'Litigation is a certainty': Trump's call to end birthright citizenship

LOL, since all his kids but Tiffany are "anchor babies"

Ok, let's start with your chain migration family and that giant kid of yours... GET OUT!

And what about all those Russian oligarchs flying to his properties to have anchor babies there? You really don't want to piss off Russian mafia, Donnie.

I'm actually in favor of this.

When you have pregnant chinese tourists coming here to give birth, just so their kids can have US Citizenship, then you know it's a problem.

No other country allows this.

[quote] The co-founder of Fat Daddy, Zheng, says there are many reasons clients want to use his company's services.

[quote] He says China used to limit couples to just one child (now the limit is three), so wealthy couples used to have their second or even third child in the U.S. Another reason is that unmarried women and non-heterosexual couples often have a hard time having children or adopting legally.

[quote] Having a baby, even via surrogate in the U.S., also grants the child coveted American citizenship. Perhaps surprisingly, Zheng says the growing competition between the U.S. and China has actually made American citizenship more attractive to many families.

[quote] "In the foreseeable future, China and the U.S. will definitely be the two strongest countries in the world," he says. "If the U.S. is not the first, then China will be and it will definitely be a win-win situation for your children in the future if they have both these nationalities."

[quote] Before the pandemic, Zheng says, Chinese demand for surrogacy and birth tourism services was so high he used to rent out entire apartment buildings for Chinese families.

[quote] And according to another agent — who only gave her name as Lulu for fear of retribution for speaking frankly about Chinese politics and surrogacy — many of her clients were "high-level Communist Party officials and celebrities" with money and power who wanted their children to have American citizenship. In China it is illegal for citizens to be dual nationals.

The US and Canada are the last Western countries to grant birthright citizenship to anyone born on their soil or territories. All of the other countries who once had it got rid of it because of the flagrant abuse of the system. Ireland, for example, got rid of it in 2004 because there were so many third world women who were nine months pregnant flying in and practically being rushed to the hospital from the airport.

Great, but it requires a constitutional amendment. End birthright citizenship in exchange for ending gerrymandering, the Electoral College, and abortion restrictions. Fair?

Trump had package deals way back when for Russian parents to come stay here and have their kid thus making it American. Does anyone remember reading this?

Anything to keep Russians out of the US is fine by me. They are loathsome horrible people and corrupt AF.

As a nation of immigrants it is hilarious for Trump to try this. His lineage in the US only goes back to his grandparents. What is the cut-off? There are people whose ancestors came to the US in the 1600s. And the Indians were mostly here for at least 2,000 years, so shouldn't they have the most rights, instead of living on reservations? Or does that only apply to white people? Which I'm sure is the real point of his argument. White supremacy.

It's not just the Chinese, r4, here r7...

Russians Flock to Trump Properties to Give Birth to U.S. Citizens

His die hard magats are already crowing about deporting everyone on day 1. Not gonna happen but they are stupid and insane.

First of all, he is saying an executive order. EOs are not laws and it would only last for a few years and I don't think, since it is a constitutional law he can't even make an EO stick. 2/3 of the states would have to vote to end it. In this climate, there is no way the two parties can come together to solve any problem now.

We’re both of his parents born in this motherfucking country? He is such a bitch. This is a jab at Kamala because both her parents are immigrants. I cannot wait until he is destroyed in November.

R1 lol right.

The map at the link is interesting. Most of the unrestricted birthright citizenship is found in North and South America, a holdover from when countries were attempting to attract rather than repel immigrants.

And so it goes.

R15, that isn't why the Fourteenth Amendment was passed. It had nothing to do with immigration.

It's not so rare a thing:

36 countries have some form of this similar to that of the US. Many more countries have more restrictive forms of birthright citizenry.

[quote]2/3 of the states would have to vote to end it.

3/4 of the states, preceded by 2/3 of both houses of Congress.

No one who uses the term "anchor babies" in 2024 should be taken seriously. It's a Fox News buzzword from 2004.

R20 is why Trump is heading back to the White House.

The US is an outlier for having birthright citizenship. European and Asian countries do not have such a concept.

Gets that hooker in and then closes the gate.

This will be probably the one and only think I agree with him on for the next four to ten years he's our dictator.

think = thing

Good luck amending the constitution, Plump.

This is Demagoguery 101. He’s going to make a big fuss about things he can’t change but that his base loves. Meanwhile, while everyone is distracted, he will gut the protections for consumers, homeowners and the working class.

I also think this is correct. The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to assure that former slaves were citizens, not to grant citizenship to people born here to non-citizens. Birthright citizenship makes no sense and definitely encourages illegal immigration.

He doesn’t need to amend the Constitution. He just needs the Supreme Court to rule that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes babies born to non-citizens. Hardly a stretch to imagine this Court will.

[quote]Litigation is a certainty

The very story of Trump's life.

Taxes? Not even a possibility.

Death? We can only hope.

R27, do you also support the abolition of the electoral college and a direct popular election of presidents? Another vestige of slavery.

Yes, but not really relevant and that would certainly require a Constitutional amendment which will never happen.

[Quote] He doesn’t need to amend the Constitution. He just needs the Supreme Court to rule that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes babies born to non-citizens.

Oh so what you’re saying is, they can commit murder and not be prosecuted because they’re not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Do us a favor.

We must fight against this with everything. It's a disgrace, and it is driven by simple bigotry.

The Amendment was written to recognize the citizenship of former slaves and has been used successfully by other minority groups who were also not considered citizens even though they were born here.

In fact, a major SCOTUS court case stated that an Indian American man was, in fact, not a citizen. At the time, only citizens could own businesses and land, so he lost all his assets and committed suicide.

This amendment was created because otherwise only white people could be citizens. Don’t think for a second that, if this amendment were gone, whites wouldn’t start claiming that they are the only true citizens.

If you’re an American citizen, you must pay American taxes, no matter where you live. So if rich Chinese come here to have their babies, those kids will ultimately have to pay American taxes

He has all sorts of plans. He's going to rename Denali back to Mt McKinley.

[quote] Oh so what you’re saying is, they can commit murder and not be prosecuted because they’re not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Do us a favor.

That’s simply stupid.

For purposes of criminal law, anyone in the United States who is not an accredited diplomat is subject to its jurisdiction. To read the phrase in the context of the 14th Amendment as meaning nothing more than “subject to the criminal law” is to render it superfluous

I’m not saying I know what the framers of the 14th Amendment meant. I haven’t studied it. I’m saying THIS Court will do whatever it damn well pleases.

I agree with Trump on this, birthright citizenship needs to be retired.

No, you’re simply stupid, r37. The words subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are perfectly clear. It doesn’t say, “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States except for criminal stuff.”

The law exempts the children of diplomats born here from U.S. citizenship. It couldn’t be clearer. It would be completely idiotic to claim that any child born in the USA of parents who aren’t citizens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Diplomats are exempt from that jurisdiction. No one else is.

The whole thing is extremely clear, as is the jurisdiction exception and its meaning. And this is always how it’s been treated.

R27 you misunderstand the entire scope of the 14th amendment. You are dumb. The drafters were seeking to protect newly-freed blacks, but they INTENTIONALLY wrote the amendment without any such limitation. It applies to anyone born here, experto for limited exceptions as in the child of a diplomat. It is as clear-cut an amendment as exists in the Constitution.

R28 and overturn a 160 year precedent? NO.

I wouldn't be against birthright citizenship ending. We indeed have a proud history as a nation of immigrants, but we are almost 250 years into our nation's history, and we need to adapt to the world we live in now.

But as always, Trump et al want to do things as cruelly as possible. Congress and various presidents could have guided this in a more efficient and/or humane way, but Trump wants to use it as ethnic cleansing.

Why would they gave written the Amendment with the intention of letting foreigners visiting the US give birth to American citizens? What purpose does that serve?

The reason why it’s still in America is that we’re a nation of immigrants. We’re all immigrants

In any case, as I said, I’m not saying what the right answer is in terms of Constitutional interpretation. I’m saying 1) This Supreme Court will rule however it wants if there’s any wiggle room, and 2) I think birthright citizenship is a bad policy.

Well they let idiots like you, who can’t write properly in English, become citizens. Why not everyone else born here? R44

R45. There is no wiggle room. And why are you against the United States of America—leave then, if you don’t like the very basis for our fundamental rights.

Sorry for R43

R46

They just erased part of the 14th Amendment. They can certainly interpret “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to exclude people here illegally.

You’re typing in circles. If you’re born here, by definition you’re not illegal. This is settled law, not a case of first impression or some ambiguity as to drafters’ intent. Go read a law book.

The US and Canada are the only Western countries which still have birthright citizenship, all the others got rid of it. Ireland, for example ended it in the early 2000s because the system was being flagrantly abused. Women who were nine months pregnant were getting off planes to give birth on Irish soil just to get benefits. It was put to a vote, and some 80% of the Irish public chose to end it.

Well Congress and the ratifying governors clearly disagreed with you, r45, because ut was clearly discussed at the time what the purpose of the jurisdiction exception was. From the constitution center:

[quote] When adopted, that clause, which was drafted against the backdrop of the Civil Rights Act, was clearly understood to withhold birthright citizenship from the American-born children of foreign diplomats present in this country, because under international law diplomats and their families were largely immune from the legal control and the courts of their host country. The limiting clause also was understood not to grant birthright citizenship to various members of Indian tribes whose political relations with the United States limited its authority over the tribes’ members. The scope of the limiting clause is a matter of political controversy today.

The funny thing about this is, millions of Americans ARE Americans because, somewhere in the past, an ancestor was born here and had US citizenship. But those same people want to deny the right that started their own chain of citizenship, because Latinos.

Where in your pull quote does it say that children of non-citizens born here are not citizens.? It doesn’t, because Congress considered the issue and expressly declined to provide such limitation. Learn to read and not just cut and paste.

Who are you even talking to, r53? Your scolding about reading is a bit ironic when you don’t even know how to respond in a debate.

[quote] The funny thing about this is, millions of Americans ARE Americans because, somewhere in the past, an ancestor was born here and had US citizenship

All Americans except Native Americans are the descendants of immigrants or are immigrants themselves. That doesn’t answer the question of whether people who are not here legally should have the same rights as those who followed the law.

Will Trump also get rid of the amendment that outlaws slavery?

[Quote] All Americans except Native Americans are the descendants of immigrants or are immigrants themselves. That doesn’t answer the question of whether people who are not here legally should have the same rights as those who followed the law.

Even Native Americans are immigrants if you go back far enough.

The amendment says EVERYONE born here. THAT answers the question

The problem is we have way too many people shitting out kids on American soil just to get benefits. They have no interest in assimilating and becoming naturalized Americans. They just want to take and take and take. These people aren't the immigrants of yore. They're parasites.

Care to provide evidence, r58? Or are you just translating from your native German?

Well, that is a question r55, but the question here goes deeper: who is here legally and who isn't? It was always understood, at least since the late 19th century clearly, that if you were born here on this big hunk of land known as the United States, you are here legally. Your parents might not be, but you are. And if we change that, what does that start to look like really?

For now, the plan seems to be that sometime soon, children born in this country will not be citizens if their parents (at least one parent? both?) aren't legal citizens. They'll be tossed out, but kids born here last year, or last month, or last week, can stay. Of course what Trump says now and what Trump does later don't have any necessary connection to each other. Bitch lies like a motherfucker, and often doesn't even have a clue what his policy is. And will people like r58, who are jizzing at the thought of brown kids being tossed over the wall, be satisfied with that? A lot of them are probably anticipating a lot of people being tossed out of the country (where? who knows?). If Trump tells them, no, those kids are all staying, it's future kids we're going to toss out, will they be satisfied with that, or will they insist on more?

Not sure, but again, I don't think we can know until vague ideas start becoming actual laws and policies and enforcement mechanisms.

[quote] For now, the plan seems to be that sometime soon, children born in this country will not be citizens if their parents (at least one parent? both?) aren't legal citizens

Like almost every other country in the world.

r59 you must not be alive to know what's going on. Linked upthread is an article about a whole fucking apartment building for the sole purpose of birth tourism. These places are all over the place. It's an abuse of the system and needs to be shut down.

Of course, if all the birth tourists were Russians you and r60 would be screaming to change birthright citizenship yesterday.

Unlike virtually every country in North, Central and South America. FIFY.

[Quote] All Americans except Native Americans are the descendants of immigrants or are immigrants themselves.

Except I didn’t say descendants, did I? I said citizens. Citizens of the United States.

Citizens of the United States because they were born here.

Born here the children of immigrants who weren’t citizens. Because of the 14th amendment.

And are now trying to deny the same to others because they’re Latinos or Asians.

FTFY

[Quote] [R59] you must not be alive to know what's going on. Linked upthread is an article about a whole fucking apartment building for the sole purpose of birth tourism.

Oh look it’s Fox News agitprop come vividly to life! Defacto monkeys it here with his New York crime threads.

Reagan did the same thing with welfare queens driving Cadillacs.

And homophobes did the same with gay men taking boys. “Here’s a story about a gay who raped a boy. So you know what that means? Gays are pedo molesters.”

We know how this works, chief. We aren’t stupid.

[Quote] The problem is we have way too many people shitting out kids on American soil just to get benefits

What benefits do we get exactly?

Oh STFU r65. Your obsession with this Defacto is a mental illness.

You certainly are stupid to not acknowledge that birth tourism is a flagrant abuse of American policy and is strictly for the purpose of getting benefits without contributing or paying into the system. Take your self-righteous virtue signaling and blow it out your prolapsed asshole.

And as was stated above, if the majority of these people were Russians you'd be calling for their heads.

Are you really that stupid, r66? For starters:

Benefits for the Child

Travel Freedom Visa-free or easier access to many countries

Education Access to local public education systems

Healthcare Access to healthcare services in the birth country

Citizenship Opportunity to hold dual or multiple citizenships

All for shitting out a kid five minutes after you land on US soil. There's a reason most other countries have abolished birthright citizenship.

This Defacto is you, you piece of shit. This whole line of reasoning is right up your alley, as I just pointed out.

Anchor baby hotels, New York crime wave, drones ignored by Biden, you’re an extremely ugly one-man disinformation device.

[quote] The reason why it’s still in America is that we’re a nation of immigrants. We’re all immigrants

Excuse me?

They need to get around to making English the official language too. There is no unity, no need for assimilation anymore. You can’t run a country that way.

And homosexuality should be outlawed, amirite r71? Flyover creeps have that on their list, right next to no immigrants and no liberals.

[quote] The funny thing about this is, millions of Americans ARE Americans because, somewhere in the past, an ancestor was born here and had US citizenship. But those same people want to deny the right that started their own chain of citizenship, because Latinos.

Wrong. People went through the legal process to become citizens. This has nothing to do with legal immigration. Liberals need to grow up and come to grips with reality already. It was hilarious watching them lose their shit when illegals ended up on their doorsteps. Suddenly the border was a problem. This isn’t lost on Americans and is why liberals are being voted out by the truckload.

[Quote] Native American

They were immigrants too. They came across the Bering strait. They didn’t sprout up out of the ground.

horseshit r71, there are enormous incentives for learning English and assimilating into this country. In fact, the least unifying people in the country are the cunts and assholes in the Trump Cult, the vast majority of whom are quite fluent in English (if a little iffy on spelling) and have no problem "fitting in" to all the shittiest aspects of nativist, white supremacist culture.

R72 heads straight for Crazy Town, throwing shit at the wall hoping something sticks. Dear, that has no connection to anything said.

I’d be happier if he ended daylight savings time.

R75 has never dealt with government institutions asking what you language is before handing you a form at the DMV and everywhere else. There is no incentive to assimilate.

R74 is a moron.

R74 is a racist who claims Native Americans had no right to the land. How very progressive.

Ad hominem is an admission of defeat r79. I accept your surrender.

Facts aren’t racist, Defacto at r80. But you are.

[Quote] [R72] heads straight for Crazy Town, throwing shit at the wall hoping something sticks. Dear, that has no connection to anything said.

Getting worried, are we Defacto? Because the same people who want to end your beloved “anchor babies” want to recriminalize homosexuality. And you know it.

[Quote] Wrong. People went through the legal process to become citizens.

Youre the wrong one here, Defacto. You think your wop ancestors learned to speak English? Naturalization required that you speak English. Millions of European immigrants never became citizens.

I hope a lot of these immigrant idiots that voted for him are faced with hardship because of this

And there were really very few rules about tossing out "illegals" in the 19th century. The idea that people were all "following the laws" mostly meant getting on a boat and later getting off a boat. There was no big bureaucratic machinery and bitter little bands of self-appointed cops to ensure that white people at least (not those yellow hordes, of course, there was ridiculous trauma about them) were here "legally." The idea that our ancestors "followed all the rules" is just idiotic bullshit if we are talking about Europeans who sailed over here. Mostly they just went through the important business of not looking like complete lunatics or talking about their dream of robbing banks out west, or obviously dying from some damn thing, and apparently even DeFecto's ancestors were able to pass that test.

An RN friend at Jamaica Hospital told me women from other countries arrive at JFK and stay in motels near the hospital a week or so from expected delivery date so they can have an American baby. Is there any other country that has this law?

Frankly, I don't see what birthright citizenship adds to our country. It is widely abused by the criminal Russians! I say we get rid of it.

Defacto is the descendent of anchor babies.

He doesn’t want other people to have that benefit even though, like himself, they are people of color.

[Quote] Is there any other country that has this law?

Every country in North America. Virtually every country in South America. Most European countries have some form of it. It’s only backward countries like Russia that don’t have any form of it.

[Quote] Are you really that stupid, [R66]?

Actually, while poor illegals might benefit from those things (although anyone in America gets access to many of them), those who fly over just to have anchor babies (like rich Chinese people) take their American citizen babies right back home with them. Most don’t get any of those benefits. They do get free travel back to the US and access to Federal jobs and grants, if they want them. Most are wealthy enough not to need those things.

[Quote] All for shitting out a kid five minutes after you land on US soil. There's a reason most other countries have abolished birthright citizenship.

Most other countries have universal healthcare. Since we’re cherry picking what we like about other countries, can we get universal healthcare in the US?

R68, actually not many of those are particularly enticing.

For access to America education and healthcare, you don’t have to be a citizen. Lots of countries have travel freedom.

What’s not great is you can be drafted into the US military and you have to pay American taxes.

Wrong r89. European countries do not have birthright citizenship. Ireland was the last one, and they got rid of it in the early 2000s.

The plan is primarily to make the US a Christo-fascist majority white nation with next to zero regulations and cherry picking through the constitution to decide which laws would benefit that end and remove those that do not.