Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the Supreme Court will rule an illegal allied is not eligible to have their kids get citizenship, but a legal resident will

What is an illegal allied?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will this also end birth tourism by wealthy white foreigners? Inquiring minds would like to know.

We should eliminate dual citizenship before ending birthright citizenship. In many cases the one would cancel out the other for such examples as yours.

Spoken like a true ignoramus. Dual citizenship is conferred by the foreign country. We know who you MAGAs want to target with this law.

.
You are a moron living in a tiny bubble.

There are many countries that don't allow dual citizenship. A country can refuse to allow it (or rescind it) regardless of whether another country confers a second citizenship (i.e., you automatically lose it if you get a second one).

Furthermore, allowing for dual citizenship that you can "buy" as an adult, enables a certain privilege mostly for the wealthy that allows certain loopholes and circumventions. It's crazy that people have 4, 5 or even more passports.

People like Elon, Melania and Barron?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will this also end birth tourism by wealthy white foreigners? Inquiring minds would like to know.

We should eliminate dual citizenship before ending birthright citizenship. In many cases the one would cancel out the other for such examples as yours.

Spoken like a true ignoramus. Dual citizenship is conferred by the foreign country. We know who you MAGAs want to target with this law.

.
You are a moron living in a tiny bubble.

There are many countries that don't allow dual citizenship. A country can refuse to allow it (or rescind it) regardless of whether another country confers a second citizenship (i.e., you automatically lose it if you get a second one).

Furthermore, allowing for dual citizenship that you can "buy" as an adult, enables a certain privilege mostly for the wealthy that allows certain loopholes and circumventions. It's crazy that people have 4, 5 or even more passports.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will this also end birth tourism by wealthy white foreigners? Inquiring minds would like to know.

We should eliminate dual citizenship before ending birthright citizenship. In many cases the one would cancel out the other for such examples as yours.

Spoken like a true ignoramus. Dual citizenship is conferred by the foreign country. We know who you MAGAs want to target with this law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will this also end birth tourism by wealthy white foreigners? Inquiring minds would like to know.

We should eliminate dual citizenship before ending birthright citizenship. In many cases the one would cancel out the other for such examples as yours.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would this make child born to the undocumented after the executive order stateless?

They should be citizens of the country their parents are from?


If I had a kid while on vacation in France, they would be American citizens since I am

There have been a few countries in the past 30 years that no longer exist. Ex. Yugoslavia

Let's say someone was born in Yugoslavia in 1990, came here illegally, and has a child next year when SCOTUS changes the definition of the 14th. What country would this child be a citizen of?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess everyone will have to apply for US citizenship after birth rights are stripped away? How will that work?

Will Trump only approve a few hundred loyalists per state and only these people will be allowed to vote? I could see SCUTUS embracing this.

Doubt the law would be applied retroactively, otherwise millions of US citizens would be in trouble. The courts would be filled with appeals for decades. Law would only be applied going forward.

It would be all citizens and it will be retroactive. Trump and the Republicans want to do away with birthright citizenship. If it no longer exist you are not a citizen because of birth. Everyone who is a citizen because of birthright will have to apply to DHS for permanent citizenship.

There is no tier system of birthright citizenship. You are either born in the US or you are not. If you can arbitrarily strip citizenship from some birthright citizens there is no birthright citizenship. Trump could easily add other categories where birthright citizenship would be stripped. Like declaring anyone born in California does not have birthright citizenship. How would that impact a national election?

Trump has already said he wants to strip citizenship from democrats, anyone who criticizes Israel and disloyal republicans. This is what this is about. It has nothing to do with the few “illegals” who have babies in this country.

Remember with immigration they talked about criminals illegals being rounded up and deported -only the murders and rapes. That became round up all immigrants and deported them.

The question is do you trust Trump and the Republicans to not strip you and your family of US citizenship?

Anonymous wrote:Welp—say goodbye to birthright citizenship!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess everyone will have to apply for US citizenship after birth rights are stripped away? How will that work?

Will Trump only approve a few hundred loyalists per state and only these people will be allowed to vote? I could see SCUTUS embracing this.

Doubt the law would be applied retroactively, otherwise millions of US citizens would be in trouble. The courts would be filled with appeals for decades. Law would only be applied going forward.

Anonymous wrote:Will this also end birth tourism by wealthy white foreigners? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Up until the 20 August 1986, regardless of the parents’ immigration status, all babies born in Australia became Australian citizens. In 1986 Australia passed a law that banned automatic birthright citizenship for babies. Instead citizenship is tied to parental status rather than birthplace.

Ireland abolished birthright citizenship after a June 2004 poll, when 79% of voters approved a constitutional amendment requiring at least one parent to be a citizen, permanent resident, or legal temporary resident. The government said change was needed because foreign women were travelling to Ireland to give birth in order to get an EU passport for their babies.

New Zealand adopted ended birthright citizenship in 2006.

Way too many women are flying into the United States, giving birth to get their kids a US passport and then flying home. It is estimated that 30,000 birth tourism babies are born in the United States but the total number of babies are really unknown.

There needs to be a differentiation between someone who has worked in the US for 10 years or more who has a child and someone who has been in the US for a month and has no intention of staying.

Notice how all those countries CHANGED THE LAW and didn’t just have a court magically declare that the law means something different than it did for more than a century? If you want this, amend the constitution. Until you do, birthright citizenship is the law.

The Supremacy Court has never directly ruled on this issue. It won't be "magically" declared.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Up until the 20 August 1986, regardless of the parents’ immigration status, all babies born in Australia became Australian citizens. In 1986 Australia passed a law that banned automatic birthright citizenship for babies. Instead citizenship is tied to parental status rather than birthplace.

Ireland abolished birthright citizenship after a June 2004 poll, when 79% of voters approved a constitutional amendment requiring at least one parent to be a citizen, permanent resident, or legal temporary resident. The government said change was needed because foreign women were travelling to Ireland to give birth in order to get an EU passport for their babies.

New Zealand adopted ended birthright citizenship in 2006.

Way too many women are flying into the United States, giving birth to get their kids a US passport and then flying home. It is estimated that 30,000 birth tourism babies are born in the United States but the total number of babies are really unknown.

There needs to be a differentiation between someone who has worked in the US for 10 years or more who has a child and someone who has been in the US for a month and has no intention of staying.

Notice how all those countries CHANGED THE LAW and didn’t just have a court magically declare that the law means something different than it did for more than a century? If you want this, amend the constitution. Until you do, birthright citizenship is the law.

The Supremacy Court has never directly ruled on this issue. It won't be "magically" declared.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/05/politics/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-birthright

I don’t see how revoking birthright citizenship is even remotely constitutional

Well this was done for former slaves so the administration will argue that the emancipation proclamation ended slavery. Get ready this court will revoke.

2A was in response to the revolution against the British. That ended 200+ years ago. So can we revoke the 2A, too?