One of the major problems is the practice of "anchor babies".

Anonymous wrote:
If you are a US citizen you have to pay taxes in the US. Isn't that a problem if someone was born here, leaves and stays in their home country and works later? Can someone educate me on that?

Is it really a problem. If Joe Bloggs has Irish/US citizenship and works in Ireland, he is meant to also submit a US tax return but claim a credit for any Irish taxes paid. Given income tax is generally higher in Ireland, it means he wouldn’t end up pay tax here. It ends up a paper shuffling exercise.

One of the reasons for the huge backlash against Democrats was the fact they exacerbated and failed to deal with illegal immigration (they only really tried too late and were then thwarted). While birthright citizenship is only one issue of many, wouldn’t it be in their interests to at least deal with it now? Could it be used as a bargain chip for also resolving the dreamer issue which would be a huge win?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, the United States finally joins the rest of the world in 2025 where citizenship requires at least one parent be a citizen. Way to go with common sense USA. Birthright citizenship as it was previously done was nutso.

Sorry, but this EO is unconstitutional.

If you don't like the Fourteenth Amendment, then propose an amendment to change it.

Scotus will uphold it

The mother and father's citizenship and status are not on the birth certificate.

This is going to create thousands, millions of stateless babies. When we need all the people we can get, as we approach population decline.

I’m ambivalent on this… It won’t hold in the courts. If Republicans want to take action on this, they can try to amend the constitution. However, good luck getting 2/3s of both houses and 3/4 of state legislatures to pass this.

Also, to be clear, these babies would not be stateless. They would receive the citizenship of their parents’ home country. It’s called jus sanguini-citizenship through the blood

Not every country has jus sanguinis, or straightforward jus sanguinis. Relative to the biases noted in this thread, for example, India and China do not have straightforward jus sanguinis.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am glad I live in Virginia and not a state choosing up spend its money to fight this. If you are against the EO you get the brilliant legal minds of Letitia James, Keith Ellison, and Rob Bonta fighting for you.

In Virginia, our "brilliant mind" AG is a dumdum. Not sure why you think that's a good thing.

Virginia's AG, Jason Miyares, is the son of a Cuban mother - he probably wouldn't be a citizen if this were in effect when he was born.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have good friends in the US on work visas. I think they have Green Cards, but I’m not sure. Their 14 year old and 7 year old haven’t ever lived anywhere else. The idea, in the future, that children born in those circumstances could be “sent back” seems complicated or disturbing to me. In cases where the children might not have family or know the language it seems pretty inhumane.

Im reading it as - if you came here illegally, your kids can't be a US citizen. If you came here legally, but aren't yourself a US citizen, they can be a US citizen.

No, the EO is specific in allowing citizenship only for children of US citizens and permanent residents. Guest workers, though they are here legally, are not eligible.

Work visas are dual intent. People on work visas can apply for green cards, and many do.

They can't apply, employers must sponsor and it's not automatic at all.

Not automatic, but not especially hard, either.
Most people on H1 visas eventually get Green cards and American citizenship. Absent criminal history it takes exceptional bad luck not to convert a skilled worker visa into a Green card status for self, spouse and kids.

All it takes is one unwilling employer.

Citizenship is a privilege, not a right.
Even legal guest workers are not automatically entitled to US citizenship, illegal aliens - even less so.

That's correct. And thanks to that privilege, you now have a foreign-born First Lady, a second lady who was born in the US to foreigners on student visas, and a shadow president who was born in South Africa and later attained US citizenship despite having committed visa fraud at some point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have good friends in the US on work visas. I think they have Green Cards, but I’m not sure. Their 14 year old and 7 year old haven’t ever lived anywhere else. The idea, in the future, that children born in those circumstances could be “sent back” seems complicated or disturbing to me. In cases where the children might not have family or know the language it seems pretty inhumane.

Im reading it as - if you came here illegally, your kids can't be a US citizen. If you came here legally, but aren't yourself a US citizen, they can be a US citizen.

No, the EO is specific in allowing citizenship only for children of US citizens and permanent residents. Guest workers, though they are here legally, are not eligible.

Work visas are dual intent. People on work visas can apply for green cards, and many do.

They can't apply, employers must sponsor and it's not automatic at all.

Not automatic, but not especially hard, either.
Most people on H1 visas eventually get Green cards and American citizenship. Absent criminal history it takes exceptional bad luck not to convert a skilled worker visa into a Green card status for self, spouse and kids.

All it takes is one unwilling employer.

Citizenship is a privilege, not a right.
Even legal guest workers are not automatically entitled to US citizenship, illegal aliens - even less so.

If you are a US citizen you have to pay taxes in the US. Isn't that a problem if someone was born here, leaves and stays in their home country and works later? Can someone educate me on that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am glad I live in Virginia and not a state choosing up spend its money to fight this. If you are against the EO you get the brilliant legal minds of Letitia James, Keith Ellison, and Rob Bonta fighting for you.

If you are for this EO, you're against the Constitution and traditional lawmaking processes. So why are you living in Virginia?

Explain to me how the EO is unconstitutional? Provide case citations as the plain language of the amendment caveats that those born here must be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I’m the PP poster that explained this is a matter of interpretation, just like the authority of Congress to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a matter of interpretation.

"Subject to the jurisdiction" means that somebody, unless specifically excluded, who is physically present on US soil is under the authority of the US government and its legal system. Being subject to the jurisdiction is how illegal immigrants are rounded up and deported in the first place.

You're the pretend lawyer who has been posting here so do your own research on 150 years of precedent. Go ahead and log into your Westlaw instance and tell us what you find.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am glad I live in Virginia and not a state choosing up spend its money to fight this. If you are against the EO you get the brilliant legal minds of Letitia James, Keith Ellison, and Rob Bonta fighting for you.

If you are for this EO, you're against the Constitution and traditional lawmaking processes. So why are you living in Virginia?

Explain to me how the EO is unconstitutional? Provide case citations as the plain language of the amendment caveats that those born here must be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I’m the PP poster that explained this is a matter of interpretation, just like the authority of Congress to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a matter of interpretation.

First step: what would it mean to be not subject to the jurisdiction of the US?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am glad I live in Virginia and not a state choosing up spend its money to fight this. If you are against the EO you get the brilliant legal minds of Letitia James, Keith Ellison, and Rob Bonta fighting for you.

If you are for this EO, you're against the Constitution and traditional lawmaking processes. So why are you living in Virginia?

Explain to me how the EO is unconstitutional? Provide case citations as the plain language of the amendment caveats that those born here must be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I’m the PP poster that explained this is a matter of interpretation, just like the authority of Congress to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a matter of interpretation.

You can find the case law. It’s not a secret.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have good friends in the US on work visas. I think they have Green Cards, but I’m not sure. Their 14 year old and 7 year old haven’t ever lived anywhere else. The idea, in the future, that children born in those circumstances could be “sent back” seems complicated or disturbing to me. In cases where the children might not have family or know the language it seems pretty inhumane.

Im reading it as - if you came here illegally, your kids can't be a US citizen. If you came here legally, but aren't yourself a US citizen, they can be a US citizen.

No, the EO is specific in allowing citizenship only for children of US citizens and permanent residents. Guest workers, though they are here legally, are not eligible.

Work visas are dual intent. People on work visas can apply for green cards, and many do.

They can't apply, employers must sponsor and it's not automatic at all.

Not automatic, but not especially hard, either.
Most people on H1 visas eventually get Green cards and American citizenship. Absent criminal history it takes exceptional bad luck not to convert a skilled worker visa into a Green card status for self, spouse and kids.

All it takes is one unwilling employer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am glad I live in Virginia and not a state choosing up spend its money to fight this. If you are against the EO you get the brilliant legal minds of Letitia James, Keith Ellison, and Rob Bonta fighting for you.

If you are for this EO, you're against the Constitution and traditional lawmaking processes. So why are you living in Virginia?

Explain to me how the EO is unconstitutional? Provide case citations as the plain language of the amendment caveats that those born here must be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I’m the PP poster that explained this is a matter of interpretation, just like the authority of Congress to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a matter of interpretation.

Anonymous wrote:I am glad I live in Virginia and not a state choosing up spend its money to fight this. If you are against the EO you get the brilliant legal minds of Letitia James, Keith Ellison, and Rob Bonta fighting for you.

In Virginia, our "brilliant mind" AG is a dumdum. Not sure why you think that's a good thing.

Anonymous wrote:I am glad I live in Virginia and not a state choosing up spend its money to fight this. If you are against the EO you get the brilliant legal minds of Letitia James, Keith Ellison, and Rob Bonta fighting for you.

If you are for this EO, you're against the Constitution and traditional lawmaking processes. So why are you living in Virginia?