Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Let’s flip it.

Given the lack of borders, processes and enforcement of the immigration laws, coupled with the hospitality and freebies of free ER care, schooling, NGo donated food & clothes, and anchor baby welfare benefits….

…. WHY WOULDN’T YOU ILLEGALLY COME HERE? and have a bunch of kids in order to stay indefinitely

Nothing is stopping you, in fact everything is encouraging you. Silence signals agreement.

Why wouldn’t a developing country person traipse through Central America or fly to Mexico City and sneak in or do the loony 5 year catch & release phony asylum play?

Or always birth babies here for the call option of using the anchor baby for America’s education, military, welfare systems, and protection? The kid can show up with anyone to any American embassy in the world and get help.

Why wouldn’t you illegally come here?

Plus instead of $2/hour in Honduras, you can make $8/hour cash! Wow!

I don't personally blame any foreign citizen who came here unlawfully -- we're the stupid ones who've created this mess. But nonetheless, they are foreign citizens and they will need to return to their home countries.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The US has over 345 million people and is the 3rd largest nation on Earth. We do not need more and have plenty of bloodlines to draw from. Ending birthright citizenship would apply going forward. It wouldn't impact current citizens at all.

We should impose common sense reform like simply requiring one parent be a citizen for a child to obtain citizenship. This is exactly what so many other countries do. It closes huge security holes that could be exploited too.

Yes we do need more. The only reason our population is not declining is because we have strong immigration. Without our immigration we'd be struggling with the same demographic issues countries in Asia are dealing with because they are so strict about immigration.

I don't disagree with your last point though. I think that's a totally fair requirement.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The US has over 345 million people and is the 3rd largest nation on Earth. We do not need more and have plenty of bloodlines to draw from. Ending birthright citizenship would apply going forward. It wouldn't impact current citizens at all.

We should impose common sense reform like simply requiring one parent be a citizen for a child to obtain citizenship. This is exactly what so many other countries do. It closes huge security holes that could be exploited too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Let’s flip it.

Given the lack of borders, processes and enforcement of the immigration laws, coupled with the hospitality and freebies of free ER care, schooling, NGo donated food & clothes, and anchor baby welfare benefits….

…. WHY WOULDN’T YOU ILLEGALLY COME HERE? and have a bunch of kids in order to stay indefinitely

Nothing is stopping you, in fact everything is encouraging you. Silence signals agreement.

Why wouldn’t a developing country person traipse through Central America or fly to Mexico City and sneak in or do the loony 5 year catch & release phony asylum play?

Or always birth babies here for the call option of using the anchor baby for America’s education, military, welfare systems, and protection? The kid can show up with anyone to any American embassy in the world and get help.

Why wouldn’t you illegally come here?

Plus instead of $2/hour in Honduras, you can make $8/hour cash! Wow!

I don't personally blame any foreign citizen who came here unlawfully -- we're the stupid ones who've created this mess. But nonetheless, they are foreign citizens and they will need to return to their home countries.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Let’s flip it.

Given the lack of borders, processes and enforcement of the immigration laws, coupled with the hospitality and freebies of free ER care, schooling, NGo donated food & clothes, and anchor baby welfare benefits….

…. WHY WOULDN’T YOU ILLEGALLY COME HERE? and have a bunch of kids in order to stay indefinitely

Nothing is stopping you, in fact everything is encouraging you. Silence signals agreement.

Why wouldn’t a developing country person traipse through Central America or fly to Mexico City and sneak in or do the loony 5 year catch & release phony asylum play?

Or always birth babies here for the call option of using the anchor baby for America’s education, military, welfare systems, and protection? The kid can show up with anyone to any American embassy in the world and get help.

Why wouldn’t you illegally come here?

Plus instead of $2/hour in Honduras, you can make $8/hour cash! Wow!

3 million illegals a year agree with you!

Thank goodness the Dems won’t do any legislation about it without their added BS demands on totally different topics.

Come one, come all! Land of the free (goodies)!

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Let’s flip it.

Given the lack of borders, processes and enforcement of the immigration laws, coupled with the hospitality and freebies of free ER care, schooling, NGo donated food & clothes, and anchor baby welfare benefits….

…. WHY WOULDN’T YOU ILLEGALLY COME HERE? and have a bunch of kids in order to stay indefinitely

Nothing is stopping you, in fact everything is encouraging you. Silence signals agreement.

Why wouldn’t a developing country person traipse through Central America or fly to Mexico City and sneak in or do the loony 5 year catch & release phony asylum play?

Or always birth babies here for the call option of using the anchor baby for America’s education, military, welfare systems, and protection? The kid can show up with anyone to any American embassy in the world and get help.

Why wouldn’t you illegally come here?

Plus instead of $2/hour in Honduras, you can make $8/hour cash! Wow!

Anonymous wrote:I think MAGAS think libs care more about this than we do. We all want the birder and immigration issues controlled. Just like we don’t want to take all your guns away. MAGA fake news.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Let’s flip it.

Given the lack of borders, processes and enforcement of the immigration laws, coupled with the hospitality and freebies of free ER care, schooling, NGo donated food & clothes, and anchor baby welfare benefits….

…. WHY WOULDN’T YOU ILLEGALLY COME HERE? and have a bunch of kids in order to stay indefinitely

Nothing is stopping you, in fact everything is encouraging you. Silence signals agreement.

Why wouldn’t a developing country person traipse through Central America or fly to Mexico City and sneak in or do the loony 5 year catch & release phony asylum play?

Or always birth babies here for the call option of using the anchor baby for America’s education, military, welfare systems, and protection? The kid can show up with anyone to any American embassy in the world and get help.

Why wouldn’t you illegally come here?

Plus instead of $2/hour in Honduras, you can make $8/hour cash! Wow!

Anonymous wrote:Are you a Native American, OP?

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Let’s flip it.

Given the lack of borders, processes and enforcement of the immigration laws, coupled with the hospitality and freebies of free ER care, schooling, NGo donated food & clothes, and anchor baby welfare benefits….

…. WHY WOULDN’T YOU ILLEGALLY COME HERE? and have a bunch of kids in order to stay indefinitely

Nothing is stopping you, in fact everything is encouraging you. Silence signals agreement.

Why wouldn’t a developing country person traipse through Central America or fly to Mexico City and sneak in or do the loony 5 year catch & release phony asylum play?

Or always birth babies here for the call option of using the anchor baby for America’s education, military, welfare systems, and protection? The kid can show up with anyone to any American embassy in the world and get help.

Why wouldn’t you illegally come here?

Plus instead of $2/hour in Honduras, you can make $8/hour cash! Wow!

Anonymous wrote:Birthright citizenship has outlived its usefulness and needs to be abolished.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Women who were here legally at the time of the birth?

So, if the mother is here legally under a tourist visa, then what? Or an H1 or J1 visa? What if she has remained here under an expired J1 visa, but with a still valid SEVIS record?

This would get incredibly messy.

And it's a pointless distraction. Birthright citizenship isn't going anywhere.

If I were pregnant and went to a foreign country to work on visa and then gave birth...my child would simply inherit my current citizenship. Period.

I came to the US as a toddler...with my legal immigrant parents who had green cards. One parent worked hard and earned US citizenship when I was 13. I and my older sibling were then able to apply for Naturalization to become US citizens. My DH had parents, also legal immigrants with green cards, who never became US citizens....he became a naturalized US citizen in adulthood.

The child should always inherit the citizenship of the one or both parents. Therefore, if one parent is a US citizen the child has birthright citizenship. If one or both parents is a green card holder/Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR), the child automatically becomes a LPR. Both the parents and children can apply for US citizenship according to LPR laws...if one parent becomes a naturalized US citizen, then any children also become eligible to be naturalized US citizens. I don't see the issue with this.

Those on visas are temporary visitors and don't hold green cards. Again, any children born to parents with visas should always inherit the citizenship of the one or both parents.

Many people living in the US under H1/J1/etc. visas will be here for years, often seeking permanent residency or citizenship along the way. If a child is born and grows up in the US, you don't think they should necessarily have citizenship?

I'd be open to the idea of pulling back elements of birthright citizenship, but going as far as you seem to be suggesting is nutty in my mind.

I have friends who worked here for their child's entire life. The kids were born here and are in their 20s and have never lived anywhere else in the world. What other citizenship makes sense? Some country they've never been to?

So these kids don't have dual citizenship with their parents' native country?

Even if they still do at age 20, are you suggesting they need to leave home and start over in a foreign country? US born and educated?