Birthright Citizenship

[lobosrul5]

If we didn't have birthright citizenship, and someone had a baby, where would they be a citizen of, if not here? We could be creating a refugee crisis in our own country if we did away with birthright citizenship, creating a bunch of stateless kids.

Generally they would be the citizens of whichever country their parents were from. However, if that can't be determined or citizenship can't be passed down, they'd be stateless. Even a lot of countries that don't have Jus Soli do give an exception for stateless people born there.

 

[theprestige]

Personally I think there is a bar for just about ANY legislation that it needs to address a serious harm productively or provide a serious tangible good.

When talking about changing the constitution, that bar is raised much higher.

I have a hard time seeing that birthright citizenship creates such a major harm to justify such a fundamental legal change.

Birthright citizenship was introduced in the 14th Amendment. If the amendment itself didn't bother to clear the bar, why should repealing the amendment have to clear the bar?

 

[theprestige]

The big issue is not about birthright citizenship, but wheither or not the POTUS can change the Constitution at his personal whim.

That's the main issue of the other thread. This thread was created specifically to consider other issues than that. Please try not to crap up this thread any more than strictly necessary.

 

[carlitos]

Generally they would be the citizens of whichever country their parents were from. However, if that can't be determined or citizenship can't be passed down, they'd be stateless. Even a lot of countries that don't have Jus Soli do give an exception for stateless people born there.

So if we do away with birthright citizenship, we would create an immigration crisis rather than a refugee crisis, with millions of Latin American citizen immigrants being born here. Sounds like a stupid plan to me.

 

[lobosrul5]

So if we do away with birthright citizenship, we would create an immigration crisis rather than a refugee crisis, with millions of Latin American citizen immigrants being born here. Sounds like a stupid plan to me.

But but but you see citizens can sit on their ass collecting a welfare check! Its why we're in enormous debt (that was sarcasm, welfare spending is a tiny % of the federal budget). So instead of citizens paying into SSN and income taxes, we'll have an underclass of people working illegally, which keeps labor cost low which is what some people want. The other component is they won't be able to vote.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Birthright citizenship was introduced in the 14th Amendment. If the amendment itself didn't bother to clear the bar, why should repealing the amendment have to clear the bar?

I don't know what you're asking. It's the same bar, i.e. how the Constitution gets altered.

 

[Cavemonster]

Birthright citizenship was introduced in the 14th Amendment. If the amendment itself didn't bother to clear the bar, why should repealing the amendment have to clear the bar?

How do you mean that the amendment didn't clear the bar? At the time it addressed people who were born here but were not being granted the rights of citizenship, and that was a major harm in need of remedy.

 

[Bob001]

But but but you see citizens can sit on their ass collecting a welfare check! Its why we're in enormous debt (that was sarcasm, welfare spending is a tiny % of the federal budget). So instead of citizens paying into SSN and income taxes, we'll have an underclass of people working illegally, which keeps labor cost low which is what some people want. The other component is they won't be able to vote.

Let's just note that unless people are being handed cash under the table, employers routinely deduct payroll taxes from all employees. So illegal immigrants are paying into Social Security and Medicare but generally won't be able to collect.

 

[ahhell]

Hey here's a dumb question.

Has Birthright Citizenship ever been put on someone against their will? Is there a precedence for that?

I mean in a lot of countries being a citizen carries with it substantial military service or the inability to hold duel citizenship.

You're a pregnant woman flying from Timbukto to Walla Walla and your plane makes an emergency stop in the Republic of HereNorThere which has birthright citizenship, you go into early labor and boom 18 years later your kid gets called up in HereNorThere's war or jury duty or taxes or whatever.

I went to highschool with a bunch of airforce brats many of whom were half German. They were generally under the impression that that meant they were subject to the German draft unless they renounced there citizenship or joint the US armed forces. Not quite forced jus soli so much as involuntary jus sanguinus.

Also, technically the US does not recognize dual citizenship so, while the Irish think I'm a citizen of both the US and Ireland, the US only recognizes me as a US Citizen. I suppose that may matter if I ever commit a crime in either country.

For reference, the US federal law regarding citizenship.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of.....

 

[Bob001]

.....
Also, technically the US does not recognize dual citizenship so, while the Irish think I'm a citizen of both the US and Ireland, the US only recognizes me as a US Citizen.
.....
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

Not really. The U.S. just doesn't care whether you are a citizen of the U.S. and another country unless you do something really stupid, like go to war against us.

U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one nationality or another. A U.S. citizen may naturalize in a foreign state without any risk to his or her U.S. citizenship

.
https://travel.state.gov/content/tr...nality-Dual-Nationality/Dual-Nationality.html

 

[Random]

That would depend on what Country that "someone" who had a baby was a citizen of. If a US citizen has a child in another country, the child is automatically considered a natural born US citizen. Geography is not the answer, the parents citizenship is the answer. Where are Mommy and Daddy lawful citizens?
Chris B.

Its not even the parent's citizenship necessarily. Each country has its own citizenship laws, and it is possible for someone to fall through the cracks. If the citizenship laws of Country A requires that someone be born in Country A to be a citizen, and the citizenship laws of Country B require one or both parents to be citizens of Country B in order to be a citizen, then a child born in Country B to two citizens of Country A would not not be a citizen of either country.

 

[phiwum]

Hey here's a dumb question.

Has Birthright Citizenship ever been put on someone against their will? Is there a precedence for that?

I mean in a lot of countries being a citizen carries with it substantial military service or the inability to hold duel citizenship.

You're a pregnant woman flying from Timbukto to Walla Walla and your plane makes an emergency stop in the Republic of HereNorThere which has birthright citizenship, you go into early labor and boom 18 years later your kid gets called up in HereNorThere's war or jury duty or taxes or whatever.

Surely, one can renounce citizenship and most, if not all, countries allow for citizenship via parentage.

Thus, if a child of Spanish parents is born in the US, and if he doesn't want to be a US citizen, he renounces his American citizenship and remains a Spanish citizen.

Not quite seeing your issue.

 

[dudalb]

I think birthright citizenship was an unintended loophole in the 14th amendment...but is it worth going to the trouble of admending the constitution to get rid of it? I don't think so.....

 

[phiwum]

Birthright citizenship was introduced in the 14th Amendment. If the amendment itself didn't bother to clear the bar, why should repealing the amendment have to clear the bar?

Sorry, are you suggesting that the 14th is not a legitimate amendment?

 

[acbytesla]

Birthright citizenship was introduced in the 14th Amendment. If the amendment itself didn't bother to clear the bar, why should repealing the amendment have to clear the bar?

What the hell are you talking about? Are you saying the 14th Amendment wasn't legally ratified? Seems a little late I the game to complain about it

But the 14th is more than just birthright citizenship, revoking it also means no more equal protection. And, the whole justification for Citizens United is also shot.

 

[theprestige]

Sorry, are you suggesting that the 14th is not a legitimate amendment?

What the hell are you talking about? Are you saying the 14th Amendment wasn't legally ratified? No more equal protection?

Can one of you please explain to me the line of reasoning that led you to this question?

acbytesla, especially from you I'm hoping there's an independent train of thought, and not just parroting phiwum's idea.

Bonus points if your explanation takes into account Cavemonster's reply to me.

 

[Norman Alexander]

So let's hypothetical that the 14th is revoked or overridden - no birthright citizenship. So is it going to be retroactive, and if so, how far back does it apply? Because it's apparent all the hordes of current "illegals" with "anchor babies" are the actual target of this action. Heaven knows you don't want them growing up to vote Democrat!

So is it one generation? A specific number of years? As far back as possible? Because each of these raises its own set of problems. E.g. Make it invalidate citizenship two generations back and Donald Trump is no longer a US citizen and therefore cannot be president. Whoopsie.

 

[acbytesla]

Can one of you please explain to me the line of reasoning that led you to this question?

acbytesla, especially from you I'm hoping there's an independent train of thought, and not just parroting phiwum's idea.

Bonus points if your explanation takes into account Cavemonster's reply to me.

I didn't read phiwum's post. Sorry phiwum.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Birthright citizenship was introduced in the 14th Amendment. If the amendment itself didn't bother to clear the bar, why should repealing the amendment have to clear the bar?

Can you clarify? In this context 'the bar' refers to the votes and ratifications all amendments go through, which all amendments to the US constitution have completed.

 

[theprestige]

I didn't read phiwum's post. Sorry phiwum.

It's okay. Take as much time as you need to figure out your reasoning.