So let's talk birthright citizenship. Birthright Citizenship The U.S. and Canada are the only two NATO countries that have birthright citizenship. So why are us and Canada the only countries that have to have it? Please tell me this, why shouldn't a baby be a citizen of the country of their mother. Is that not just simpler? Regardless of where you are born, if your mother is a U.S. citizen, you are a U.S. citizen. If you are born in Japan but your mom is a French citizen, you are a French citizen. If you are born in the U.S. but your mom is a citizen of the UK, you are a UK citizen. I do hope eliminating birthright citizenship is something President Trump gets accomplished during the next 4 years. I'd love for someone to tell me how it's logical in any way that a baby, when it's born, can literally be a citizen of a different country than the mother? Do you all not realize how crazy that is?
well there is some talk about the actual reason and meaning for the 14th Amendment, but I am not sure outside of another Amendment to the Constitution (which I do not see) how to change it
And before anyone even tries to bring up the 14th Amendment, yes let's debunk the 14th Amendment right now. The 14th Amendment was meant to provide citizenship to slaves and their descendants after the Civil War. Slaves, as it people literally brought here against their will. Immigrants come here willingly, no one is forcing them to be here. Due to that, the 14th Amendment does not apply and has been blatantly abused.
I'd actually be for this, if it were a component of a comprehensive and rational immigration reform plan. We know it won't be though. It will probably just be The Rapist senselessly doing an EO to try to modify the Constitution. And it won't be part of any legitimate plan, because Donald the Felon has no real plans for anything. So this will just be (yet another) political football for him to try an establish an adversary to paint as a bad guy. So no go on what we know will just be Trump's typical bullshit.
I agree it should be part of a large immigration plan, one that I laid out in another thread that I await your response to. But I do think birthright citizenship hurts our country. All it does is encourage further illegal immigration and anchor babies who can then bring their parents and all sorts of relatives with them. And to me it genuinely doesn't make any sense. And that is shown by the fact that the U.S. and Canada are the only two NATO countries that do birthright citizenship. If the majority of countries are doing the opposite of what you are doing, I'm inclined to believe the countries that are in the majority are in the right.
I agree. Let's see if the Buffoon can do what he utterly failed at in his first 4 years - propose a comprehensive plan. What you may not like is that that would entail something to the effect of work visas for appx 9 million employed undocumented immigrants. But Trump won't do that - he'll just babble about a stupid wall, and pretend to deport people. His cult will cheer that, and then after another 4 years of failure they'll make excuses for his total failure for the second time.
Why is NATO the important organization here? Only one member of the Organization of American States doesn't have birthright citizenship.
Not a false premise at all. When a baby is born, that baby should have the exact same citizenship as their mother. It's honestly really really simple.
The thing about a constitution, is that whatever may have been the context to implement a clause, the plain meaning of the actual words control. Only if there is ambiguity do you get the SCOTUS involved to clarify meaning. ...and the 14th Amendment could scarcely be clearer. So I'm with @g8orbill here. The Amendment would have to be repealed to undo BRC.
Why should a child, who has no agency of their own, have different citizenship in any way from their mother? I know all about dual citizenship. I came within 2 months of being born in England, so I myself would have had dual U.S. and UK citizenship. Still is really dumb.
And yes the 14th Amendment passed on July 9th, 1868, conveniently right after the Civil War and as part of the Reconstruction Amendments. 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868) Passed by Congress June 13, 1866, and ratified July 9, 1868, the 14th Amendment extended liberties and rights granted by the Bill of Rights to formerly enslaved people. Say what you want, it was absolutely intended to give citizenship to former slaves and their descendants. It was not meant for illegal immigrants and anchor babies.
Follow up-- The very LAST thing any conservative should ever champion, is playing fast and loose with the words of the constitution. That's a recipe for suicide, straight up.
Because they are born under the legal jurisdiction of the country in which they are born. That is why we had it written, broadly, into the US constitution.
Why should it matter where you are born? Your family heritage and citizenship is what should matter, especially that of your mother. As for the wording, I would debate that. The 14th Amendment was meant for Slaves and their descendants. It was passed as part of Reconstruction after the Civil War, there is no debate into it's intent, and it wasn't for illegal immigrants and anchor babies. I have no doubt it will go to the Supreme Court, but I believe the Supreme Court will rule that it does not apply to illegal immigrants and anchor babies. And if needed, then Trump needs to work really hard to change the amendment or add a new amendment to make the 14th Amendment null and void.
