Birthright Citizenship

The pregnant Russian women who flew here, stayed in that Trump hotel in Florida and gave birth here would not be considered “undocumented” since they had a tourist visa. So maybe make living here a certain number of years, 2-3? as a requirement. I’m not concerned with Mexicans who cross the border because they are looking for a better life but wealthy Russians/Chinese are scamming the system.

I think this is a rare situation where we are right and the rest of the world is wrong. If you're born in a country and that country is all you've ever known, it's only right that you should get citizenship. There are already exceptions for the children of diplomats.

If child is born here, they should be nationality of parents, unless mother or father is an American. Friend is RN at Jamaica Medical Center, closest hospital to JFK. She said within a week of due date, women fly in, stay at nearby motel and show up at ED when they go into labor. Staffers know their countries wouldn't allow this scam.

So what?

The law is the law. I can't fucking stand the Russian and Chinese people who exploit our immigration laws, but the baby shouldn't be thrown out with the bathwater so to speak.

I split my time between the US and Europe, and even though European countries don't tend to have birthright citizenship, they seem stricter on questioning the motives of visitors. If a pregnant woman arrives in an airport and there's reason to believe she'll stay in the country, they'll ship her ass back to where she came from. They also identify countries with high rates of illegal immigration, and force citizens of those countries to jump through more hoops to get permission to get on the plane in their home country.

It’s not up for debate. If you want to get rid of it, you’d need to amend the Constitution. You won't be able to do that. Trump can’t wave his sharpie.

Exactly —go back and unamend the Constitution and the common law before that. Or shut up.

I don't think the solution is to punish non-citizen parents for having their child here. I think its simply either-or - either keep on allowing it for all births per the Constitution or complete the long and arduous process of changing the Constitution.

SCOTUS can and will reinterpret the meaning of the term “all persons born or naturalized” to exclude children born to those in the country illegally.

It’s obvious what’s going to happen here.

R6 - I believe the intent of the amendment was fulfilled in granting slaves citizenship.

But now it has been abused - nobody can deny that. I don't believe our forefathers could foresee the ease of travel and people coming into the country just for this purpose.

It should be changed so that you have your parents' citizenship, which is how most of the world's countries policies are made.

We all know it was a loophole that needed to be closed decades ago. Times change. You should not be given citizenship to a country because your non-citizen parents just happen to be in that location at the time of your birth.

No American would expect to be a British national if they were birthed in the UK on holiday. It's an insane and outdated law.

That all makes sense. But then they should change the law; not reinterpret the existing law. Many people have thought it was "insane" for a while - yet the interpretation never changed.

R9 I believe in birthright citizenship but it wouldn’t be terrible and even unpractical to be interpreted literally like that. I mean we currently give born citizenship status to any child born abroad to parents who are citizens. My question is do both parents have to be citizens and does the class of citizenship—born vs other affect if the abroad child gets birthright citizenship. Basically when a law does more harm than good it must be changed or reinterpreted. Same with the fucking right to bear arms. We gotta be sensitive to unforeseen consequences but would it really be that bad. If one only was granted birthright citizenship via a mom or parents that are citizen anchor babies and rich scammers would immediately halt. I even think illegal immigration would decline. It would cease but it would decline. Because people would know they need to make a life and be sufficient before stating a family. I’m not trying to bash undocumented Mexicans but the current status quote allows gives an even greater inventive for them to illegally migrate here outside of job opportunities because they know they are going to get EBT for their kids and thus themselves, healthcare for their kids, and their kids can never be deported even if they murder someone because they are a birthright citizen. On the same token it might create some problems when if people get deported and their born in USA soil but not citizen children become wards of the state as the state determines whether they should deport the children or grant them citizenship.

Anything to keep more Russians out of the US I'm all for. They're fucking sociopaths.

Deport the parents, give them the option to take the child or be placed in foster care and ban the parents from entering the US. The children born this way are still US citizens and can return at age 18 or stay in their other country or parent's origin. This should be across the board. Special waivers for medical issues for the children born here are needed as well.

R12 - I believe many countries require one parent to be a citizen.

And you're right - the kids born here are then given all sorts of rights and benefits. Let's not forget the ones here on work Visas - who then have kids here and have an easier path to citizenship.

This is not a conservative or liberal viewpoint and I wish everyone would stop painting it like it is.

It is a concept that was adopted across a lot of North American and even some South American countries - most likely to promote immigration, I would presume.

However, I am dubious that we need the immigration like we used to decades or a century ago. I don't think we do. We need migration and job training. There are just certain areas of this country that are dead/dying and people need a way out. Why not help them move and relocate to where jobs are?

The rich Chinese, Russians, and Arabs will stop doing so as the country goes to hell. The dollar lost 10% of its value in the first 6 months of Trump's presidency. There are more bad things in the pipeline. After Trump is finished, birthright citizenship will be a non-issue.

R16 - First world country citizenship will always have value - don't kid yourself. And rich Russians and Chinese can now buy ciitzenship through Trump for $5 million.

It's not extremely wealthy people that is a concern. They're not going to go on benefits and they have tons of loopholes anyway.

R17 Agreed and you know what else has crossed my mind lately. I never really thought about it because I often forget about birth tourism, but…espionage. I bet the next big espionage crime will involve some natural born citizen millennial born to parents who are at best— spies, at worst—terrorists. He or she or they will have done some treacherous shit in accord with their foreign allegiance. Scary to think about this day and age.

R9 and r10 share one thing: full of nonsense.

R12 hates America. And never studied our history.

There are two fears with every immigrant - Have they broken some law and will they break laws in our country.

There are two fears with every gay person - Have they fucked kids and will they be fucking our kids.

Protect the immigrant and you protect the country. Fuck this needledicks.

R21 likes bumper stickers policies.

Legal immigration is legal - don't know what you're going on about. Coming here to have kids on US soil to obtain citizenship for benefits and perks is abusing the system.

And no - we know many immigrants do not give a F*** about laws at all.

R22, no.

You know nationalized healthcare would be very affordable. You know the vast majority of immigrants do not commit crimes.

You’re being a very fat, ugly baby. Please stop. Lose weight. Adopt a rescue pet. Deliver a spiral cut ham to the next funeral. Try a threesome. Do a something.

R10 who taught you American history. Congress expressly declined to limit benefits of 14th amendment citizenship to ex-slaves.. It was intentionally written more broadly than that. Common law prior to its adoption already assumed birthright citizenship… going back to the founding.

Why do you hate the American idea so much ?

R23 - so you think people should take flights here or overextend their visas and have kids and they should have US citizenship?

There IS a problem with immigration and birthright citizenship being exploited. Everyone knows this on both sides.

Maybe you should turn off your TikTok, read a book, and get some perspective instead of having a knee-jerk support for anyone and everything without thinking.

Grow up - then go touch grass.

If only white folk would have granted black folk 40 acres and mule and instant citizenship because it’s common fucking sense that they gotta be citizens since they won the Civil War and are now free. But no they had to get all governmenty and pass sweeping legislation. Now we’re in this mess.

[quote]I definitely think it should stay— just because of the complicated history of race in this country.

TF are you talking about?

Birthright citizenship is going. Democrats won’t win the next two elections. This is the easiest thing Republicans are going to get rid of.

Is that Bizzaro Teacake above ^^

WTF

R25 read the damn 14th amendment. Then die in a grease fire.

Once again, your fears are based upon possibility instead of experience, R25. You’re not a coward. This country sucks up the blood from immigrants and we need the desperately.

It’s not the ones you may want, but these are the ones willing to take the gamble.

You were told to only trust your god. It’s on your currency. Immigrants are no more a burden than one of Emo’s twenty kids or all the medicaid frauds in Amish towns across America.

You are going racist and pretending that’s not what it is. Shame on you.

R30 calls anyone who questions existing immigration policy and birthright citizenship - let's get this right - fat, ugly, a baby, non-sexed and now racist?

I know you have your fists balled up next to your crinoline skirts as you're thinking of more outrageous insults to say because you can't defend your stance with logic, facts or reason.

Your front door is right there - unlock it and walk outside to touch grass. It's summer.

Illegal immigration is a problem. Birthright citizenship is a problem. H1B work Visas are a problem. We cannot be a dumping ground for everyone. Nobody is saying that we should get rid of immigration - but that rules and laws need to be changed due to abuse. And all 3 that I mentioned are being abused.

Nobody even mentioned race - you reactionist idiot.

So what are you going to do about all the American citizens by birth here now whose parents weren't here legally?

Two tiers of citizenship?

How will that work?

Because Trump isn't gonna grandfather anybody in.

R32 - almost all laws have an effective date and rarely claw-back rights or create criminality based on events prior to the establishment of the law.

R31 your ignorance is showing. Just since the 24th Amendment reconfirmed our common law, there have been at least 7 major historical waves of immigration—we are hardly at the greatest point now. We survived, and thrived, with birthright and naturalization.

R32 can’t be serious. It has be trolling at this point. You’d have to be an idiot to think this law is going to be retroactive. Think of the scope of everything. Come on. Any adult weighing in on this thread would know that. The economy and culture of SoCal would collapse on itself.

[quote] SCOTUS can and will reinterpret the meaning of the term “all persons born or naturalized” to exclude children born to those in the country illegally.

It cannot. There is only one way to interpret that clause.

[quote] SCOTUS can and will reinterpret the meaning of the term “all persons born or naturalized” to exclude children born to those in the country illegally.

That’s not the loophole. The words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereto” are what the MAGAs rely on, arguing that unauthorized aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, even though the words have been interpreted by SCOTUS to exclude only children born to diplomats and invading armies.

SCOTUS certainly is not shy about overturning precedent and erasing parts of the Constitution, but this would be an extraordinarily disruptive move.

[quote] I believe the intent of the amendment was fulfilled in granting slaves citizenship.

Another MAGA talking point. The status of the former slaves was certainly the key motivation for the 14th Amendment, but If they had meant to limit the citizenship to former slaves, they would have just said so. They chose broader language.

"First world country citizenship will always have value - don't kid yourself."

Perhaps, but nothing says we always have to be a "first world" country. Trump is doing his damnedest to make that happen. The dollar is weakening, the money is being handed to just the richest of the rich, he is destroying the universities and journalism, we are rounding up people and deporting them without notice, etc. We're on track to being Hungary.. So that "citizenship" won't be so shiny after all.

One reason the language of the 14th Amendment was broad was to clarify then-existing law. Birthright citizenship was recognized as the law in most of the US before the 14th Amendment, but some state laws provided otherwise. The 14th Amendment not only clarified the status of former slaves (overturning Dred Scott), it also provided for uniform national law.

Answer the question, R35. It's an obvious question, so you should be able to. Go ahead. Explain how it'll work. Explain exactly how ICE thugs will differentiate between the ones born here with illegal parents and the ones who are just illegal. Explain how ICE will tell them apart. What will the procedure be?

R39 It also the reason why Latinos and or anyone who decides to go that route of making a better life for themselves but illegally coming here, can’t just be deported like Trump is doing. They must have due process.

R33 it’s not a statute, it’s the damn Constitution

14th*

R34

[quote] It cannot. There is only one way to interpret that clause.

Not according to the SCOTUS. See Roe.

Neither Roe nor Dobbs addressed the citizenship clause. JHC

R40 - I'm not R35, but a birth certificate?

So you’ll need to have an original long form Certificate on your person at all times?

R12 people get free healthcare in Mexico and all over the world. Republicans spread the myth that people are coming here for "free stuff" to justify attacking immigrants (most of whom work hard - why do you think ICE is targeting workplaces?)

R27, Republicans couldn't even win the midterms in 2022, even with Biden having low approval ratings. But Trump's popularity is in the toilet and you think they're going to win?

R25, studies show that conservatives read less than liberals, so it's a bit weird to tell people to read a book while repeating right-wing talking points

R49 Them low propensity white folk voters thought the midterms was some shit you did college and didn’t want to feel “out of touch”, so that sat that one out. Thank God. And they will do the same this midterm cycle unless Dump hips them otherwise. Let me not jinx or speak it, into existence.

Unless our business models change drastically, we NEED immigration. The birth rate among women who were born in the US is well below replacement level and without immigration, we will start seeing a contraction in population very soon. . Take a look at what has been happening to the old age pension systems of Japan, South Korea, Russia, and many European countries where the population is contracting. (More or less the equivalents of our social security system). Health care systems and care for the elderly are being stressed beyond the capability of the countries to figure out remedies. The naivete of some posters here is off the charts.

Here's from the CBO (Congressional Budget Office):

"Net immigration becomes an increasingly important source of population growth. Without immigration, the population would shrink beginning in 2033, in part because fertility rates are projected to remain too low for a generation to replace itself," the CBO report reads.

R50 - what right-wing talking points would that be, dear?

R52 - birth rates have fallen in most Western democracies. So the answer is for all of these nations to take in millions of immigrants from around the world?

How about looking at the reasons for the birth rate decreases - where no one can hardly afford to live on their own, let alone think of the cost of raising a child?

Fair wages, affordable housing, low-cost childcare - the list goes on and on of what we CAN do besides importing more people.

There is a housing shortage in this nation already. Instead of using resources to have more people immigrate - how about we fix our problems first?

The problem with immigration is that economists always say it's good for the economy - over and over. Ok - BUT, we know that economic gains from the last 30+ years have tilted to only benefit the top 10% - and more significantly for the top 1%. So immigration is not helping everyone - but it IS helping the people at the top become wealthier.

When the economy is tilted so that only few benefit - it of course drives resentment among the 95% who are not seeing their lives improve - or worse, they are seeing it decline.

And what rule states we have to keep increasing population instead of making the lives and welfare of ALL current citizens better first?

[quote] Explain how ICE will tell them apart. What will the procedure be?

They will check the date of birth on the birth certificate, you idiot.

[quote] birth rates have fallen in most Western democracies. So the answer is for all of these nations to take in millions of immigrants from around the world?

Yes.

r54, unless you're personally prepared to pay much more in taxes to fund the improved lives and welfare of ALL current citizens, that answer is, NO, there is no way to improve the economic circumstances of current citizens without taking in immigrants To fund a massive increase in affordable housing, which could only be built through a government program, and to ensure sustainable health and retirement programs for all citizens into the future would require that all taxpayers would need to at least double the amount they usually pay in taxes. I would do that myself, but I think you'd find it incredibly difficult to sell the majority of Americans on the idea that up to half their incomes would be devoted to taxes from now on.

R56 - LOL - dream on. Completely unrealistic, impractical AND offensive.

Let's have stagnant wages, limited affordable housing, outrageous childcare and medical costs - and let's just add millions more to that mix. That will make it all better!

The rich love to see us all scramble for scraps - and that plan will make it worse. Let alone the anchoring and bringing other family members over as well.

[quote] How about looking at the reasons for the birth rate decreases - where no one can hardly afford to live on their own, let alone think of the cost of raising a child?

Yet immigrants seem to have no problem having children, but American can't afford to.

I do agree that illegal immigration is suppressing wages.

Back in the Ellis Island days there was no welfare and no benefits at all. When you got here you worked your ass off in hideous conditions or you starved to death in the street. Also, there were stringent medical examinations. If you failed the exam, you were sent back.

R57 - it's called taxing the rich, removing loopholes, corporate welfare and making people pay their fair share - like we did decades ago.

How in the world do you think adding more immigrants will make it better? Ridiculous.

R59 - and they do it because of birthright citizenship.

[quote] [R59] - and they do it because of birthright citizenship.

but they do it, it isn't impossible. Many Americans simply don't want to have kids or they want to delay and then shocker they find out they aren't as fertile as when they were younger.

r62, you're promoting a lot of myths.

A. Immigrants to the US usually drop down to the US native-born birthrate within one generation of arrival.

B. I agree that revising the tax code to make the rich pay more, eliminating corporate welfare, and making people pay their fair share are laudable goals. Any notion how that's going to happen? One entire party of the two-party system in the US is utterly opposed to tax increases of any kind and have signed a pledge to that effect.

C. Even with those revisions, the US debt is now so high that those revisions will not be sufficient.

D. Immigrants are generally younger and healthier than their native born counterparts and use less in the way of benefits. They have many more working years left in them The average age in the US right this minute, including immigrants is 40 years old. in 25 years half the country will start to need many more old age benefits. In your dream years of the 1950s, the average age was 30. In Japan, the average age is 50 and they are currently struggling to care for their massive elderly population.

D. We don't have good stats on how many birthright citizens there are. But we know that many immigrants, and particularly illegal immigrants, are here primarily to make money to send back to impoverished relatives in their home countries. Many of them are living grueling lives, working 70 or 80 hours a week or more, to survive and send money back. Many would return to their home countries if they could earn the same amount of money there. They already know the language and the culture of their home countries and life wouldn't be the constant struggle for them as it is here in the US. I don't think most are popping out babies like popcorn, but, yes, they ARE having children.

We don't have good stats on how many birthright citizens there are

Huh? Of course we do. It’s the sum of all live births in the US.

[quote]But we know that many immigrants, and particularly illegal immigrants, are here primarily to make money to send back to impoverished relatives in their home countries.

Which doesn't benefit the American economy.

R66 That’s a simplification. Would it be any different from a foreign born citizen or someone on a work visa sending money back home to impoverished residents? First of all, they are spending some money in the American economy for simply being here 24/7. That’s housing, food, basic amenities, entertainment. Thy should just be looked at as poor person who shouldn’t be frivolously spending money anyways. China is the only one of core countries that gives feeds us immigrants that isn’t a third world nation. The other countries Mexico, India, and the Phillipines aren’t even impoverished relative to the of world poverty but generally are nations with a lot of poor people for Western standards. Mexico obviously geography so hence a lot of illegal immigration from there which rivals that of legal migration. India— high post secondary education and doctorate degrees. But yet daily quality of life somewhat substandard. Philippines the military, strong US ally that has been tethered so long it’s beyond more than mete policy but cultural. All the Caribbean countries combined are a core group. Note though as quality of life and disposable income improved for America approaching the end of the century, it also did so in the Caribbean thus reduction immigration. All except Haiti though cause they cannot find a non corrupt government to save their life. It seems the harsher the natural disaster is one year, the harsher the corruption will be the next.

Outdated, needs to be abolished. Too many nations like China & India take advantage of it.

R64 - you're promoting a lot of myths yourself - you promote nothing but 'more immigration' and that we can't change things because we can't afford it. Nonsense.

Yet we have the money for immigrants to get section 8 housing, SNAP, cash assistance, medicaid, pay for their children to be educated in our schools, etc.

There are more things that could change. I stand that in the economic crisis that we are in now in terms of affordability, wages, healthcare - the last thing we need are millions more immigrants.

Nobody is saying NO immigration. And I think everyone on this board misunderstands that those in opposition to birthright citizenship are against all immigration.

But to say that we can't afford to help our own US citizens but can take in millions more? That's not a winning policy and people are getting sick of it.

R59 - I don't care if immigrants find that they are able to have children in the US and Americans can't. There is a motivation (citizenship) for them - their children can get an education and learn the language, and they help the parents to navigate US society.

Just because they may already be poor and can scrape by meagerly with kids, doesn't mean the average American should have to do the same.

Race to the bottom while the wealthier get richer.

And let's not think that immigrants or naturalized citizens aren't going to vote against their own interests and vote Republicans - many do because of the 'socialist' boogeyman.

Again - nobody is say no immigration at all - but there needs to be policy changes around illegal immigration, birthright citizenship and changes in US policy to help all US citizens first.

I don't have a strong opinion regarding birthright citizenship however I have a very strong opinion regarding the ability of a US president to ignore the constitution.

So called "anchor babies" don't allow their undocumented parents to remain in the US anyway. While they can eventually petition for their parents, this can't be done until the child is 21 years old. That is some long-range planning!

R69 Immigrants have more children because they are more likely to be religious and routinely attend church than native Americans. And you know how religious America is. Because of so things like family planning are taken more seriously but not less conservatively. Let alone higher numbers of not using birth control, having a family a big one is forever linked to how see they see themselves.