President Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship is coming in front of the Supreme Court. Yes or No?

[exitseven]

There has been plenty of argument either way. It is in an amendment to the constitution but the spirit of the law was to permit former slaves to become citizens after the Civil War. It was never meant as a runaround of our immigration laws. Trump had received many favorable rulings from the court. Thus would be another huge win for Number 47.

[Screenwriter]

If there's no birthright citizenship, then people born here will no longer be citizens. So, then, what will all 300,000 mil of us have to do to be citizens if being born here no longer means we are?

This seems so to be aimed at immigrants who have had children born here, and appears to be another onslaught against first-generation Americans whose parents were/are not citizens.

I don't see any reason to retroactively punish the children of immigrants who are born in the U. S. They did not choose their parents or to be born here. Just as we whose immigrant connections are 200 to 400 years old didn't. It seems to be a vendetta.

Punish the 5 to 7% of (about 6,600 people) undocumented people who have been engaged in provable criminal activities. And by the way, 5 to 10% of native-born Americans (about 203,000) have been/are involved in criminal activities. That's a lot MORE people than that percentage of 11 million folks here illegally.

And 4 million of the 11 million have been awaiting to have cases heard in immigration court, but the cases are jammed because of the number and fact that there aren't enough judges to clear the dockets.

Clear out those cases to get to the bottom of who will be allowed to stay here legally and according to how long people have been here and if they have lived, worked, paid taxes and raised families, create cases for the most recent people here.

Fine those who've entered or overstayed in the country illegally. But be balanced in meting out punishment. Deporting people is far more costly, especially in the long run, than working through these issues.

We need immigrants to do many jobs that run this country. 95% of these people are contributing to our country. Draconian backlash against desperate people solves little.

[exitseven]

The system we have is nothing but an end run around our immigration laws. It attracts women to sneak into the country without authorization and after she has an anchor baby she collects welfare for the rest of her life. This is not sustainable. There is not much we can do about the people that are already here but the law should be changed to discourage the abuse of our welfare system.
You are right about the fact that we need immigrants to do many jobs but you fail to make a distinction between immigrants like my grandparents who worked, paid taxes and assimilated into the American culture and illegal aliens who come here without authorization and get welfare benefits that most citizens dream of. Year after year after year without end, an make no effort to learn English and participate in the country.

[Screenwriter]

Immigrant women can only collect welfare benefits for US. born minor children. They cannot collect for the rest of their lives unless they become legal immigrants. And entering illegally means this is unlikely.

However, the IRS will provide Social Security cards and take tax money from immigrants whether here legally or not. So, immigrants are paying taxes. And ti GET welfare benefits, immigrants have to show proof that their children are born here. Or their children here are sick and need help. That is the only way to get such benefits.

It is true, the original immigrants who arrive here are unlikely to assimilate, but as in all cultures, their children and grandchildren do.

And yes, illegal immigration is a huge and costly problem. I do not know how all the loopholes can be closed. But instability in these peoples' countries of origin makes ANY risk, even that of death, a positive choice for the people choosing it.

Why aren't we on top of Mexico, where most illegal immigrants come from: even ones from OTHER countries? It seems we don't do anything about MExico being a pipeline for this problem.

I don't see any easy or simple solution. It takes a lot of cooperation and many types of solutions. This isn't happening.

[Miristheiss]

That is a lot of blathering and cope to say that you are ok with being just about the ONLY ntion on the planet who pushes to give citizenship to this country to foreigners who are citizens of OTHER countries who sneak in WHILE PREGNANT and go into labor while here for a like a week or months.

You believe foreigners who are traveling through or sneaking into our country are birthing U. S. citizens?

You believe you should be able to jump on a plane while 8 months pregnant and fly to Japan or drive up to Canada and give birth in another country's hospital and your kid be a Japanese citizen or Canadian citizen and those countries are obligated to let you live there?

That is the moronic crap you are pushing.

Immigrants do jobs?

So, we need millions of them?

And we need millions of cultures that hate the west and do not assimilate?

We need to go 8,000 miles away and bring in millions from Somalia and Syria and Iran so they can open mosques and Islamic schools here and start a competing culture that has no intention of assimilating?

That is the moronic crap our government is doing.

Common sense of resticting immigration to a few, vett them for compatibility, do not give citizenship to traveling FOREIGNERS is just too much for you.

[RandomGirl42]

I really tried to answer this one seriously but it just gets so complicated and wordy that I really just do not understand any of it. I hope that whatever happens or however it happens is what is most positive for all involved.

Sometimes it seems so simple, like, just be decent to each other, you know. Like we get taught as kids, treat other like you want to be treated. I see a lot of people saying it but not many actually doing it.

[exitseven]

Tell that to the families of the people who have been killed by illegal aliens.

[RandomGirl42]

I know. I never know any real answers to anything that's why I just run my mouth on some social media site. But TY for the MHO.

[Chazmatazz269]

This is a slippery slope. I need to know more about what the actual ruling dictates and how it can be interpreted when power changes hands. If you think that democrats won’t start deporting natural born citizens just for voting against them, you’re fooling yourself. If simply being born here isn’t enough, how does one become a citizen? Does every parent then need to petition for citizenship for their children? How does that process affect applicants financially, or taxpayers? Now we need to be able to afford to become a citizen of the nation we were born to, or taxpayers have yet another coffer to fill?
This is the problem with bloated government.

[egan3141]

I believe we have blood citizenship still. If your parents are Americans, then you are americans.

[egan3141]

Still very questionable and need more details though

[Miristheiss]

Why does anyone support a traveling diplomat or foreigners coming in while pregnant, they have allegiance to another country, but tada! You went into labor while here... U. S. citizen.

If my wife and I go traveling while she is pregnant, we do not give birth to a citizen of another country. Other countries don't give our kid citizenship.

That is IDIOTIC.

Why do Americans push for and support this lunacy?

[exitseven]

democrats are counting on the illegal alien vote to save their party.

[AviatorTom]

Supreme Court will strike down the executive order. There is sufficient precedence and interpretation of the 14th amendment to maintain birthright citizenship. Plus, it would be a major overhaul of the citizenship question, requiring some form of application/registration for citizenship for newborns of US citizens (like other countries have, Germany for example), which the US is not ready for yet.

I don't think the discussion is over yet. At present, there is no definition of citizenship anywhere in the US Constitution and its amendments. It wouldn't surprise me if a future amendment to the Constitution defined what citizenship is, and clarify what that involves.

[RavVid]

While not a US cit, I always find constitutional issues interesting. It hinges on what 'subject to the jurisdiction' means does it not? Does that mean has to obey laws of the US or something else? Whilst American Indians were obviously born in the US they weren't citizens till much later I've read.

Words change meaning over time. Was jurisdiction used in a law sense or in the sense of owing allegiance. The word subject is interesting too. It can be used in the sense of subject to the law or in the sense of subject of the crown/gov't/country which apart from being subject to the law, also conveys owing allegiance to the crown/gov't/country.

I dare say there was recorded debate at the time of the amendment.

I am quite fascinated as to what US people think the original meant.

[sage2021]

I think it should end became it's not being used for the intended purpose.

[MrJuicyBred]

If someone is legitimately born in the USA then by GOD they are a US Citizen. Period. Being born here and or having the birthright citizenship has nbothing to do with the absolute failure at the borders. Im all for people coming to the USA so long as it is done properly through the proper legal channels. If someone is a felon or has person to person crimes I think they should absolutely be denied entry.

[exitseven]

an illegal alien who sneaks into America and gives birth to an anchor baby so she can collect welfare forever is OK with you?

[Anonymous]

This birthright has become a slap in the face to black people. If chain migration was ended, and anchor babies could never vote, the Democrats would've dumped this a long time ago.

[Ariesman81]

I am curious what this would mean for children born to American citizens. Would a new parent have to apply for citizenship for their child? Not saying I'm against it, just wondering how it would work in real life.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

I think we should keep it. It's a staple of the American spirit in my opinion. But we shouldn't give that right to parents. I think that pretty much solves all the biggest problems

[DryGermanGuy]

To change the constitution, he would have to work together with Congress, not whine around in the courts.

[RavVid]

The relevant 14th excerpt appears to be
"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".

The conditional "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is interesting.

It could mean subject to the laws (including constitution) and courts of the United States or subject could mean owing allegiance to the same. As is implied in a 'subject of the crown' meaning where the crown is the figure head of the country, system of government, and laws (including constitution).

American Indians weren't citizens till 1924 despite being born in the US as they had fealty to their sovereign tribe.

So it is interpretation of the US constitution that is in play not an amendment to it. Will be very interesting as to what the US Supreme Court reasons.

[DryGermanGuy]

Since that amendment has been law and creating consistent legal precedent for 150 years, it would be extremely weird for a court to suddenly throw everything on its head. If anything, that would be the lengthy job of the lawmakers in Congress.

[RavVid]

Agreed that it would be a startling decision but a constitutional court is not obliged to support a misinterpretation or a customary misapplication of law no matter how long the misinterpretation or misapplication has been going on. That happened in the Rhode vs Wade overturning.

Clearly I have an agenda and it is in two parts. As the US and Commonwealth countries have a shared legal tradition, where the legal position is unclear, judges may look to foreign decisions as persuasive. It is a long way down on the food chain but it still occurs.

Secondly I detest judicial adventurism and that mostly started in the US. So black letter legal decisions in the US have relevance to me in Australia and are very welcome.

I have an agenda that you probably don't to be clear.

[exitseven]

And yet it looks like the court will rule giving the president authority over agancies like the FTC. The reasoning is because things are diferent now and the reasons for doing this almost 100 years ago no longer hold.
It sounds a lot like birthright citizen ship

[RavVid]

Constitutional questions are absolutely fascinating. I do like the dynamic tensions between branches of gov't in the US system which simply don't exist in a Westminster system system. It is fascinating to follow the questions on this.

[Anonymous]

If it be the will of the people then it will pass.

[Cubus]

In overall I support the idea, but the constitution should be changed to allow this.

[888theGreat]

If you were born in US , then you are an American

[beefcakebradybatson]

I lean towards the Trump Court's ending birthright citizenship.

[msc545]

It's just another example of cruelty on the part of Trump.

[Dargil]

"just another"

[Iron_Man]

I don’t know About Ending it

[Pterodon]

Yes end it. Other countries are like that

[Raydergman26]

No because he isn't god

[exitseven]

no he;s not but he is right on this issue.

[Twodogs0525]

He doesn't have to be God to have SCOTUS interpret the the constitution but a certain party does have to be God to literally change it! You know, like lowering the voting age, ending the electoral college, giving illegal's automatic citizenship, among other things.