Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Poll Result
Voted 75 times in total
Yes. It's a policy that is actually counter to the intent of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States is one of a tiny few countries that practice birthright citizenship. It makes no sense to grant American citizenship to a baby born to an illegal alien mother on our soil. And the practice of what is known as "birth tourism" is equally outrageous. That is when a foreign national obtains a visa (usually a tourist visa) for the sole purpose of giving birth while in the United States. When that child is of age, their status allows him or her to sponsor his or her foreign relatives for green cards.
Who can say they are illegal alien? When once they reach our land via Cuba boats, they are scott free. If they get caught before reaching land, they go packing back. If they can make it past everything, risking their lives and enter your life and you work with them, do you really have that heart to then send them packing?
No because that would lead to much more confusion and to even greater inequality. Because what´s the alternative? Earning it by a test if you fail you´re a nobody or what?
The birthright citizenship is given by birth to assure that anyone can get it so that anyone is equal before the law.
The alternative is to say, its automatic if one of your parents is a citizen. Not where you are born, that shouldn't matter. That actually seems like a easier concept than citizens travelling and having a baby that is now not a citizen and having to do the paperwork to get their child made a citizen.
So all white people living in America would be taken away their citizenship and therefore deported back to Europe. Now thinking about this, perhaps the reason usa has this rule once you get citizenship it is very unlikely for it to be taken away because maybe they are afraid that one day they too can get stripped from this right as they are living on stolen land. So therefore I do not believe this could ever be abolished because the white men run this country and I doubt they are willing to take that risk. They stole this land for a reason. they don't want to go back to Europe.
No one is stripping anything, thats what the 2nd amendment is for. And no those white people were here when America the nation was founded. So they are naturalized citizens.
@captain_voidwalker LOL what a joke. The land is the land of which they are not "naturally" from. Europeans just like to pretend they discovered what was already discovered. Lies as always. and as you say 2nd amendment, as I said was done precisely to avoid themselves of being stripped off this right as well as they are not from here. 🤦♀️ they carefully chose their laws just as careful as they choose their lies to have world control. aka media brainwashing.
The land belongs to those strong enough to control it. Thats how nature has always worked.
@captain_voidwalker ridiculous. if you own a phone but I go and take it because my arm was stronger then it rightfully belongs to me. you pathetic person. You must be related to these white people living on stolen land and yelling for anyone else to get out because it's not "their's" 🤦♀️.. White people from America who think like you, suck. All others are above you.
What I'm saying is if 2 wolf packs fight over territory the bigger stronger pack wins. Dosen't matter if you think its fair or not. Nature Dosen't give a shit about your fefes. It is ever the strong who dictate the date of the weak.
@captain_voidwalker Exactly. Even the earth and peace loving indians killed each other over land throughout their history on this continent. A lot of the time, after killing their enemy, they ate them.
@anon
That’s a lie and you know it. How much land was negotiated for by Europeans?
The first American European settlement was Jamestown. Captain John Smith was adopted as a son by the chief Powhatan and made a subordinate chief by Powhatan.
The land Ft. Niagara is built on was negotiated for by the French with the Seneca.
Most of the land or New France was directly negotiated with those tribes. The typical agreement was the French would buy the land and the tribes would be allowed to live as they always have. The same is true with most of the land the Spanish explored out west.
Manhattan was negotiated for by the Dutch.
When people purchase land and negotiate treaties that’s not land obtained by conquest. It’s land that was purchased or it is mutually agreed upon they can live and build on it.
This notion that all whites were the first illegal immigrants is frigging stupid.
Also, under your agreement we should get off the Iroquois land, but then the Iroquois conquered much of their land from the Erie whom they committed genocide against. The Incas and Azetecs and Myans would have to get off their lands and give it back to the tribes they conquered it from and so is the case with all native peoples from Alaska to Argentina as they all fought and killed other tribes for land acquisition.
Very stupid concept from people who know nothing of history except what liberal teachers and professirs have taught them, which is often a gross mischaracterization of events.
Also, don’t be a hypocrite. You are a benefactor of war crimes and land theft. Get off your land and give it to its rightful owners now! You don’t get to keep stolen property which is what you believe happened. Right the wrong. Give back what wasn’t yours to have if you believe these types of ridiculous ideas. That’s called restitution. The thief must not be allowed to keep the fruits of his crime.
Also, white men run this country? About 1/4th of Congress isn’t even white.
www.pewresearch.org/.../
Is the Vice President not black? Are there no non white members of the presidents cabinet?
What about at the state level? I know the Lt. Governor of NY who just got arrested for 2 different crimes, is black. He must have been only arrested because he was black though right? Not because he was corrupt.
How many local politicians are not white? Ever heard of Lori Lightfoot, mayor of Chicago. Chicago…. hmmmm…. that sounds like and Indian word. Why is a black person governing stollen Indian land? She better resign and get off that land.
My suggestion is doing research before make such erroneous and inflammatory statements.
@anon
Which white men don’t want to go back to Europe? The ones who were born here? Well I say send them back. Also send the African descendants of white peoples slaves back to Africa. Sound fair? I know you’ll agree. You certainly will apply what you want for whites to everyone who is living on stollen Indian land right? Blacks included right? You rant has nothing to do with white people whom you’re certainly not predjuiced against right? You’d want blacks off that stollen land too right? Because your point is about the stollen land and white people running the country and you apply equally your views to all races living on stollen Indian land right? That the land should be returned to its rightful owners and free of the white people and the descendants of African slaves that live here too, right?
yeah call them Indians lol 😂 as the fake "discoverer" ignorantly called them. India is far from America. ignorance. in any case that was their land and they have right to fight for it, they're not going to steal in foreign land. 🤦♀️
@Exterminatore I'm not even about to read all that nonsense. The white came from Europe, claimed they "discovered" America and stole the land. the question is asking if birthright should be abolished, so therefore I'm answering it would never happen because that would mean all white people would have to be deported because they are not from here and they are the ones who run this country regardless of who is chosen for little "important" jobs such as mayors, governor, presidents, etc. the land was stolen by the white and white people are in control even if you chose a black president. 🤦♀️
and yes ALLLLL would go back who are not from here, only original authentic Americans would stay but as I said that would never happen because whites do not want to go back to Europe. they stole this land for a reason. It's powerful here! We are the rulers of the world really. just look at all the wars we start everywhere. Look how nobody ever sanctions us for all the killings we do, look at all the people WE SANCTION for anything they do. We are their MOTHER lol it's ridiculous.
Anyhow, it would never happen for the sole purpose that all whites would go back, doesn't matter if all the other races go back, the important thing here is whites don't want to go back and they are the ones who place the rules in this stolen land.
THE END.
You’re not paying attention. If I have something and sell it, it’s not mine anymore, it wasn’t stollen and no one has done me wrong. The same holds true for any Indian tribes that made deals with the Europeans and eventually the Americans.
They did discover it. It was previously unknown to Europeans. That’s what a discovery is. Finding something previously unknown.
I know your’re not going to read what I wrote. It doesn’t agree with your ideology and you’re not interested in the truth only propaganda.
Since you’re in favor of deporting everyone then you go first. Actions speak louder than words. Love what you believe. If that’s really what you believe you’ll be faithful to follow through, or will you not leave until others do. In any case it doesn’t change anything. You hold the belief America is stollen land so you do the right thing according to your views. Makes no difference if others will do what you think is right, you just be sure to do what is right. So, whites don’t need to go for you to go, just simply live out your believes, get off the stollen land to which you are a benefactor because of war crimes and pay restitution or at least only give the land back.
Would you like me to contact a representative of the tribe who inhabited the land prior to the Americans inhabiting it?
@Exterminatore "I'm not even about to read all that nonsense."
This is why you don't argue with these people. They don't care about right or wrong, they care about power. Physical removal from this planet is a universal language that even the deaf can understand.
Anonymous must be Native American. Allegedly. All the land you have is not stolen once, but many times, by your own warring tribes. So, who the hell are you to talk? I guess it's because it's totally okay for "your type" to rape, pillage, burn, etc. Because it's part of "your culture."
@denonics
You’re right. They’re not interested in the truth and dialogue. I also agree, they don’t care about right and wrong, if they did they would not promote half truths and lies, and they sure wouldn’t promote other things God calls an abomination.
You are also right about physical removal. Perhaps the language of force is all they can comprehend.
This lie of the white man stole all the land from the Indians has been going around since I was a little boy. Some land was, the majority was not. Nearly all the east coast was ceded by Indians who allied with the British in the Revolution and War of 1812 by the treaties ending those wars respectively. Much of it like the Louisiana Purchase which is greater that 1/3rd of the land mass of this country was purchased from France. How can the sell us something they didn’t own? Because they did own it. They made deals with the various tribes inhabiting those lands and the French side of the agreement was they’d let the Indians live autonomously. We had no such arrangement with them. The Spanish did the same thing in the west with at least another 1/3rd of the land mass in this country. It came under Mexicos possession when they revolted against Spain. It became our possession after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which ended the Mexican war. The Mexicans agreed to let the Indians live autonomously, again, we had no such arrangement with them. In both cases we acquired the land not by theft but by negotiation and in both cases had the right to evict from it whomever we wanted. We owned it and still do. We could do with it as we pleased. Yes, we did steal some land from the Indians but not much. As I see it we were generous enough to give them reservations where they could live as a people and maintain their way of life instead of simply exterminating all of them. Especially after they engaged in hostilities with us regarding the very land we owned. Yet we have this myth that we stole all the land. My dying ass we did.
@anon
Still waiting. Do you want me to contact whichever tribes land you live on? I’ll happily arrange a transfer of your land to its rightful owners for you.
Don’t be a hypocrite. Talk the talk AND walk the walk. Get off that stollen land right now! Put your money where your mouth is.
We both know you aren’t going to do that because your whole argument is a diluted fantasy from diluted people. You know you want to run around talking about stollen land and never acting on the beliefs you have. Your just as bad as people who claim Christ and deny him by how they live. They’re liars and so are you. You say one thing and have no actions to back your words. Talk is cheap.
@anon
One more thing. I guess you never heard of Buffalo Soldiers. Those were blacks who helped the whites steal land from the Indians.
@Exterminatore You can't say INDIANS! Apparently, they never existed on this continent. Political correctness, makes a lot of people look stupid, while they attempt to look smart.
@Exterminatore
I didn't vote this idiotic cunt's response as MHO, by the way; it was auto-selected.
The anchor baby law was a very humane thing to do during slavery. But those day are over, and this law just promotes illegal crossings at the border. And many hospitals have had to close because they couldn't keep operating for free. (I read it was about 60 hospitals in just California)
Just a suggestion: I noticed that the "no's" are overwhelmingly winning in your poll, but they can't be bothered to explain themselves. If you had not done a poll, the yes commenters would win this battle.
Just an observation.
Opinion
16Opinion
Yes, it should be done away with and in its place put that if one parent is a citizen the child gets it automatically too.
Seems like that makes more logical sense, especially when parents are citizens and happen to be travelling when baby is born.
Then again if it stays the current method, I'm fine too as long as people realize that having a citizen child does not make parents immune from deportation.
I saw this great response to CRT on Twitter and it definitely applies here.
When it comes to the concept of an "anchor baby" (or any such policy):
1. Pretend it isn't happening
"Rightwing claims about so called "anchor babies are a complete myth!"
2. Downplay it when its proven to be happening
(Interviewing a pregnant woman in one of these caravans) "I'm coming to the US to have my baby so it will be a citizen! And they'll have to let me in to because i'm the mother!" "Yea well... thats just ONE woman, you're blowing this way out of proportion!"
3. Defend it when it comes under attack.
"End birthright citizenship!"
"These RACIST far right attacks on birthright citizenship are a complete affront to democracy! We must stop this FASCISM! Think of the children!"
No, our forefathers put it in the Constitution for a reason. People that are born in a country are invested in it from birth. It is a shame that their intentions are perverted by an administration looking for future voters by importing millions of illegal aliens and they are assuming they will have thousands of anchor babies so we will never get rid of them.,
Florida by God, is awesome. Why? Because despite everything, they still VOTE Orangeman Rad! They don't want to be Commie. They want to be free too.
In Norway it don't exist, well sort of. If one of the parents are Norwegian the baby will automatically be Norwegian. But that don't give the non Norwegian parent eny rights to stay in Norway. You can apply for family immigration, and it might be accepted only if the one in Norway meets a given amount of years income.
No, but I would be open to amending the rule to say that at least one parent must be a citizen at the time of birth.
Why is this? Dead people, illegals aside can vote. No ID. What would be the point?
Then the conundrum be, if that parent is a citizen, what are the rules then? You then have to prove they had a parent born in the US?
@northwestripper666 That's not difficult on a birth certificate.
Flew right over your head. A few generations down and you are no longer American yourself.
@northwestripper666 Wow
What? Great Great Grandparents weren't born here. Fuck me, I lose citizenship.
@northwestripper666 So you think it would be retroactive? Usually new laws go into effect at a future date.
Shouldn't it be retroactive?
@northwestripper666 No new law should ever be retroactive.
I'd rather have voter ID.
@northwestripper666 Me too.
I think if on vacation or a temporary stay then no. If moved here and applied for citizenship, then yes.
Yes. If your parents aren't native by blood then you being born there by accident or some other situation shouldn't grant you automatic birthright and citizenship status.
Technically birthright citizenship refers to inheriting citizenship from your parents.
This is what Subject to the jurisdiction thereof clause means. You can't be born a citizen if your not subject to the jurisdiction.
In my state in order to graduate from high school you need to pass something that is pretty darn close to a citizenship test. So everyone who graduated from high school in Missouri could (at one point) pass a citizenship test.
That would get rid of so many people who were born here and lived their entire life here despite the fact that they were born from parents that struggled to get citizenship.
That would get rid of not "so many people." That would get rid of like, everyone. Not a bad way to do it now that I think about it. Guess we need the next Noah's Ark.
Heck no! And it should be a lot easier for adults to immigrate.
Yes, because people game the system. Either change it or remove it.
And why I should care? How does birthright citizenship affects my goals in life, my future, etc
If you don't care, then just don't answer. Thank you.
I don't think they should be a citizen if their mom traveled here just to give birth and then went back with her son/daughter to their country.
Rat born in a stable isn't a horse
So, you are a pie faced hobby horse? Assuming you are born in America.
Yeah, it’s obviously being abused
What would you replace it with?
At least one parent should a citizen already.
@Physics-Man And their parents, and theirs, and so on and so on. I'd be non American because my great grandparents parents were not born here.
No. Its seems that u may like volitile opinions.
It makes sense. Why go through all the trouble?
Yes, a dog born in a stable is not a horse
You can also add your opinion below!
