Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a world where you can jump on a plane and land in the US, and have a baby a week later, and jump on a plane home, this just doesn't work. It has to be overhauled somehow.

In a world where you can kill a 100 people in a minute or so, this just doesn't work. The 2nd needs to be overhauled.

(Also my scenario actually happens yours never has)

Maternity tourism is very common.

But you go for it. Propose a new amendment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a world where you can jump on a plane and land in the US, and have a baby a week later, and jump on a plane home, this just doesn't work. It has to be overhauled somehow.

In a world where you can kill a 100 people in a minute or so, this just doesn't work. The 2nd needs to be overhauled.

(Also my scenario actually happens yours never has)

Anonymous wrote:In a world where you can jump on a plane and land in the US, and have a baby a week later, and jump on a plane home, this just doesn't work. It has to be overhauled somehow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least this got shut down quickly. I wonder if SCOTUS will stick to over 100 years of precedent or just toss that too.

Judge Enjoins EO Regarding Birthright Citizenship.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-01-23/us-judge-temporarily-blocks-trump-birthright-citizenship-order?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-businessweek&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=businessweek

"I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order," said Judge Coughenour

Did this judge consult with our resident expert here who recently discovered the words 'under the jurisdiction thereof'?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If two wrongs don’t make a right, than how can 2 illegals make a legal?

Times were different when that was enacted. It does need to be overhauled.

Congress should get together on it, then. POTUS can help start those negotiations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least this got shut down quickly. I wonder if SCOTUS will stick to over 100 years of precedent or just toss that too.

Judge Enjoins EO Regarding Birthright Citizenship.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-01-23/us-judge-temporarily-blocks-trump-birthright-citizenship-order?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-businessweek&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=businessweek

"I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order," said Judge Coughenour

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least this got shut down quickly. I wonder if SCOTUS will stick to over 100 years of precedent or just toss that too.

Judge Enjoins EO Regarding Birthright Citizenship.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-01-23/us-judge-temporarily-blocks-trump-birthright-citizenship-order?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-businessweek&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=businessweek

"I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order," said Judge Coughenour

Anonymous wrote:At least this got shut down quickly. I wonder if SCOTUS will stick to over 100 years of precedent or just toss that too.

Judge Enjoins EO Regarding Birthright Citizenship.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-01-23/us-judge-temporarily-blocks-trump-birthright-citizenship-order?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-businessweek&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=businessweek

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the major problems is the practice of "anchor babies".

Usha Vance is an anchor baby.

I’m the same kind of “anchor baby” as Usha Vance (born in the US to two Indian parents here on student visas), and also a Democrat who voted for Harris. I don’t think the legal basis for the EO is sound based on the language of the 14th Amendment, but I’m fine with the policy. Birthright citizenship is pretty dumb in this day and age.

My parents got their green cards when I was in elementary school and were naturalized when I was 12. I think it would have been perfectly reasonable for me to become a naturalized citizen, as their minor child, at the same time as them. That’s the type of policy change that would affect the children of legal immigrants and it’s the commonly used method for citizenship for the children of immigrants in most other first world countries. It’s not inhumane or really a bad policy at all.

I guess one big change is that those people (born 30 days after the EO unless the courts strike it down) can't run for the presidency. Also, the immigration system is dysfunctional as is, do we really need to add more complications to it? (I know these things get processed as families, but still...) Finally, I think birthright citizenship makes the US special in a good way. No matter where you come from, if your kids are born here, they're American. This is not the case in Europe and it takes immigrants much longer to integrate as a result.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If two wrongs don’t make a right, than how can 2 illegals make a legal?

Times were different when that was enacted. It does need to be overhauled.