Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+100

Not sure why people cannot wrap their brains around that idea. Legal status means nothing. Citizenship only if at least one parent is a citizen. Virtually every other country does this.

NP. You need to also include permanent residents (green cards). Permanent residents are people who the US government has agreed can stay here and set up a life here forever. We are immigrants and while our kids have citizenships of our other countries (since one parent has that citizenship), our kids have never left the US and may never.

Nope.

You can obtain long term residency in many countries in the world. It doesn't make you a citizen.

Anonymous wrote:

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

+100

Not sure why people cannot wrap their brains around that idea. Legal status means nothing. Citizenship only if at least one parent is a citizen. Virtually every other country does this.

I’m not sure why you can’t wrap your brain around the 14th amendment.

Love how people who benefitted from birthright citizenship now want to pull the ladder up behind them. LOL. All because scary brown people from the south are coming here and they don't like it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+100

Not sure why people cannot wrap their brains around that idea. Legal status means nothing. Citizenship only if at least one parent is a citizen. Virtually every other country does this.

NP. You need to also include permanent residents (green cards). Permanent residents are people who the US government has agreed can stay here and set up a life here forever. We are immigrants and while our kids have citizenships of our other countries (since one parent has that citizenship), our kids have never left the US and may never.

Why don’t you become a citizen? I think parents should demonstrate commitment to becoming citizens if they want their kids to be citizens. If someone is a permanent resident waiting to become a citizen, their kids can be granted citizenship when the parents become citizens.

Anonymous wrote:

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

+100

Not sure why people cannot wrap their brains around that idea. Legal status means nothing. Citizenship only if at least one parent is a citizen. Virtually every other country does this.

NP. You need to also include permanent residents (green cards). Permanent residents are people who the US government has agreed can stay here and set up a life here forever. We are immigrants and while our kids have citizenships of our other countries (since one parent has that citizenship), our kids have never left the US and may never.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the 14th amendment is a problem, they can at least deal with anchor babies, and deny visas, including temporary ones, to the parents who came in to give birth and get citizenship for their kids.

? anchor babies are given citizenship by the 14th.

And deny the parents for lying on their tourist visa application about pregnancy.

Naturalization needs to be tightened up. Three years of residency is way too short a time period. This used to be seven years.

So that's why there are no security issues in Europe (sarcasm). As someone who has dealt with the current US immigration system in many ways over the last few decades, the only thing I guarantee this would do is jam up our immigration system (which is already clogged) even further

I'll take the same stance as the 2A purists: it's in the Constitution - deal with it.

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

I’m a direct beneficiary of birthright citizenship (i.e., was born in the US to two immigrant parents who were then on student visas and became US citizens when I was 12) and I think either the first option or the more restrictive option suggested by the PP is fair. Kids in my situation would receive their parents’ citizenship at birth and would become US citizens automatically when at least one of their parents do. If the whole family leaves without either parent ever becoming a citizen, there’s no automatic claim to citizenship. Maybe we establish a fast-track for kids who were born and spent time here as a child, but left the country before obtaining citizenship through a parent (if they return to the US and spend a certain amount of time here).

Given that US citizens are obviously eligible for government benefits (and while they’re not as robust as what you find in the EU, they exist), it makes sense to me to put some restrictions on who is eligible for citizenship in today’s world. The 14A was written in a completely different one, and just like I support updating the 2A for the world we live in today, I think this one also needs some revisions. I do think it is a big draw for potential undocumented migrants that any children born in the US will be citizens. Eliminating that will probably voluntarily stop a lot of people from coming.

I agree that the logistics of this change will be very difficult, and I don’t really trust Republicans to handle that competently. I don’t have any issues from an ethical or policy perspective, but that will be a big problem.

Only since 19204 has birth right citizenship been instated it's not something for 100s of years.

This is clearly outdated because no one could have thought the global travel and easy immigration would be a thing so it's time to add additional rules

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, also known as the Snyder Act, granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the United States:
Background
Before the act, Native Americans were not automatically citizens of the United States, and their citizenship status was based on factors like descent, gender, and tribal affiliation.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please cite what I said that wasn’t true so that I need to “learn some history.” Ever heard of dual citizenship? Because that’s what babies born on our soil can access no under birthright.

Good lord. This entire thread is a testament to how shitty our US history and civics education is in this country.

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.

In many cases, that is because US law provided the when the head of the family was naturalized, the wife and children also gained citizenship at the same time.

This happened to my grandmother's family - father arrived in the 1890s, mother and eldest child arrived 1 year later, subsequent children born in the US. Father naturalized and wife and eldest child also automatically become citizens. Neither wife nor eldest had to file individual naturalization paperwork. I don't know how long the law was like that (but it was a long time)

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

+100

Not sure why people cannot wrap their brains around that idea. Legal status means nothing. Citizenship only if at least one parent is a citizen. Virtually every other country does this.