Should birthright citizenship be ended?

[OddBeMe]

Constitution be damned

Yes

No

[TadCurious]

Yes. The Fourteenth Amendment citizenship clause was meant to extend citizenship to the newly freed slaves. It was intended to grant citizenship to those born in the United States who were "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Meaning children born on U. S. soil to foreign diplomats, for example, would not be American citizens. This exception, interpreted correctly, would likewise not extend to a child born on U. S. soil to a foreign national illegally present. As a legal term of art, these children remain subject to the jurisdiction of their parents' home countries and should not be considered citizens under the citizenship Clause.

As a matter of public policy this correct interpretation of the citizenship clause would prevent what is known as "birth tourism." This is the widespread practice of women in the later stages of pregnancy entering the U. S. on a temporary tourist visa, giving birth to a child on U. S. soil, and thereafter having an "anchor baby." It's outrageous to construe the citizenship clause in such a way as to extend to that circumstance of birth.

[OddBeMe]

It goes beyond 14th amendment. Back hundreds of years into English law called "jus soli"

[Anonymous]

What does Birth right citizenship mean?
That you inherit your citizenship from the parent you were born to or wherever that parent happened to be when you were born?

In the first case your talking about the kind of citizenship you got with the 14th amendment in the 2nd case your talking crazy territorialism.

The concept of natural born citizenship is about loyalty the only thing we can really be expected to be loyal to is our own family. If your not loyal to your family you really can't be expected to be loyal to anyone or thing at all.
This is why citizenship is inherited not given because citizenship is really about loyalty to a community.

[OddBeMe]

means if you're birthed in america you're an American. we dont give citizenship to fetuses.

[IamRight]

@monorprise excellent answer, I agree 100%

[Opinion Owner]

@oddbeme
That's not what it said or did, even the original anthers addressed that point in rejecting the idea.

Birthright is an inheritance as in something you get from your parents. That is why we say Birthright when referring to our heritage. There is no particular place there except as associated with the same.

[OddBeMe]

Heritage like where someone is birthed? Lol. You're bending like a pretzel

[Opinion Owner]

@oddbeme I am not sure what your saying here..
Our language pre-dates IVF and presumes a woman can only birth her own children, while being medically ignorant of what happened before.

[OddBeMe]

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

[OddBeMe]

Apparently doesn't go far enough. If they naturalize, boom they're in

[Anonymous]

At the very least, the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment should be clarified. For instance, do the children of someone who is in the US illegally qualify?

[OddBeMe]

They are subject to the jurisdiction. Same if you commit a crime in france

[Anonymous]

Yes. Only those who have served or own a home should have citizenship.

https://youtu.be/3cktmS-yaxM?si=rED_31BCBrheAQg1

[DexWest]

reaffirm United States v. Wong Kim Ark: birth in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction, confers citizenship. But Wong’s holding rested on facts: the parents’ permanent domicile, residence, and subjection to U. S. laws without immunity. See 169 U. S. at 693 (‘domicil and residence… in the United States’). That domicile proved ‘direct and immediate allegiance,’ not mere transit. The Clause’s text, ‘born… and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ does not demand parental citizenship, but it presupposes more than temporary presence. History shows Framers rejected British indefeasible allegiance; they meant territorial obedience plus no competing sovereign. Transients, tourists or unlawful entrants, lack that root. Their birth, while on soil we control, does not trigger the full protection/obedience tie Wong required. We narrow no precedent; we apply it faithfully. Effective today: citizenship requires parental domicile. Congress may refine definitions (visa intent, duration), but the executive cannot rewrite via order.

[MisterWack]

This is a slippery slope.

The Founders wouldn’t want this because American natural born citizens deserve certain unalienable rights granted by God that no one can take away, not now not ever and it is the purpose of the government to uphold those certain unalienable rights to allow us to have Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion (also means we can separate from religion too), Freedom of Press, 2nd Amendment Right To Bare Arms…..

If we bend the US Constitution then we are no longer a Republic with Democratic Values.

What else could be taken away if we ended Birthright?(P. S. Dickhead TRUMP would need an Amendment created which clearly won’t be happening in the next 4 years)

[MisterWack]

Read The US Constitution:
www.archives.gov/.../constitution-transcript

[monorprise]

@MisterWack You must have glossed over the subject to the jurisdiction thereof clause. When you say birthright your actually referring to your inheritance regardless.

[MisterWack]

@monorprise What you said is meaningless.
US Constitution guarantees this in two parts.
Jus Soli through being born of the land & Jus Sanguinis through the descent of parents.
1868 through the 14th Amendment grants citizenship through “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” which provides all citizens with equal protection under the law.

[docster]

Mark Levin was talking about this on his show today. I believe he's a legal scholar and he said the 14th amendment does not apply to immigrants. It was meant to apply to freed African slaves after the Civil War. I guess it would only take the Supreme Court to clarify it to stop it's application to immigrants.

[OddBeMe]

2nd amendment doesn't apply to non-muskets

[beefcakebradybatson]

Mark Levin's a white supremacist POS.

[monorprise]

@beefcakebradybatson
Historically Mark is correct the radical republicans push the 14th amendment our of concern their "civil rights act" would be unconstitutional, an act that was about slaves.

That said the radical republicans were idiot imperialist and wrote the most poorly written amendment to ever allegedly be 'ratified'. And it arguably never was ratified given they had to hold a gun to the head of 11 'states' and only accept 1 answer from many more to get it over the line because people thought it was irresponsibly written.

Is everyone you disagree with a "white supremacist" somehow?

[Sevenpointfive]

yes! or stop stupid pregnant women from entering. make all women entering get a pregnancy test also and and an abortion if they test positive. make them pay for the test and the mandatory abortion. better yet! no foreigners can enter with a uterus

[ProbablyClueless]

No, I support birthright citizenship in general. '

It would probably be good to tighten that loophole up a little bit though.

[OddBeMe]

Why? You're birthed here, boom

[ProbablyClueless]

Because benefits of having a citizen child extend beyond the child. Which I do think is a valid, if mildly overblown, concern right wingers have. I'm not sure how many anchor babies are actually being born

I think it would be reasonable to have a duration on the amount of time the parents need to stay within the US to qualify for the birthright citizenship.

[OddBeMe]

Do they? So a mother is never jailed?

[ProbablyClueless]

For having anchor an anchor baby specifically? I wouldn't think so, but I'm also not well read on this subject. I don't know enough to have an informed opinion.

[OddBeMe]

Mothers are jailed, thus having kids doesn't extent beyond

[ProbablyClueless]

Can you cite an example of this happening?

[exitseven]

It is time to end this practice. It was not intended to be a way for illegal aliens to have anchor babies as a way to circumvent our immigration laws.
It will take a Constitutional amendment to do this. However , ending welfare benefits to non citizens and deporting the illegal alien parents will probably go a long way towards getting a handle on this problem.

[GOLDFISH_smile]

I'm not super familiar with that, tho I can think of a few ways it could be good/bad depending on circumstances.

[monorprise]

It depends on what he mean by birthright citizenship which he didn't specify.

Your either referring to the normal idea of inheriting citizenship from your parents of birth, or the strange idea of being given it simply because of your location of birth.

In this first case almost everyone on earth does it because citizenship is a subset of family.

in the 2nd case almost nobody does because where your born has pretty much nothing to do with who you are or whom your loyal to.

So its a very different answer depending on the definition. This is what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof clause" of the 14th amendment is about.

[GOLDFISH_smile]

@monorprise ahh yeah I was thinking the 2nd. The 1st the normal one, fucking obviously should keep that what possible problem could that cause to justify removing it? 2nd one I could see reason to keep it or remove it.

[monorprise]

I don't see a reason to respect the 2nd definition @GOLDFISH_smile
as the parents were here legitimate for immigration proposes it would already be covered by the 1st definition.

If your going to expand the political community to include the children of people not here for the proposes of immigration your going to get a lot of random citizens with no real ties to our country or people at best. Most of them will in fact have ties to people with no respect for our laws and will themselfs have a place to go after abusing the same.

This creates a locust situation they are here to extract the resources for themselfs with little thought of the future as they can simply move on.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise except its as constitutional as the 2nd amendment

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe
The 14th amendment does not create birth place citizenship only birth right citizenship. Something that like nearly everything the 14th amendment claimed to be doing arguably already existed, as its anthers believed.
Granted the Authors were imperialist idiots who were extremely careless with their language, and the amendment as such arguably never even passed for that reason given they had to hold a gun to the head of 11 states and accept only the ratification answer from several more.

In that respect the amendment itself isn't even close to the legitimacy of the 2nd amendment, let alone the Text which had a clearly very different meaning when first applied until dishonest leftist tried to rewrite it on the bench it 80-120 year later as they have every other part of the constitution.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise maybe 2nd amendment only applies to muskets. If you want to read that much into the text

[monorprise]

If you @OddBeMe were to infer that, then the word 'arms' would be the more specific term 'muskets' rather than a contraction for the term armaments. Which really does refer to weapons of war.

That said a more appropriate narrowing of the 2nd amendment would be to apply it only to members of the militia. This of course is a problem as states define who is in the militia and even the Feds recognize the entire male population as militia members+ those females enlisted in the national guard.

In that case gun laws might apply to women and children, but not men per state definition.

That meaning I would actually agree with as it is consistent with the history of the amendment and gun laws. It still wouldn't give the feds the power to make gun laws on any subject whatsoever it would simply do as the amendment was intended in preventing them abusing their Existing Article 1 section 8 clause 15 & 16 powers over the militia to disarm them.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise in your specific reading of "leftist" amendments... it's about what was they thought at the time. Yes?

[monorprise]

I define 'leftist' acts as those designed to push collectivist ideas. I didn't however call the amendment such but rather what a few leftist 'judges' decided to rewrite it as on a case by case basis. @OddBeMe

That said a few amendments were indeed written for that propose including the 14th but also the 16th, while the 23rd was just a corrupt democrat power-grab posing as an inconsistent and imperfect solution to a made up problem for the propose of that solution.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise the second amendment was def a non solution to a non problem

[monorprise]

The founders would call it a preemptive solution to a potential abuse of the original constitution. @OddBeMe But your right it was not really much of a problem in the constitution as originally written. As A1S8C15 and 16 allow congress to mandate arms but not ban them from citizen much less the militia's they form.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise So I can has nuke?

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe
Frankly Yes as far as federal constitution is concerned.
Good luck making them thou, that's rather difficult for nations. That also does not rule out states from outlawing possession.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise you have no prob with me buying a nuke and moving next door to you?

Lol you're wrapping yourself like a pretzel for your own stupid ideology.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe Just because the feds have no right to outlaw such a weapon doesn't mean your state can't. The fact that just about every other state on earth has done so makes it fairly unlikely it will be legal in any of the existing 50 states.
That said I'm not sure how I would stand on that issue. It's really a local hazardous material issue.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise having a gun that can fire 100 rounds a minute is hazardous to everyone

So you think states can make their own gun laws? What the fuck was DC v. Heller?

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe DC v. Heller was an illegal usurpation, although it was a natural application of the court's self-serving and unauthorized incorporation doctrine turning the Federal constitution on its head.

Basically 100 years ago in the 1920's the lawless and unaccountable federal politician in black robes decided to give themselfs the broad and undefined power to selectively 'incorporate' the "bill of rights" against the states. That is the same "bill of rights" which is written explicitly to be a bill of restrictions on the federal goverment for the propose of leaving said power to the states.

Now being allegedly used by the same court to invent new federal mandates 50 years after the same court had rejected the idea on the grounds that such an 'interpenetration' of the 14th amendment would give the same court unlimited power to leglsate anything they want rendering the constitutions pointless. Exactly what they did in the forgoing 100 years.

I get it that leftist and imperialist generally like what the equally imperialist and leftist court did with such absolute and unlimited power. But the Consequence of such power is we don't have a republic but an oligarchy over which we fight for control.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise but that case now doesn't allow gun bans in states. Which is what you said

[monorprise]

Forgive me i got McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), confused for DC v. Heller.

There is technically little wrong with D. C. v. Heller due to D. C. being a federal enclave that has rejected Maryland law. McDonald v. City of Chicago is the illegal usurpation build upon the lawless incoperation doctrine
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise oh so any American city or state can enact a gun ban?

[monorprise]

As far as the federal constitution is concerned yes, and historically @OddBeMe
that is exactly what happened. That is why in old westerns you would often see the sheriff collecting weapons at the edge of town.

This is not to say every state would do this, many if not most states have the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their State constitutions.

[RavVid]

I'm not American so can't have an opinion. I am curious though as to how constitutional provisions could be over-ridden? Is that at all possible?

I imagine illegal girl immigrants are very busy at the moment.

[monorprise]

Its really just a left wing presumption inconsistent with both the text and original implementation of the 14th amendment. @RavVid
We did after all not give citizenship to Asian, Mexican, Indians, or members of any nationality simply because they were born here.

That said the 14th amendment was written by imperialist morons worse than any other amendment of the constitution. So its confusingly vague and poorly thought out on almost all of its language.

Which is why the text lists the overlapping concepts of birthright (something you inherit) and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

[RavVid]

@monorprise Ah! I see your point. Thanks for that information.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise is everything you dislike a left wing conspiracy?

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe
No I don't care for 'right wing' attempt at hero worship, centralized power, or abuse of power either.

in this case the Constitutions says what it says and we did what we did with a more original understanding of it.

Modern 'courts' might choose to enforce their politically desired 'interpretation' but that would be in-conflict with what was done and said at the time, as well as what was written.

The same is technically true of the 2nd amendment, 'right-wingers' conspire to push the idea it like the other bill of 'rights'(restrictions on goverment) apply to everyone. But that's not what the 2nd amendment says or did really until recently.
It explicitly apples only to the Federal goverment. Tecnicly it was about militia in amendment the article 1 section 8 clause 15 &16 powers given.
That doesn't mean the feds have any power to outlaw ANY gun for anyone else for they simply don't have that power.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise oh therefore the 2a allows me to own a nuke

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe Yes the 2nd amendment allows you to make a nuke as far as the federal goverment is concerned. The 2nd amendment however does not inhibit states from outlawing such as everyone on earth has. So provided one of the states does allow it legaly you can make it.

[genericname85]

i think there should be an amendment for illegal refugees who just come here alreay pregnant, ready to plop down their child on emerican soil. there should be an amendment that blocks that exploit.

[msc545]

NO! I realize the Right wants to destroy the Constitution, but have the decency to at least some shreds left.

[Juxtapose]

Citizenship should be inherited, not given. @monorprise describes this well.

[OddBeMe]

2a should only apply to muskets

[Juxtapose]

The founding fathers intended for citizens to be armed comparable to the military. Private ships had canons. Tomas Jefferson would be all for you to have a canon on your ship to protect.

The founding fathers didn't intend to have foreigners game the system. It was meant for slave's children.

We know what the game is, Democrats want to flood the country with criminal aliens to fill senate seats & maintain a quasi slave class to subjugate & indoctrinate. They want to fill the military with them too so they'll be willing to commit atrocities.

Trump isn't standing for it & the sane people are flocking to him. RFK Jr & Tulsi. Bernie should go MAGA too & advocate for better healthcare. MAGA is the anti-deep state party and even Cenk from the Young Turks is starting to engage with them.

[OddBeMe]

How do you know this?

[Juxtapose]

The founding fathers literally allowed merchant ships to have canons, which were a big deal back then. The literature of the founding fathers also shows strong support for individual ownership of firearms.

The Democrats tell on themselves with their actions. Yeah, the Republicans have been fucked up too in the past (Bush) but MAGA is the way forward to stabilize the country from the deep state induced degeneration.

If Cenk was president and enacted WolfPAC to get money out of politics I'd be behind that too. Cenk by the way is the host if the biggest left show, the Young Turks. America's largest online progressive news network.

[Juxtapose]

*of the biggest

[OddBeMe]

That doesn't prove they valued individuals ownership of all arms. That simply means when there's a deficit of safety, they allowed ships to protect themselves.

Or you wouldn't have a problem with me owning a nuke

[Juxtapose]

No, the Federalist papers show differently. The founding fathers wanted the citizenry to be capable of standing up to a tyrannical government.

I'd rather you own a nuke than for the government to take away all firearms.

[OddBeMe]

Lol... The federalist papers aren't law and are written by only three dudes. And...
"using militias for tyrannical purposes would be ineffective" because they only had muskets !

[Juxtapose]

[OddBeMe]

And?

[Juxtapose]

Oh so now all of a sudden you don't care about credentials and you think you know better than historians?

[OddBeMe]

No i see the federalist papers like i see Benjamin Franklin's Silence Dogood letters.

you're the one putting some extra value on it for absolutely no reason at all.

[Juxtapose]

No you are in the minority with that opinion and rightfully so.

[OddBeMe]

Oh so the federalist papers have some important in the legal world right? Nope.

[Juxtapose]

From a law school in Washington DC:

scholarship.law.gwu.edu/.../viewcontent.cgi

[Juxtapose]

[OddBeMe]

So... no it's not recognized with any legal importance

Thats a students paper on why federalism kicks ass in his opinion. Can you recognize fact from opinion?

[Juxtapose]

The Supreme Court literally quoted The Federalist papers 35 times in a single case. Are you high?

[OddBeMe]

A justice in his comments quoted it dumbass. Are you really this stupid?

The federalist papers have zero finding in law

[Juxtapose]

Yeah, that's actually pretty significant if the justice is straight up telling you they are basing a decision off of The Federalist papers. The Constitution is not exactly very specific so the Federalist papers provide a more detailed description of the original intent.

[OddBeMe]

No it means nothing. It's a comments section. Scotus justice have referenced websites, TV shows and number of stupid shit in their briefs.

The fact you think this is alarming

[Juxtapose]

"The Federalist Papers were written and published to urge New Yorkers to ratify the proposed United States Constitution, which was drafted in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. In lobbying for adoption of the Constitution over the existing Articles of Confederation, the essays explain particular provisions of the Constitution in detail. For this reason, and because Hamilton and Madison were each members of the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers are often used today to help interpret the intentions of those drafting the Constitution."

guides.loc.gov/.../full-text#:~:text=

For%20this%20reason%2C%20and%20because, of%

20those%20drafting%20the%20Constitution.

[Juxtapose]

At this point you're just not a serious contender if you keep insisting on this.

[OddBeMe]

No at this point you think peoples opinions on the federalist papers are what all opinions should be.

[OddBeMe]

Can you even tell me if the three authors agreed with each other on the fp?

[Juxtapose]

On some things they did, on some things they did not.

[OddBeMe]

And yet you claim they represent what the founders thought

[Juxtapose]

It does, very clearly.

[OddBeMe]

No, they don't even represent the thoughts of the all 3 authors. You said this yourself. They disagreed.

[Juxtapose]

🤦 if I wanted to know what the Supreme Court thought, I would examine the opinions of all of them. Not just the ones that agree with each other.

[OddBeMe]

Sure but just like what the president thinks... it's irrelevant to law.

[Juxtapose]

The president can literally pardon you so I think what they think is actually pretty important.

[OddBeMe]

The federalist papers don't even represent the beliefs of the 3 authors, let alone all the founding fathers. You said so yourself. Stop pretzeling your logic for your ideology

[Juxtapose]

You're just embarrassing yourself at this point:

www.uscourts.gov/.../overview-rule-law

[OddBeMe]

And that proves what? Lol

you're special pleading the federalist papers and it's embarrassing for you

[Juxtapose]

Did you even look at the link?

[Twalli]

You have to pass a teat to be a citizen, I had to pass the equivalent to graduate highschool. However, thstvwas a state law since other states had different history requirements.

[Anonymous]

I thought constitution be damned with a democratic thought process? I'm so confused...

[OddBeMe]

who told you that?

when did Biden receive emoluments?

[QuietRunner]

No as long as you subject to the jurisdiction thereof

[Anonymous]

Yes, along with DACA. Anchor babies should be deported too.

[OddBeMe]

So should non native americans

[beefcakebradybatson]

H**L to the NO !!!

[monorprise]

No to what?

Getting citizenship from your family of birth, or getting citizenship from your unrelated and random location of birth?

[Anonymous]

You really need to get a life.

[jimmy2]

Deportation them all

[OddBeMe]

De-trump-ification them all