Trump Vows to End Birthright Citizenship

Except YOUR country allows its citizens to owe allegience to another country doesn't it?

 

You would have to look at individual policies. Some will be aimed at due process. Some will be aimed at other social issues. For example, should an illegal immigrant be afraid to report a crime, or to be a witness to a crime? The social objective of capturing and convicting criminals might be a higher priority than deporting illegal (non-criminal) aliens.
So, no - supporting some "sanctuary city" policies does not equate to assisting illegal immigration, any more than supporting the second amendment equates to assisting with mass shootings. Your logic is flawed.

 

Oh, so I have to agree with it then eh? Bad logic dude.

 

No, you don't have to agree to it! Again, my point is, that "allegiance to another country" doesn't seem to be the best argument against birthright citizenship in the US, considering that the US allows its permanent residents and even citizens to owe allegience to another country.

 

When politicians defend sanctuary policies, do they even mention any of the above?

 

Maybe that should be the focus of legislation...Or, even an amendment. To me, I don't see how a person can be in allegiance to two countries....What happens if those countries are at war with one another? Who then would this hypothetical person back? And, what if this person was active in sabotaging one of their countries for the sake of the other?

But beyond all of that, in the context of this thread, how do you see people being able to visit our country on a tourist visa, coming here to have a baby, then having that baby be a citizen, then take that child back to their home country to raise it, only to have that child and their family come back at a later time afforded all of the benefits of citizenship, including SS, and sponsorship of the child's family as citizens? It is unsustainable.

 

Yes, it is a fair argument.

Well I would guess that babies born to tourists would account for a very small amount of birthright citizenship babies. However, I do think that it is ridiculous and it makes me wonder what the creators of the birthright citizenship clause were thinking and whether they even thought about it applying to tourist babies. The fact that it is written in such a vague manner tells me that they didn't think about it one little bit! But then again, tourism barely existed back then did it.

 

Thanks

Well, I DO think they thought of it, which is why Jacob Howard said, in plain language, that it didn't apply to:
1. Foreigners
2. Aliens
3. Diplomats/Ambassadors

 

yep, making a constitutional change is much harder, if it wasn't some on the left would of taken away the 2nd and some on the right would of taken away the 1st by now

 

Was DACA even challenged by the courts in the same way that the courts would challenge a Trump EO that removed birthright citizenship for illegal aliens?

 

No one is talking about the complete removal of birthright citizenship by EO, only the removal of it for illegal aliens.

 

Some on the right would've taken away the First Amendment? Surely you can't be serious.

 

If it doesn't apply to any of the above, then who DOES it apply to?

I take this back! I've just learned about 'birth tourism' and a Chinese company who manages it for Chinese people!

 

Well, I think, at the time, and in context of what are considered the "civil war" amendments, that is the 13th, 14th, and 15th, they were speaking to the delema of newly freed slaves, whom after generational slavery had no other country they were allied to. In context, as time goes forward, they put within the amendment the ability to legislate under section 5 of the amendment...But, I don't think anyone would be negligent enough as to allow non citizen aliens to bestow citizenship to their newly born child also a non citizen simply because of proximity.

That would be just another way to erase our borders.

It is a bigger problem than many think, or even know about...

 

You'd think that if it was for slaves, that they would've mentioned it.

You don't think this? But this is what is happening isn't it?

 

We have no idea what people are talking about. As far as I know, no executive order has yet been produced (and if it was pure campaign rhetoric, neither will one be produced) so we have no idea to what extent Donald Trump intended to curtail birthright citizenship.

If his supporters are unhappy with illegal immigrants receiving birthright citizenship, they can hardly be thrilled with the idea of thousands (or tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions - depending on how febrile your imagination is) of women coming to the US entirely legally on tourist visas, giving birth and then having an "anchor baby" to support their right to remain. How about all those people in the US on temporary work visas, whether they're fruit pickers and domestic workers from Central America or computer programmers from Bangalore, should they be allowed to have "anchor babies" to pave their path to citizenship instead of going home when their visa expires and allowing an American citizen to have that job ?

President Trump is much more of a "big picture" guy who has an idea, but relies on his subordinates to attempt to put into practice. In the same way that "solving healthcare" was more difficult than he anticipated, for a range of reasons, when you start looking at removing birthright citizenship, it gets complicated. As far as I can see it, there are only two easy ways, either have it for all, or be like most of the rest of the developed world and grant citizenship on a completely different basis - partial birthright citizenship is IMO a legal minefield full of difficult edge cases.

 

Other than to free slaves, I can't think of any reason why they came up with birthright citizenship and I doubt anyone else can either.

Yes, but a constitutional amendment would change all of that. Or do you mean if it went via Supreme Court?

 

I was talking about EO followed by court judgements because, like many other EOs produced by this administration, I think it would be hastily and poorly drafted and be full of loopholes.

That said, IMO any attempt to construct a constitutional amendment would very quickly get mired down. A large proportion of representatives would oppose any change to the 14th amendment and if the change was only to remove the right for those whose parents are here illegally then there'd be opposition from those who want to further restrict it so that those people who fly to the US (legally) to give birth or those who are currently here legally but who want to use anchor babies to extend their stay.

As I said, IMO there are only two "clean" positions, birthright citizenship for all (as now), or for none (as in much of the rest of the developed world). If it's the latter then be prepared for much more government intrusion into the birth registration process.

 

That would mean that they would see a purpose or benefit of birthright citizenship, which is illogical.

 

Why is it illogical to see that there is a benefit to birthright citizenship ?

 

So, you believe that three amendments written at the point following the bloodiest war in our nation's history, that was fought over abolishing slavery, wasn't addressing slavery eh? That their purpose of thought at that moment in history was say, 'Hey, let's write an amendment that allows the entire world to come here, have babies that then are citizens of our country, so that later they can come in legally and replace us? Really?

Yes, it is...And what I want to know is what happened in the 1960s to change statutorily, what makes this legal....it's insane.

 

No I think that it quite clearly WAS addressing slavery, but I would think that they still could've specified, to make it clear for their successors in future generations. If it WAS in fact all about addressing slavery, then it seems that their words were NOT clear enough, because here were are as a future generation, totally misusing it. If it is clear to you and I, why isn't it clear to law makers? I just guess that they just haven't thought about it. Is Trump seriously the first president who has talked about it? Has it even ever before been a serious discussion within government?

What changed in the 60's?

 

Because it is only of benefit to the person, not to the country.

 

I disagree.

If nothing else it makes for a very simple birth registration and citizenship assignment process. Without it, parents would have to prove that they were in the country legally. While hardly arduous (though for some people with chaotic lives it may be difficult for them to find their birth certificate to prove that they are US citizens), it's still a process that will require funding and federal oversight. It would be yet another federal intrusion into people's lives.

 

Again, that's only of benefit to the person, not to the country.