Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
These two cases should be treated differently:

1) A kid is born in the US with at least one legal permanent resident parent

2) A kid is born in the US without at least one legal permanent resident parent

No citizenship for either unless at least one parent is a US citizen and the other parent is of legal immigration status

And while we're fantasizing, I'd like a pony.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s really not hard people.

Citizenship would only require at least one parent be a citizen. That’s pretty much it. So many other countries in the world have figured this out.

Not hard.

So if one parent is here illegally, but the other is a citizen (what about other legal status holders? Green Cards, student visas, etc.?), would the children still have birthright citizenship?

If both parents are here legally but not citizens when they had their children, what's their legal status? If those parents later become citizens, would the children get their citizenship at that point?

I feel that this will get complicated quickly. Maybe something along the lines of conferring citizenship to children born to parents who are both in the country on non-temporary legal status is less complicated?

It is not complicated. Every other country in the world has this figured out.


One parent here illegally and the other is legal? Children are citizens. Simple. The illegal parent can be deported. It is up to that family to decide how they want to remain together.

If both parents are here legally but aren’t citizens and have kids? The kids are not citizens. Easy. Just like every other country in the world. Grad students who study in Europe and have kids don’t automatically get citizenship for their kids just because they’re legally in say Germany or the UK as students. If the parents become citizens, they can apply for citizenship for ther children as well.


This really isn’t hard as everyone is trying to claim. Every country in the world has this figured out and has already dealt with all of these scenarios. It isn’t rocket science.

Sure, it wouldn't be impossible for the US to switch from being like every country in the Americas to being like countries in Europe. It would just take a constitutional amendment to change the Fourteenth Amendment. Let's go. (There are really no sneaky "interpretations of the language" that could work. It has to be a for-real amendment. Sorry not sorry.)

Or SCOTUS could rule on birthright citizenship using an originalist interpretation

The original intent was clear. Lincoln signed Act to Encourage Immigration just ahead of 14A being ratified. The Supreme Court has been ruling on this original intent going back to the 1800s. Unfortunately for you, what you think is the original intent is not the actually original intent. 1898 Supreme Court backs up what I’m saying.

The Homestead Act of 1862 offered farm land to European immigrants right off the boat, and their children born here were to be citizens at birth. Everyone who voted for the 14th Amendment understood that they were going to fill up the Midwest and Plains with new birthright citizens.

Yet all that time Native Americans born on US soil were still not citizens and that only changed with congress in 1924 decades later.

They were citizens of their own nations. Learn some history.

Anonymous wrote:
These two cases should be treated differently:

1) A kid is born in the US with at least one legal permanent resident parent

2) A kid is born in the US without at least one legal permanent resident parent

No citizenship for either unless at least one parent is a US citizen and the other parent is of legal immigration status

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s really not hard people.

Citizenship would only require at least one parent be a citizen. That’s pretty much it. So many other countries in the world have figured this out.

Not hard.

So if one parent is here illegally, but the other is a citizen (what about other legal status holders? Green Cards, student visas, etc.?), would the children still have birthright citizenship?

If both parents are here legally but not citizens when they had their children, what's their legal status? If those parents later become citizens, would the children get their citizenship at that point?

I feel that this will get complicated quickly. Maybe something along the lines of conferring citizenship to children born to parents who are both in the country on non-temporary legal status is less complicated?

It is not complicated. Every other country in the world has this figured out.


One parent here illegally and the other is legal? Children are citizens. Simple. The illegal parent can be deported. It is up to that family to decide how they want to remain together.

If both parents are here legally but aren’t citizens and have kids? The kids are not citizens. Easy. Just like every other country in the world. Grad students who study in Europe and have kids don’t automatically get citizenship for their kids just because they’re legally in say Germany or the UK as students. If the parents become citizens, they can apply for citizenship for ther children as well.


This really isn’t hard as everyone is trying to claim. Every country in the world has this figured out and has already dealt with all of these scenarios. It isn’t rocket science.

Sure, it wouldn't be impossible for the US to switch from being like every country in the Americas to being like countries in Europe. It would just take a constitutional amendment to change the Fourteenth Amendment. Let's go. (There are really no sneaky "interpretations of the language" that could work. It has to be a for-real amendment. Sorry not sorry.)

Or SCOTUS could rule on birthright citizenship using an originalist interpretation

The original intent was clear. Lincoln signed Act to Encourage Immigration just ahead of 14A being ratified. The Supreme Court has been ruling on this original intent going back to the 1800s. Unfortunately for you, what you think is the original intent is not the actually original intent. 1898 Supreme Court backs up what I’m saying.

Surely you’re not supposing that things like precedent have any bearing?

The Burger court wasn't the only activist court that made poor decisions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s really not hard people.

Citizenship would only require at least one parent be a citizen. That’s pretty much it. So many other countries in the world have figured this out.

Not hard.

So if one parent is here illegally, but the other is a citizen (what about other legal status holders? Green Cards, student visas, etc.?), would the children still have birthright citizenship?

If both parents are here legally but not citizens when they had their children, what's their legal status? If those parents later become citizens, would the children get their citizenship at that point?

I feel that this will get complicated quickly. Maybe something along the lines of conferring citizenship to children born to parents who are both in the country on non-temporary legal status is less complicated?

It is not complicated. Every other country in the world has this figured out.


One parent here illegally and the other is legal? Children are citizens. Simple. The illegal parent can be deported. It is up to that family to decide how they want to remain together.

If both parents are here legally but aren’t citizens and have kids? The kids are not citizens. Easy. Just like every other country in the world. Grad students who study in Europe and have kids don’t automatically get citizenship for their kids just because they’re legally in say Germany or the UK as students. If the parents become citizens, they can apply for citizenship for ther children as well.


This really isn’t hard as everyone is trying to claim. Every country in the world has this figured out and has already dealt with all of these scenarios. It isn’t rocket science.

Sure, it wouldn't be impossible for the US to switch from being like every country in the Americas to being like countries in Europe. It would just take a constitutional amendment to change the Fourteenth Amendment. Let's go. (There are really no sneaky "interpretations of the language" that could work. It has to be a for-real amendment. Sorry not sorry.)

Or SCOTUS could rule on birthright citizenship using an originalist interpretation

The original intent was clear. Lincoln signed Act to Encourage Immigration just ahead of 14A being ratified. The Supreme Court has been ruling on this original intent going back to the 1800s. Unfortunately for you, what you think is the original intent is not the actually original intent. 1898 Supreme Court backs up what I’m saying.

The Homestead Act of 1862 offered farm land to European immigrants right off the boat, and their children born here were to be citizens at birth. Everyone who voted for the 14th Amendment understood that they were going to fill up the Midwest and Plains with new birthright citizens.

Yet all that time Native Americans born on US soil were still not citizens and that only changed with congress in 1924 decades later.

These two cases should be treated differently:

1) A kid is born in the US with at least one legal permanent resident parent

2) A kid is born in the US without at least one legal permanent resident parent

Anonymous wrote:The law should be like the UK at least one parent is a citizen and in the case that isn't, they must be of legal status.

The other parent who isn't a citizen must be of legal immigration status

The law should be like the UK at least one parent is a citizen and in the case that isn't, they must be of legal status.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Let's make a trade. You can have your end to birthright citizenship and we'll get rid of these ridiculously permissive gun laws.

This would be my ideal swap. I don’t like either amendment so win win

If getting rid of birthright citizenship via executive action fails, I’d happily trade these. The second amendment was written during the time of ball and powder firearms.

But i want to see how this plays out in court. The only other cout case dealt solely with legal immigrants who have kids here.

Let’s challenge it and see what the courts say about undocumented migrants who have kids here.

Anonymous wrote:You are all posting as if children are born only to citizens or undocumented noncitizens. We have always had a lot of legal residents who are not citizens. Their children have always been citizens at birth. For a lot of our history, many foreign born women did not bother becoming naturalized even if they lived here for 30 years or more.

Legal foreign residents who have kids on U.S. soil was literally the crux of the Wong Kim Ark case. His parents were legal permanent residents when he was born here.

That’s the only thing that should be considered precedent.

Which, past “controlling” cases can and have been upended by the supreme court over multiple decades of court sessions.

But the entire basis of the argument that birthright citizenship for the kids of undocumented citizens doesn’t need to be changed with a constitutional amendment is because Wong Kim Ark was not in any way, shape, or form—about the children lf undocumented immigrants. It was only about the child of legal permanent residents.

But IMHO the issue is kids of illegal migrants who have to cross illegally because thry don’t have the qualifications necessary to come legally— not kids of permanent residents who have to jump through hoops to qualify for that status and are often economic boons.

Anonymous wrote:You are all posting as if children are born only to citizens or undocumented noncitizens. We have always had a lot of legal residents who are not citizens. Their children have always been citizens at birth. For a lot of our history, many foreign born women did not bother becoming naturalized even if they lived here for 30 years or more.

It's different now. I know of two women who got deported (different countries) in early 2000s while being married to American citizens for years and having children with them. Husbands stayed here with the kids.
Tragic, unfair, but they should have done the paperwork.
I am a legal immigrant, and you better believe I submitted my papers the moment I was eligible to apply for citizenship, and scraped together $$ for the filing fee.
https://www.uscis.gov/g-1055?form=n-400

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I couldn't agree more with you OP.

Common sense has left the country.

Well, the 14th amendment has been in existence for over a hundred years, but ok.

Why does MAGA hate our constitution?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s really not hard people.

Citizenship would only require at least one parent be a citizen. That’s pretty much it. So many other countries in the world have figured this out.

Not hard.

So if one parent is here illegally, but the other is a citizen (what about other legal status holders? Green Cards, student visas, etc.?), would the children still have birthright citizenship?

If both parents are here legally but not citizens when they had their children, what's their legal status? If those parents later become citizens, would the children get their citizenship at that point?

I feel that this will get complicated quickly. Maybe something along the lines of conferring citizenship to children born to parents who are both in the country on non-temporary legal status is less complicated?

It is not complicated. Every other country in the world has this figured out.


One parent here illegally and the other is legal? Children are citizens. Simple. The illegal parent can be deported. It is up to that family to decide how they want to remain together.

If both parents are here legally but aren’t citizens and have kids? The kids are not citizens. Easy. Just like every other country in the world. Grad students who study in Europe and have kids don’t automatically get citizenship for their kids just because they’re legally in say Germany or the UK as students. If the parents become citizens, they can apply for citizenship for ther children as well.


This really isn’t hard as everyone is trying to claim. Every country in the world has this figured out and has already dealt with all of these scenarios. It isn’t rocket science.

Sure, it wouldn't be impossible for the US to switch from being like every country in the Americas to being like countries in Europe. It would just take a constitutional amendment to change the Fourteenth Amendment. Let's go. (There are really no sneaky "interpretations of the language" that could work. It has to be a for-real amendment. Sorry not sorry.)

Or SCOTUS could rule on birthright citizenship using an originalist interpretation

The original intent was clear. Lincoln signed Act to Encourage Immigration just ahead of 14A being ratified. The Supreme Court has been ruling on this original intent going back to the 1800s. Unfortunately for you, what you think is the original intent is not the actually original intent. 1898 Supreme Court backs up what I’m saying.

The 14 amendment ensured citizenship to children born to African slaves brought to the US after importation of slaves was prohibited - i.e. illegally imported slaves’ children born in the US were guaranteed US citizenship. Given that, and the very strong history that supports the intent to grant birthright citizenship to all but diplomats and Native Americans, good luck trying to make up some other “originality intent”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s really not hard people.

Citizenship would only require at least one parent be a citizen. That’s pretty much it. So many other countries in the world have figured this out.

Not hard.

So if one parent is here illegally, but the other is a citizen (what about other legal status holders? Green Cards, student visas, etc.?), would the children still have birthright citizenship?

If both parents are here legally but not citizens when they had their children, what's their legal status? If those parents later become citizens, would the children get their citizenship at that point?

I feel that this will get complicated quickly. Maybe something along the lines of conferring citizenship to children born to parents who are both in the country on non-temporary legal status is less complicated?

It is not complicated. Every other country in the world has this figured out.


One parent here illegally and the other is legal? Children are citizens. Simple. The illegal parent can be deported. It is up to that family to decide how they want to remain together.

If both parents are here legally but aren’t citizens and have kids? The kids are not citizens. Easy. Just like every other country in the world. Grad students who study in Europe and have kids don’t automatically get citizenship for their kids just because they’re legally in say Germany or the UK as students. If the parents become citizens, they can apply for citizenship for ther children as well.


This really isn’t hard as everyone is trying to claim. Every country in the world has this figured out and has already dealt with all of these scenarios. It isn’t rocket science.

Sure, it wouldn't be impossible for the US to switch from being like every country in the Americas to being like countries in Europe. It would just take a constitutional amendment to change the Fourteenth Amendment. Let's go. (There are really no sneaky "interpretations of the language" that could work. It has to be a for-real amendment. Sorry not sorry.)

Or SCOTUS could rule on birthright citizenship using an originalist interpretation

The original intent was clear. Lincoln signed Act to Encourage Immigration just ahead of 14A being ratified. The Supreme Court has been ruling on this original intent going back to the 1800s. Unfortunately for you, what you think is the original intent is not the actually original intent. 1898 Supreme Court backs up what I’m saying.

The Homestead Act of 1862 offered farm land to European immigrants right off the boat, and their children born here were to be citizens at birth. Everyone who voted for the 14th Amendment understood that they were going to fill up the Midwest and Plains with new birthright citizens.

You are all posting as if children are born only to citizens or undocumented noncitizens. We have always had a lot of legal residents who are not citizens. Their children have always been citizens at birth. For a lot of our history, many foreign born women did not bother becoming naturalized even if they lived here for 30 years or more.