Anonymous wrote:The 14th amendment is written worse than most posts on this board.

Its intent was to guarantee blacks and really ancestors or slaves the right to vote and ensure they were treated as actual US citizens.

The bozos who wrote did not think about the illegals and tourist birthing having kids here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There are thousands of moms here legally on a tourist visa coming to visit and oops having the baby while they are here. A bunch of Chineses, Russians, Brazilians having babies in Miami, Pakistanis coming, having their babies and going back to their country. I mean…it is not possible people don’t see it as a huge problem.

I thought the problems that Republicans have with illegal immigration are 1) criminals coming here and 2) poor people coming here and costing taxpayers money and 3) immigrants taking jobs from our citizens. Birth tourism doesn’t involve any of those.

Anonymous wrote:OP, there are a lot of things we are stuck with because it's very hard to pass a constitutional amendment. It's why you have to register your car, but not your handgun, and why the popular vote doesn't matter. The sooner you accept that, the happier you will be.

Anonymous wrote:Its part of what makes America great. If you are born here, you are one of us. I realize that there is some degree of "birth tourism," so I could be convinced (perhaps) to exclude babies born to women here on tourist visas, but I think in general birthright citizenship is one of the sources of our country's strength.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Why is this hard to understand. You apply for citizenship while you have a green card. If you have kids while on a green card, they're not citizens but citizens of your home country. You simply apply for their citizenship as well. The kid born after you are a citizen is a citizen.

As if this same scenario doesn't happen in Germany, the UK, or Japan. Not hard to figure out. You act like this is advanced calculus and no other countries in the world have this figured out.

Anonymous wrote:I actually don’t care. But it takes a constitutional amendment to do away with it, and I want something big in return: eliminate the electoral college, repeal 2A, or add “privacy” (abortion, gay marriage, contraception) protections to the constitution. Any of those are a fair trade. Otherwise, I’ll keep watching conservative tears.

Anonymous wrote:Republicans absolutely don't have the votes for it. But I would support denying people birthright citizenship if both parents are here illegally.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And, like diplomats and their children, they are not subject to our jurisdiction. So traffic violations, small crimes, large crimes, immunity for all of it.

Your "easy" solution is a huge problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There are thousands of moms here legally on a tourist visa coming to visit and oops having the baby while they are here. A bunch of Chineses, Russians, Brazilians having babies in Miami, Pakistanis coming, having their babies and going back to their country. I mean…it is not possible people don’t see it as a huge problem.

While we all focus on the mainland, I read somewhere that American Samoa is crawling with chinese tourists who show up there just to give birth. Also helps that chinese dominate the economy there and provide a bunch of jobs.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.