Birthright citizenship: why is it worth fighting for?

[Slavister]

I don't know why this one is important to hold on to for Dems.

If Trump succeeds in changing the law here, I won't shed a tear. If neither parent has legal status, why should the child get one?

The law, as it stands, does not make much sense to me.

I get the argument of "well, this is the law and therefore..." but that's not the point. If you object to getting rid of the law, why do you?

 

[reinaert]

Because you'll end up like most other jus sanguinis countries, with permanent non-citizen underclasses.

Also, the Constitution.

 

[Jezcoe]

I don't know why this one is important to hold on to for Dems.

If Trump succeeds in changing the law here, I won't shed a tear. If neither parent has legal status, why should the child get one?

The law, as it stands, does not make much sense to me.

I get the argument of "well, this is the law and therefore..." but that's not the point. If you object to getting rid of the law, why do you?

Stateless babies.

It’s going to be great.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

I don't know why this one is important to hold on to for Dems.

If Trump succeeds in changing the law here, I won't shed a tear. If neither parent has legal status, why should the child get one?

The law, as it stands, does not make much sense to me.

I get the argument of "well, this is the law and therefore..." but that's not the point. If you object to getting rid of the law, why do you?

If it is to be changed, change the amendment through the proper process not through an EC.

 

[Felis Leo]

I don't know why this one is important to hold on to for Dems.

Don't worry, the Democrats are not fighting for anything, much less to protect the Constitution.

If Trump succeeds in changing the law here, I won't shed a tear. If neither parent has legal status, why should the child get one?

Okay. Why shouldn't a child who is born in the United States, grows up here, and has no ties to any other nation not be a United States citizens irrespective of his or her parents' nationality? If you disagree, then vote for J.D. Vance in 2028.

The law, as it stands, does not make much sense to me.

Becoming a citizen of the United States should be easy and it used to be easy. Our country was not suffering when it was. It thrived.

If you are a against this because stupid anti-immigration laws were passed, I would ask you in turn...why?

I get the argument of "well, this is the law and therefore..." but that's not the point. If you object to getting rid of the law, why do you?

Because unlike other garbage countries, we are a country that thrives (or used to thrive) on immigration. It is the promise of America, that people could come over easily and start a life here and contribute to our society, rather than a society that brings in immigrants for mere labor then ships them off when they are no longer needed like Gulf slave states like the UAE.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Stateless babies.

It’s going to be great.

Not really stateless

Most countries will recognize as citizens the children born in other countries to citizens of that country as citizens.

Ie a kid of a Canadian citizen born in the US would get Canadian citizenship generally automatically ( would need to file for it)

 

[Xilnik]

I don't know why this one is important to hold on to for Dems.

If Trump succeeds in changing the law here, I won't shed a tear. If neither parent has legal status, why should the child get one?

The law, as it stands, does not make much sense to me.

I get the argument of "well, this is the law and therefore..." but that's not the point. If you object to getting rid of the law, why do you?

Not really a Dem, but I have a couple reasons I think it's important:

1. 125+ years of precedent.
2. It often encourages parents who have legal status but not citizenship status to become citizens to keep their families together.

Also what @reinaert said. Citizenship by birth is one of the few ways we avoid creating a permanent underclass of people born and raised here but denied full membership.

 

[Helix]

It was already fought for. The opposing argument lost. That's how it became part of the constitution.

 

[Individual]

I don't know why this one is important to hold on to for Dems.

If Trump succeeds in changing the law here, I won't shed a tear. If neither parent has legal status, why should the child get one?

The law, as it stands, does not make much sense to me.

I get the argument of "well, this is the law and therefore..." but that's not the point. If you object to getting rid of the law, why do you?

A child should be entitled to the same citizenship as the Mother who gave birth.
If the Mother is a legal immigrant, and the Mother becomes naturalized, the child should become naturalized along with the Mother.

 

[Felis Leo]

It was already fought for. The opposing argument lost. That's how it became part of the constitution.

And it should keep being fought for. We need real voices in Congress fighting for immigration rights and advocating the concept of immigration and birthright citizenship itself, rather than anti-charismatic, dithering, mealy-mouthed do-nothings we have like Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

A child should be entitled to the same citizenship as the Mother who gave birth.
If the Mother is a legal immigrant, and the Mother becomes naturalized, the child should become naturalized along with the Mother.

Why not the father?

 

[NolanVoyd]

I don't know why this one is important to hold on to for Dems.

If Trump succeeds in changing the law here, I won't shed a tear. If neither parent has legal status, why should the child get one?

The law, as it stands, does not make much sense to me.

I get the argument of "well, this is the law and therefore..." but that's not the point. If you object to getting rid of the law, why do you?

4 and a half minutes. Well worth the time.



Republicans have lost their way.

 

[dairyair]

I don't know why this one is important to hold on to for Dems.

If Trump succeeds in changing the law here, I won't shed a tear. If neither parent has legal status, why should the child get one?

The law, as it stands, does not make much sense to me.

I get the argument of "well, this is the law and therefore..." but that's not the point. If you object to getting rid of the law, why do you?

It's not a law, it's an amendment to the constitution.
A president can't change the constitution.

 

[Loulit01]

I don't know why this one is important to hold on to for Dems.

The constitution is important to Dems

If Trump succeeds in changing the law here, I won't shed a tear. If neither parent has legal status, why should the child get one?

Trump doesn't have the power to change the constitution.

The law, as it stands, does not make much sense to me.

Then change it.

I get the argument of "well, this is the law and therefore..." but that's not the point. If you object to getting rid of the law, why do you?

Depends. How would you change the law? Write out the amendment you'd want to replace the 14th Amendment.

 

[Felis Leo]

The constitution is important to Dems

Trump doesn't have the power to change the constitution.

Then change it.

Depends. How would you change the law? Write out the amendment you'd want to replace the 14th Amendment.

I would not even grant that. Who does birthright citizenship hurt except for xenophobes and racists?

 

[Loulit01]

I would not even grant that. Who does birthright citizenship hurt except for xenophobes and racists?

I'm granting nothing. I just want to see how they'd phrase it.

 

[Jezcoe]

Not really stateless

Most countries will recognize as citizens the children born in other countries to citizens of that country as citizens.

Ie a kid of a Canadian citizen born in the US would get Canadian citizenship generally automatically ( would need to file for it)

Say the child that is born here has parents that are from a country that they cannot return to.

They aren’t citizens of here and they cannot go back.

That would effectively make stateless babies.

 

[Bullseye]

Because you'll end up like most other jus sanguinis countries, with permanent non-citizen underclasses.

Also, the Constitution.

Not really - there will still be naturalization which could be modified to accommodate that situation.

 

[Felis Leo]

I don't know why this one is important to hold on to for Dems.

If Trump succeeds in changing the law here, I won't shed a tear. If neither parent has legal status, why should the child get one?

The law, as it stands, does not make much sense to me.

I get the argument of "well, this is the law and therefore..." but that's not the point. If you object to getting rid of the law, why do you?

Also, I meant to ask, Slavister...how do you prove your own legal status without birthright citizenship? Did you go through the immigration process and have a certificate of naturalization? If not, how do you prove you are a citizen? If you believe that birthright citizenship should not be a thing, most Americans cannot prove the legitimacy of their own citizenship, other than to say that their own parents were citizens...because of their parents birthright citizenship.

 

[reinaert]

A child should be entitled to the same citizenship as the Mother who gave birth.
If the Mother is a legal immigrant, and the Mother becomes naturalized, the child should become naturalized along with the Mother.

We're a country. It took a long time, too many setbacks, and too much killing, but those who came before made a country where what matters is the place and the rules we agree to use together.

We're not a nation. Bloodline does not determine who gets rights and immunities, who does not, who gets what rules, or any rules at all.

For now.

 

[Loulit01]

Also, I meant to ask, Slavister...how do you prove your own legal status without birthright citizenship? Did you go through the immigration process and have a certificate of naturalization? If not, how do you prove you are a citizen? If birthright citizenship is not a thing, most Americans cannot prove the legitimacy of their own citizenship, other than to say that their own parents were citizens...because of their parents birthright citizenship.

That's why I want to see how they'd phrase the amendment.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

I would not even grant that. Who does birthright citizenship hurt except for xenophobes and racists?

Not arguing for or against

But automatic birthright citizenship is somewhat a bad idea.

Example could be a Canadian could where the woman is 7.5 months pregnant travels to the US to visit family, she has a medical emergency and gives birth in an American hospital. The child gets US citizenship. In that situation I don’t think it is called for or appropriate.

There are also cases of women intentionally travelling to the US to get US citizenship for their babies, who will often travel back to their home country right after giving birth.

 

[Loulit01]

Not arguing for or against

But automatic birthright citizenship is somewhat a bad idea.

Example could be a Canadian could where the woman is 7.5 months pregnant travels to the US to visit family, she has a medical emergency and gives birth in an American hospital. The child gets US citizenship. In that situation I don’t think it is called for or appropriate.

There are also cases of women intentionally travelling to the US to get US citizenship for their babies, who will often travel back to their home country right after giving birth.

So what would the new law be?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Say the child that is born here has parents that are from a country that they cannot return to.

They aren’t citizens of here and they cannot go back.

That would effectively make stateless babies.

Except for refugees, not being able to return is generally not an issue

 

[reinaert]

Not really - there will still be naturalization which could be modified to accommodate that situation.

No, it would never work that way. Even well run countries like Germany have third generation residents who were born in Germany, speak German but are denied German citizenship.