Should we end birthright citizenship?

[Fat Cat]

I'm betting that there would be unintended consequences to ending it. It'd have to be replaced with something...what?

What's the science say on the negatives of it? What is the typical career of an anchor baby? Is it actually a problem, or is it like the "invasion" of women and children trying to walk 1000 miles, just a fodder for fear mongering?

Bring it up to the Supreme Court and let them decide.

I like Starship Trooper's approach, where you have to have served in the military to be a citizen. French Foreign Legion too.

[nafod]

I'm betting that there would be unintended consequences to ending it. It'd have to be replaced with something...what?

Automation is the future. I was thinking more like this.

[Fat Cat]

“The phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” - Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873).

[Boris]

No. Jesus, probably many (if not most) of us are beneficiaries of this...

[Fat Cat]

No. Jesus, probably many (if not most) of us are beneficiaries of this...

How so?

[Gav]

Good job the native Indians didn’t have that law. Who knows what citizenship you lot would have right now.

[Gav]

Which begs the question. Who will make America great again if it was originally made great by immigrants?

[Turdacious]

Good job the native Indians didn’t have that law. Who knows what citizenship you lot would have right now.

As Elizabeth Warren found out, native tribes have pretty strict citizenship laws.

[Turdacious]

Which begs the question. Who will make America great again if it was originally made great by immigrants?

America's history with immigrants, and integrating immigrants, has always been messy and often ugly. In a historical context, what's happening now is pretty mild.

[Fat Cat]

Which begs the question. Who will make America great again if it was originally made great by immigrants?

Salvini gonna kick you out brah.

[Boris]

No. Jesus, probably many (if not most) of us are beneficiaries of this...

How so?

Huh? Are you a native American?

I don't know about your (great) grandparents, I guess, but mine were immigrants and/or in the U.S. temporarily and their kids (my parents and grandparents) were lucky enough to be born here and viola, they were citizens.

[Fat Cat]

No. Jesus, probably many (if not most) of us are beneficiaries of this...

How so?

Huh? Are you a native American?

I don't know about your (great) grandparents, I guess, but mine were immigrants and/or in the U.S. temporarily and their kids (my parents and grandparents) were lucky enough to be born here and viola, they were citizens.

Nobody is talking about repealing the 14th amendment or ending birthright citizenship to the children of citizens or legal permanent residents. We are discussing whether or not that applies, or should apply, to the children of illegal immigrants. Really now, are you six? Life isn't fair, it's war. North America is ours because we took it from people who got it the same way. Why is that hard to understand? If we don't hold it, others will take it, and they won't mewl about arbitrary and stupid ideas of fairness or equality.

[Boris]

No. Jesus, probably many (if not most) of us are beneficiaries of this...

How so?

Huh? Are you a native American?

I don't know about your (great) grandparents, I guess, but mine were immigrants and/or in the U.S. temporarily and their kids (my parents and grandparents) were lucky enough to be born here and viola, they were citizens.

Nobody is talking about repealing the 14th amendment or ending birthright citizenship to the children of citizens or legal permanent residents. We are discussing whether or not that applies, or should apply, to the children of illegal immigrants. Really now, are you six? Life isn't fair, it's war. North America is ours because we took it from people who got it the same way. Why is that hard to understand? If we don't hold it, others will take it, and they won't mewl about arbitrary and stupid ideas of fairness or equality.

Ok, wow. Hyperbole much? The title of the thread is "Should we end birthright citizenship?". Obviously there can be shades of gray regarding foreign nationals, illegals, etc. - only a moron wouldn't recognize that.

[Fat Cat]

But did you read the rest of the thread? Or have you followed the broader discussion? This wasn't a random discussion of the 14th Amendment, it was a reaction to Trump's proposal regarding illegal immigrants and the applicability of the 14th Amendment to them.

[Gav]

Which begs the question. Who will make America great again if it was originally made great by immigrants?

Salvini gonna kick you out brah.

Salvini has forgotten that when an Englishman is present, everyone else are foreigners

[nafod]

So just thinking it through, if one of the parents is a citizen, should a kid be a citizen? Especially if born in the US?

How about permanent residents?

People under consideration for granting asylum? It is not against the law to present yourself at the border and request asylum, those are not illegals.

On a tourist visa?

I agree being able to sneak in and pop one out seems wrong on the face of it. The current 14th has simplicity going for it. Whatever replaces it will be messy and have it’s own unintended consequences.

[Fat Cat]

So just thinking it through, if one of the parents is a citizen, should a kid be a citizen? Especially if born in the US?

How about permanent residents?

People under consideration for granting asylum? It is not against the law to present yourself at the border and request asylum, those are not illegals.

On a tourist visa?

I agree being able to sneak in and pop one out seems wrong on the face of it. The current 14th has simplicity going for it. Whatever replaces it will be messy and have it’s own unintended consequences.

I don't think anyone is talking about changing the 14th Amendment. What was being discussed was a change in the way that the language is interpreted. To answer your questions, my thoughts are:

- The children of citizens, whether born inside or outside the US, should be citizens by birth.

- The children of legal permanent residents born in the US should be citizens by birth.

- The children of tourists on a tourist visa born in the US should not be citizens by birth.

- The children of illegal immigrants born in the US should not be citizens by birth.

Which is exactly what the 14th Amendment already says.

[nafod]

So just thinking it through, if one of the parents is a citizen, should a kid be a citizen? Especially if born in the US?

How about permanent residents?

People under consideration for granting asylum? It is not against the law to present yourself at the border and request asylum, those are not illegals.

On a tourist visa?

I agree being able to sneak in and pop one out seems wrong on the face of it. The current 14th has simplicity going for it. Whatever replaces it will be messy and have it’s own unintended consequences.

I don't think anyone is talking about changing the 14th Amendment. What was being discussed was a change in the way that the language is interpreted.

Same difference, no?

To answer your questions, my thoughts are:

- The children of citizens, whether born inside or outside the US, should be citizens by birth.

So here's a future business model (I'm thinking up my sales pitch right now). I sell my USDA-certified seed to women overseas, who then have my baby with verifiable paternity and they are citizens? That's just a start point.

We live in a brave new world, my friend.

- The children of illegal immigrants born in the US should not be citizens by birth.

What defines an illegal immigrant? Asylum seekers are not illegal if they present themselves at the border as such.

[Fat Cat]

Of course it's not the same thing. Amending the Constitution and changing the interpretation of a law are two entirely different things.

Re: your business idea, the child would be an American citizen, but the mother would not be.

What defines illegal immigrant? Anyone who enters the country without the appropriate status. As for asylum seekers, this is one of the major points of misunderstanding. International law requires them to file for asylum status at the first country they reach; thus the Guatemalans would have to apply for asylum in Mexico. They are not eligible for asylum in the US.