the majority of NATO is pretty far left of center. By your logic the U.S. should be spending more on social welfare and should have universal healthcare. Just pointing out that your logic is faulty on that particular point.
So if birthright citizenship is so great, why does the rest of the world for the most part not do it? Why is the U.S. and Canada largely the outliers when it comes to this?
My great-grandmother was an immigrant from before the existence of illegal immigrants, with a few exceptions (e.g., Chinese Exclusion Act). She was not a citizen. Then she gave birth to a person given birthright citizenship to the US, who gave birth to a person, who gave birth to me. By your logic, none of them should have had US citizenship, as the first citizen shouldn't have been granted birthright citizenship. They should have given me UK citizenship, even though they were from a place that isn't even the UK any longer. There was no such thing as "permanent resident status" when this chain started.
And Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Chile, Peru, Panama, Ecuador....and all but 2 countries in the Americas.
If most of the rest of NATO has single payer healthcare systems, why doesn't the US? Again, I'm not arguing birthright citizenship, because honestly, I don't give a shit about it. It's a pointless issue that I hope this admin wastes a ton of time and political capital on fighting while leaving other stuff alone. But your argument has a blatant hole in it. Comparing the US to other countries is silly. Unless you are willing to accept the same argument for policies you don't like as much.
In cases such as your mother, the Immigration Act of 1924 would be the determining factor. As you indicated, prior to 1924 there was no tracking of immigration at all. If you great grandmother came here before 1924, she would automatically be a citizen. Due to that, all descendants, you included, would be U.S. citizens. On or after 1924 would then be subject to being considered an illegal immigrant. Birthright citizenship ending would mostly apply to children of parents who have arrived more recently. It's not going to impact people going back to their grandparents and great grandparents.
I would also argue that, from a practical perspective, if birthright citizenship was ended, it would most likely be going forward and not retroactive. It would be too difficult to be retroactive. So yes, if an illegal immigrant had an anchor baby, they would be grandfathered in. It would be going forward that birthright citizenship would not be allowed in the U.S.
Countries without birth right citizenship perform worse economically than the U.S. Immigration has been and continues to be the U.S. “secret sauce” relative to basically everyone else. If we are being fair, countries with “universal healthcare” on the whole probably perform worse. Not necessarily because of their healthcare, but perhaps their other more socialist-lite govt policies. Nevertheless, they tend to be happier citizens. Maybe it’s a trade-off. Now show me the list of countries w/ low immigration, with neither birthright citizenship nor some type of universal health coverage. It’s a list of shithole countries, that’s what it is.
Hmmm. Changing a Constitutional amendment without going through the prescribed process of proposing / ratifying a new amendment? Pure chicanery. Also unlawful.
Immigration has been the life blood of this country. Get rid of it and good luck finding a doctor when you need one.
I am not referring to you, but wouldn’t we be better off if we just revoked the citizenship of morons?