Is it time to end birthright citizenship?

[Live Life]

Is it time to end birthright citizenship? https://www.yahoo.com/news/inside-trump-team-plans-try-130042965.html

- Trump’s team is assessing multiple options to fulfill his long-promised pledge to end birthright citizenship
- Expectation is the Supreme Court would ultimately have to rule on the matter as it is protected by the 14th Amendment
- Trump stated, “We’re gonna have to get it changed, or maybe I would go back to the people, but we have to end it.”
- Multiple options are being considered to tighten the interpretation as any action would likely get legally challenged and eventually land before the Supreme Court
- Trump allies argue that 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted and doesn’t apply to children born in the United States to undocumented parents
- Some ... have argued that children of undocumented immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US and shouldn’t be considered citizens under the Constitution
- About three dozen countries provide automatic citizenship to people born on their soil, including Canada, Mexico and majority of South American countries
- There are about 4.4 million US-born children under 18 who live with an undocumented parent - https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-know-about-unauthorized-immigrants-living-in-the-us/

[Boomhauer]

I think that’s going to be a hard row to hoe.

[Live Life]

I think that’s going to be a hard row to hoe.

But with current border sentiment backed by voters such that now may be the best time to approach the issue.

[JTHunter]

But with current border sentiment backed by voters such that now may be the best time to approach the issue.

Is it time?  Actually, it is "past due".  And your suggestion "timing" and "sentiment" MAY be what is needed.  Let's hope so !

[Hawkmoon]

It will be a difficult legal quagmire to navigate, but I would be in favor of it.  What we need is another conservative SCOTUS justice or two, and then a case to establish that birthright means "right," and that anyone in the U.S. illegally can't produce "birthright" citizen offspring.

And make it retroactive.

[Live Life]

What we need is another conservative SCOTUS justice or two, and then a case to establish that birthright means "right," and that anyone in the U.S. illegally can't produce "birthright" citizen offspring.

And make it retroactive.

If JD Vance wins in 2028/2032, that will give us next 12 years for Supreme Court justice replacements and you may get your wish.

[Brad Johnson]

It may not be a popular sentiment, but I think there should be no birthright citizenship for children born to parents here illegally or under any kind of temporary work visa. I include people who get married just for the status. Birthright citizenship for children of Legal Resident Aliens or persons in the process of acquiring their LRA? Sure They've gone through proper channels. Same with vetted asylum-seekers.

Brad

[zahc]

Why does everyone here defend the literal meaning of the constitution when it comes to gun control but want to be revisionist on citizenship?

I think birthright citizenship is probably bad policy, but it's right there in the constitution. Gonna pass an amendment? Please repeal the 16th for me while you are at it kthx

[Live Life]

I think birthright citizenship is probably bad policy, but it's right there in the constitution. Gonna pass an amendment?

It will be up to "We the People".

Times change and US Constitution and Bill of Rights have been changed/amended to reflect that change.

Remember?

Before, slavery was legal and their votes only counted 3/5.  Women couldn't vote until 1920.  Now, First Amendment protection expanded to include "modern" forms of communication like email/texting.  And Second Amendment protection expanded to "modern" types of arms and accessories like semi-auto magazine fed firearms and optical aids like scopes/red dot sights/lasers.  The Supreme Court recently ruled ban on accessory like bump stock was unconstitutional.

As Justice Gorsuch stated, "We the People" modernized the Constitution and Bill of Rights with changing times to self-govern, as framed by the founders - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/a-great-interview-with-justice-gorsuch-with-question-on-the-second-amendment.856201/

"We the People" chose an executive branch representative (Along with House and Senate legislative branch majority) with primary concern for border security in 2024 that reaffirmed concern expressed by "We the People" in 2016.  If "We the People" want to amend the Constitution/Bill of Rights to address changing times to better secure the border, elected representatives will work to fulfill the sentiment of "We the People" by changing/amending birthright citizenship.

This is self-governing of a Constitutional Republic, as framed by the founders.  Just like how Electoral College was chosen over Popular Vote to protect the interests of smaller rural states and minority groups from majority mob rule of larger city states.

[dogmush]

I am more concerned about what might come out of a constitutional conventi9n these days than I am concerned by birthright citizenship.

It's only an issue because we let it be.  We let millions of people sneak in illegally, so there's a large population of illegals here popping out kids, so it's a big issue.  We have policies that make having an anchor baby attractive, and then act surprised when people have anchor babies.

In my opinion a couple policy changes would all but solve the anchor baby issue without a Constitutional Ammendment:

1. Secure border. Nothings perfect, but thousands sneaking over is way better than millions.
2. Deport illegals currently here.
3 if there's a minor child with citizenship in the care of someone about to be deported, make mom/dad decide. Kid stays here with legal guardian (they give up parental rights), or kid goes with them.
3a. Adjust laws on citizens sponsoring new migrants to not cover parents of anchor babies.  I.e. if you were born here and your parents were in the country illegally at the time, you can not sponsor migrants, even though you are a citizen.
4. Do not issue a visa for someone more than 6 months pregnant, so that the Asians flying here to pop out kids fall under the illegal kids umbrella.

That would solve 90% of the issue.

[Live Life]

Great points.

[JTHunter]

It may not be a popular sentiment, but I think there should be no birthright citizenship for children born to parents here illegally or under any kind of temporary work visa. I include people who get married just for the status. Birthright citizenship for children of Legal Resident Aliens or persons in the process of acquiring their LRA? Sure They've gone through proper channels. Same with vetted asylum-seekers.

Brad

HEAR HEAR !! 

[zxcvbob]

Minors born here to illegal aliens should be deported with their parents. The point is to keep the family together.  When the kids reaches 18 they can come back and claim their citizenship.  No constitutional amendment required, although I'm not sure how the papers would work.

[HankB]

Why does everyone here defend the literal meaning of the constitution when it comes to gun control but want to be revisionist on citizenship? . . .

We can turn that around and use it on the other side . . .

Why does everyone here there defend the literal meaning of the constitution when it comes to gun control citizenship but want to be revisionist on citizenship gun control? . . .

[Live Life]

Why does everyone here defend the literal meaning of the constitution when it comes to gun control but want to be revisionist on citizenship?

We can turn that around and use it on the other side . . .

Why does everyone here there defend the literal meaning of the constitution when it comes to gun control citizenship but want to be revisionist on citizenship gun control? . . .

[HeroHog]

Minors born here to illegal aliens should be deported with their parents. The point is to keep the family together.  When the kids reaches 18 they can come back and claim their citizenship.  No constitutional amendment required, although I'm not sure how the papers would work.

I like this!

[Hawkmoon]

I am more concerned about what might come out of a constitutional conventi9n these days than I am concerned by birthright citizenship.

It's only an issue because we let it be.  We let millions of people sneak in illegally, so there's a large population of illegals here popping out kids, so it's a big issue.  We have policies that make having an anchor baby attractive, and then act surprised when people have anchor babies.

In my opinion a couple policy changes would all but solve the anchor baby issue without a Constitutional Ammendment:

1. Secure border. Nothings perfect, but thousands sneaking over is way better than millions.
2. Deport illegals currently here.
3 if there's a minor child with citizenship in the care of someone about to be deported, make mom/dad decide. Kid stays here with legal guardian (they give up parental rights), or kid goes with them.
3a. Adjust laws on citizens sponsoring new migrants to not cover parents of anchor babies.  I.e. if you were born here and your parents were in the country illegally at the time, you can not sponsor migrants, even though you are a citizen.
4. Do not issue a visa for someone more than 6 months pregnant, so that the Asians flying here to pop out kids fall under the illegal kids umbrella.

That would solve 90% of the issue.

You have my vote.

[Hawkmoon]

Why does everyone here defend the literal meaning of the constitution when it comes to gun control but want to be revisionist on citizenship?

I think birthright citizenship is probably bad policy, but it's right there in the constitution. Gonna pass an amendment? Please repeal the 16th for me while you are at it kthx

Let's look at that. The provision is in the 14th amendment, not the original core of the Constitution.

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm going to propose that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" could be interpreted (by the Supreme Court) to exclude offspring of persons not legally resident in the United States. Couple that with denying visas for women 6 months or more pregant, and that would practically eliminate anchor babies. And, if the Supreme Court were to issue such a ruling, that would also invalidate the "citizenship" of anyone previously born here to illegal parents.

x

[dogmush]

^^^ But that's not what it means (almost certainly).

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was included in the 14th Ammendment to exclude Indians that were part of sovereign nati9ns by treaty. (And to a lesser extent, children of diplomats) contemporary writings are reas9nably clear on the subject.

If you are subject to the Laws and Courts of the US or the several States, which illegals certainly are, than arguments that you are not subject to its jurisdiction are kinda strained.  Sure, the writers 9f the 14th did not anticipate anchor babies,  and might have worded it different if they had, but be that as it may, they wrote what they wrote.

Lawyers will argue various interpretations, but I would not bet on SCOTUS buying their tangled webs.

ETA: That's one of the main reasons I think the smart move is to try and tackle this issue through tweaking existing laws and policy. Both SCOTUS and a Constitutional Convention are risky and unpredictable.

[Hawkmoon]

^^^ But that's not what it means (almost certainly).

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was included in the 14th Ammendment to exclude Indians that were part of sovereign nati9ns by treaty. (And to a lesser extent, children of diplomats) contemporary writings are reas9nably clear on the subject.

. . .

Lawyers will argue various interpretations, but I would not bet on SCOTUS buying their tangled webs.

Note what I wrote: "I'm going to propose that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" could be interpreted (by the Supreme Court) to exclude offspring of persons not legally resident in the United States."

And I did comment in a previous post that it would require some legal legerdemain. I'm not at all sure it would fly, but we need to do something. (Oh, oh -- where have we heard that before?)

[Northwoods]

The problem here is there is no clear definition of "natural born".  There were leftists trying to say McCain was ineligible to be POTUS due to being born in the Panama Canal zone.

I don't think a constitutional amendment is required to define that.  But it would be easy enough to write.  "Natural born citizen is anyone born to legally residing parents, except foreign diploats and temporary visa holders, within the boundaries of the USA, or to a citizen mother, or father if paternity is proven, regardless of birthplace." 

[Pb]

^^^ But that's not what it means (almost certainly).

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was included in the 14th Ammendment to exclude Indians that were part of sovereign nati9ns by treaty. (And to a lesser extent, children of diplomats) contemporary writings are reas9nably clear on the subject.

Yes... and when the 14th Amendment was written, there were no immigration laws of any sort.  How the writers would have thought it should be applied to illegal aliens is unknown.

[AZRedhawk44]

The problem isn't birthright citizenship.

The problem is people unwilling to actually secure the border.

This is exactly the same issue as any other enforcement issue.  You cannot solve pre-crime, whether it's in regards to school shootings, shoplifting, rape, border crossings, or anything else.  You have to face the crime itself in the face and be willing to confront it and stop it, in a way that deters others from wanting to repeat the effort.

Attacking birthright citizenship is every bit as cowardly and ineffective as attacking the 2A for school shootings. 

[Live Life]

The problem isn't birthright citizenship.

The problem is people unwilling to actually secure the border.

Could illegal migrant related issues/crimes, sanctuary cities being overwhelmed and illegal border crossings be secondary symptoms/manifested problems of underlying causes?

And underlying causes are:

- Hope/promise of US residency and citizenship - "The American Dream"
- Free/assistance with housing, food and jobs
- Food stamps even after securing employment with access to other free public assistance programs
- Unemployment benefits and community support
- Free tuition/subsidized job training/assistance for community/university level college education
- Free healthcare
- Driver's license (Some states even offer free/subsidized driver's training)
- Free cellphone "Obama phone" (I know quite a few people who got them)
- Social security checks for life after 62 (See hope of "The American Dream")
- Spousal SS checks for life (See hope of "The American Dream")
- Disability checks for life (See hope of "The American Dream")
- No prevalence of cartel/gang related violence/harassment

As long as these underlying causes exist, symptoms and problems related to illegal immigration will persist and abuse of birthright citizenship will continue.

[Northwoods]

Yeah.  It's a matter of supply/demand, along with risk/reward.

If there is demand for illegal immigrant labor there will be a supply.  If there is supply of benefits (including birthright citizenship!) for illegal immigrants there will be demand from them.

As long as the reward for illegally immigrating outweighs the risks, and as long as the supply/demand dynamics favor illegal immigration, we will continue to have a problem with it.

Which means solving the problem requires increasing the risks to the migrants, reducing the rewards they can reap, and reducing the demand for their labor.

Which means we have to devise some system that is cheap, easy, and free of cartel control over the flows of migrant labor, while allowing the migrants to be fully documented and trackable.  Because a ton of companies rely too much on that labor to just cut it off.