takes a constitutional amendment so it’s a horse traded item as bills get larger and larger.

I have never actually heard a valid nor logical reason for keeping it in this day and age.

Unless you’re looking at it from the illegal immigrant perspective where the anchor baby/child on welfare is your meal ticket and decreases deportation risk for some invalid reasons. Deport them all.

+1000000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Citizenship by birth should be amended away once a sophisticated government, economy, welfare, healthcare, tax, and education systems take over in the country.

Otherwise it’s constant freeloaders and illegal chain migration of freeloaders.

Clog up the ER rooms, create many problems in the public schools, culturally don’t understand taxes or insurance (even car insurance), and most family members work black market cash pay jobs.

Just look at the huge remittance figures. Half of central Americas GDP is black market cash payments from America.

Yuck

[Anonymous]

So my paternal grandparents came in thru Ellis Island. My father was born here. Is he not supposed to have had birthright citizenship in 1912? So then I am an alien too?
Oh, fortunately my maternal gggg-grandfather and ggg-garandfather fought in the American Revolution. Best carry my DAR card, huh!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a large international population at our school (diplomats) and they almost all have a new baby while stationed here.

And intl grad students who are married.
Lots of people arrive pregnant eager to have a USA citizen baby who can then pull in all the intl family members via family sponsoring.

And if you put your parents and aunties on the Family Sponsor list for your country early on, by 20-30 years they’ll be allowed in to use our Medicare system for free, forever!

[Anonymous]

Tell me, whst would stop a country like China from sending pregnant mothers to the US to birth a kid who is a citizen. They then go back home and raise the child to be indoctrinated by the Chinese govt. They can then return to the US and have access to govt jobs, the military, and even political positions since they're technically citizens. They could have access to all sorts of sensitive information or influence govts at the local, state, or national level to enact pro China policy.

I mean yeah, it sounds like a crazy spy movie, but why isn't it possible? It just seems like an insanely stupid security hole that can be easily plugged by not having birthright citizenship.

[Anonymous]

It’s in the Constitution. If people want it changed, then they need to change the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a Harris voter. I’d support a hybrid approach; we should maintain birthright citizenship, but only for babies born here to women who were here legally at the time of the birth. No documentation for mom, no citizenship for baby. If mom has a documented case for amnesty pending, baby gets full citizenship as a natural born citizen if/when amnesty is granted. No amnesty for mom, no citizenship for baby.

There are thousands of moms here legally on a tourist visa coming to visit and oops having the baby while they are here. A bunch of Chineses, Russians, Brazilians having babies in Miami, Pakistanis coming, having their babies and going back to their country. I mean…it is not possible people don’t see it as a huge problem.

I thought the problems that Republicans have with illegal immigration are 1) criminals coming here and 2) poor people coming here and costing taxpayers money and 3) immigrants taking jobs from our citizens. Birth tourism doesn’t involve any of those.

Birth tourism and sponsoring 20+ family members to pull in during their retirement to leech off our systems is indeed one of the perverse behaviors our Citizenship by Birth clause creates in this modern day and age.

But in that example, the problem is allowing an anchor baby or new citizens to sponsor 20+ family members, not the one baby who was born here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So my paternal grandparents came in thru Ellis Island. My father was born here. Is he not supposed to have had birthright citizenship in 1912? So then I am an alien too?
Oh, fortunately my maternal gggg-grandfather and ggg-garandfather fought in the American Revolution. Best carry my DAR card, huh!

Obviously any reforms would apply going forward, not retroactively. Anyone who is a citizen now would be unaffected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a liberal and most of my friends are for ending birthright citizenship. It's a major loophole in the US that needs fixed.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s in the Constitution. If people want it changed, then they need to change the Constitution.

Nope. You don't have to change the constitution. SCOTUS most needs to weigh in on what 'jurisdiction thereof' means. Getting rid of birthright citizenship shouldn't be that hard if there's strong enough challenge. No constitutional change at all.

[Anonymous]

Why does it have to be eliminated?