Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You seem really naive. There are literal sex slaves trafficked into the US. No it’s not as pervasive as the US slave trade was but yes there are people that are slaves in the US.

Yes, sex slavery is terrible. What does it have to do with birthright citizenship?

Anonymous wrote:You seem really naive. There are literal sex slaves trafficked into the US. No it’s not as pervasive as the US slave trade was but yes there are people that are slaves in the US.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Careful what you wish for, OP. You could make the same argument about the 2nd amendment and "well regulated militias". Do I think that changes any time soon? Nope.

The 1st and 2nd amendments should be the only ones not allowed to be changed by any President. I don't mind any other ones going away.

Anonymous wrote:It was intended to ensure freed slaves and their kids would be citizens. Do we still have slaves? No. Therefore it is no longer needed.

The UK ended birthright citizenship only 50 years ago. They still get tons of immigration. It is fine. Birthright citizenship has outlived its intent. No sane country on Earth has it. Canada doesn't county either because they have a 3000 mile buffer called the United States and are surrounded by Oceans. They get no where near as much illegal immigration via air.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Careful what you wish for, OP. You could make the same argument about the 2nd amendment and "well regulated militias". Do I think that changes any time soon? Nope.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One easy thing to get rid of the family sponsoring. they shoudl getrid of under 18s being able to sposner tehri non -citzen parenst as well. We have to end chain migration but birthright citizenship is a weird quirk we have- i'd be more supportive of even having clear pregnancy tests on someone who is applying- we have other types of hops, not being pregnant isnot really that invasive. There was massive amounts of immigration when the 14th amendment was written so the authors knew this woudl happen. Testing for pregnancy before granting visas (do it like we did for covid) would also end birth tourism without a constitutional amendment. As long as its not retroactiev and we can get rid of the 2a id be ok with it as well.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One easy thing to get rid of the family sponsoring. they shoudl getrid of under 18s being able to sposner tehri non -citzen parenst as well. We have to end chain migration but birthright citizenship is a weird quirk we have- i'd be more supportive of even having clear pregnancy tests on someone who is applying- we have other types of hops, not being pregnant isnot really that invasive. There was massive amounts of immigration when the 14th amendment was written so the authors knew this woudl happen. Testing for pregnancy before granting visas (do it like we did for covid) would also end birth tourism without a constitutional amendment. As long as its not retroactiev and we can get rid of the 2a id be ok with it as well.

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure why there is so much sniping here. It’s written clearly in an amendment, ffs. Is someone wants to start a movement to amend the Constitution, have at it. Voters don’t get to weigh in on it. It seems like we have more pressing matters, but knock yourselves out. Wasting time here is pointless.

Anonymous wrote:Because America has always had it. We are better than Germany. It promotes assimilation too.