I'm a liberal and most of my friends are for ending birthright citizenship. It's a major loophole in the US that needs fixed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not on the list of the top 1000 concerns I have about this administration.

It's one of the things on the list of first things to change when Trump is sworn in. They seem to care a lot about it (although their knowledge of the issue is about on par with OP's).

Good.

This century onward it does nothing but generate illegal immigration and bad agents and overuse of social resources.

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?

So, how would it work in your mind? Someone on a valid visa (say H-1B) applies for a green card, gets it and waits 5 years and gets citizenship. Will that process stay or go? What happens to their three kids one of whom was born on the legal visa, one during GC and one after they became a citizen?

What about the same children scenario for folks that entered illegally and later 'normalized' and eventually became citizen?

Same as in Uk and europe.

You apply for your kids USA citizenship after they have legally lived here 5-10 years. Adults do the same. If you even want it.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Huh? You realize that people began settling here 400 years ago? That is a pretty long history.

And so you define the humans who were here millennia before that as…not people? Way to say the quiet part out loud.

DP. They weren't Americans, as in, citizens of the United States. Because there wasn't a United States yet.

250 years ago, there were 0 citizens then.

There was zero welfare benefits, ESOL, hospitals, charities, *free education* as well.

This days are long gone so get rid of it just like all the other developed countries already have.

Citizenship by birth plus open borders/ chronic visa overstays and zero enforcement is total BS.

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.

So more china and Mexico tourist births? Come on 90 day tourist visa and pop out a baby?

No. Cancel Citizenship by Birth.

It creates all @$$ backwards behaviors z

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.

+1

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?

NP. I think birthright citizenship is what has caused this country to become the massive economic engine it is. None of the countries you list has the economic productivity that the US does.

I’m actually fine with socially conservative immigrants voting. Voting is good overall, in the long term. People with a citizenship stake become more productive and after a few generations, they assimilate.

No they don’t. Not the unskilled, uneducated, illiterate ones who stay that way. Not even with “a few generations” of teen births.

Citizenship by birth should be amended away once a sophisticated government, economy, welfare, healthcare, tax, and education systems take over in the country.

Otherwise it’s constant freeloaders and illegal chain migration of freeloaders.

Clog up the ER rooms, create many problems in the public schools, culturally don’t understand taxes or insurance (even car insurance), and most family members work black market cash pay jobs.

Just look at the huge remittance figures. Half of central Americas GDP is black market cash payments from America.

So what all other countries do.

Babies get citizenship or their parents

Apply for citizenship after 10 years in the country and in good standing.

Everyone wants it gone.

For the last several decades it has created perverse incentives with anchor babies and economic migrants bringing kids (theirs or other relatives’) to hurry the detention line up and be released forever in USA.

Most countries got rid of it in the 1970s when Uk did.

It’s archaic.

But it takes a constitutional amendment so it’s a horse traded item as bills get larger and larger.

I have never actually heard a valid nor logical reason for keeping it in this day and age.

Unless you’re looking at it from the illegal immigrant perspective where the anchor baby/child on welfare is your meal ticket and decreases deportation risk for some invalid reasons. Deport them all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unlike mass deportation, I doubt this will come to be because it actually requires a constitutional amendment. But if it were to go through, it would apply only after a certain date.

This is a really hare-brained idea. Not even the crazed GOP is going to try to amend the constitution.

It can only happen if SCOTUS just does away with the 14th amendment. I’m sure there’s some originalist argument there. And who knows, maybe dispense with everything but the bill of rights. Could be useful. Take away voting rights from women and blacks, dispense with term limits.

Actually you do not need to change the 14th amendment.

It is not a blanket birthright citizenship claim there. It carves out some cases where it does not apply!


Here it is.

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.


The important part is “jurisdiction thereof”

This was written in to ex life citizenship for people in this country who are under the “jurisdiction” of their home countries.

This included children of diplomats who are serving a foreign country, their kids do not get citizenship.

Thai was also written to include children of for example of enemy soldiers in this country who have kids here, as they are under the jurisdiction of a foreign govt.


So no changes need to be made to the 14th amendment. All that needs to be done is get a legal case to the Supreme Court.

Then they can interprete illegal aliens as not under the jurisdiction of the United States, and are under the jurisdiction of their home countries. This no birthright citizenship.

Example is a Mexican National crosses the border in Texas, had a kid in Texas, then goes back to Mexico. They would still be legally Mexican citizens and under the jurisdiction of Mexico. Hence their kids would not be US citizens.

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?

I think most people support ending it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to throw out the relevant fourteenth amendment language:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

There are those who believe that the bolded language could be used to disqualify as citizens those born in the US whose parents are not legally in the U.S.

Could be a stretch.

I do know that the EU has raised a fuss about what they call "accidental Americans," those born in the US to European parents who have long left the US and have never claimed citizenship but get caught up in FATCA requirements for foreign bank reporting and taxes because of their US birth.

If they aren't subject to our jurisdiction, how then can we bring them before our courts at all? They either are or they are not; you can't pick and choose for which things they are or aren't.

This workaround has all sorts of immediately-obvious unforeseen problems.