Birthright Citizenship by tourism birth

There's pros and cons to birth right citizenship. One con is some people are born here and effectively have no home country. Does it make sense for someone born here and lived for 30 years to suddenly be deported to a random foreign country that they know nothing about?

My understanding is that the most straightforward interpretation of the birthright amendment is that birthright citizenship makes most sense

I suspect that the original Americans understood the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction of the United states" as meaning people born here become citizens. Originalism and all that

The Constitution wins, Trump loses.

Everybody knows that before 2020 there was a huge business around tourists that wanted to give birth in the US, specially women that come from the third world. For these women, it was a privilege that their children became American citizens so easily. I know of several cases where pregnant women went to the US expressly to give birth. I mean, if a Mexican woman has a visa, what citizenship does she prefer for her baby? The American, of course, because Mexico is a shithole country.

Trump knows very well about it, that's why he's fighting to change the law because he feels the world is taking Americans for fools. I'd feel the same way if I were an American, that's an abuse the tourists are commiting against the US.

The fault is on the parents because we have rather specific laws of immigration which have been ignoreed by aliens for many years, and we have likewwise ignoered proper enforcement. Those parents do have allegiance and respinsibility to other national jurisdictions than to US.

What's stopping ytou from acting on ytour impulse? No reeason top stay, unless this is a bluff for effect. Like Rosie O'Donnell.

And what does a photo of "Trump and the gang" have tro do with it? Seems Trump haters of all ilks, including Republicans, may claim to ignoree Trump, as did Repub candidates in the 2024 primary, but cannot and could nort seem to do it. I reemeber a few months ago suddenly having no memorty of Biden's name for a long stretch, because I decided, while he was still actring as poresident, to ignore the man. For a while, it was fabulously successful.

Not by reading commentary on the subject at the time, in 1866 - 68, by Sen. Jacob Howard [R-IL], who wrote Clause 1 of the 14A.

Rosie O'Donnell resides in Ireland. I dare say, she wasnt bluffing.

fauxlaw wrote:

Not by reading commentary on the subject at the time, in 1866 - 68, by Sen. Jacob Howard [R-IL], who wrote Clause 1 of the 14A.

Howard did not speak for everyone. Jurisdiction was NOT understood to exclude children of immigrants born on US soil. It exempted children of diplomats, children born to occupying enemy forces, and Native Americans who maintained allegiance to their tribes.

Why do you think we have given citizenship for hundreds of years to people born here unless that was what was understood?

Yes the founders might not have understood the amendment to apply to birth tourism but if we assume originally they gave citizenship to people born here, the court can't simply engage in judicial rule making for their preferences. That'd be legislating from the bench

Tourism birth was not likely an issue the 14th framers anticipated.

This is the latest partisan talking point from MAGA. In reality .3% of all births in the US are attributed to foreign mothers with residences outside the US (according to CDC). Even if we go by the most wild-eyed estimates, the percentage is only 2% of all births. Just for perspective, 10 times that amount die every year to heart disease.

2 percent of 4 million is still 80,000 people a year, most of whom have documentation as a US citizen on paper, but many are living abroad in a foreign country with their non-American parents. They may or may not learn English, they may or may not learn any US history, they may or may not currently reside in a rival country, and may even be raised in a culture that stands for most things Americans culturally despise, like racism, female subjugation, slavery, and communism.

Birthright citizenship puts the entire "citizen of the world" experiment on full tilt. I think the last great nation that tried this was Rome. Giving legal citizenship out like candy to the world with no shared culture or any standard of cultural assimilation has consequences.

1. What is citizenship for?
2. Is it primarily a legal designation, a civic commitment, a cultural identity, or some combination?
3. What incentives does an outdated birthright citizenship rule create? Is the cause for such a rule when the rule was originally written over, and the remedy applied finally?
4. What costs and benefits follow from those incentives? What are the real and practical trade-offs?

Those are questions worth discussing and debating.

So you have no qualms over deporting people who were born and raised for decades here through no fault of their own? Sending people who are culturally American to the slums of foreign countries? Don't you have any desire to find ways to make exceptions to keep some people here or do you take a handling there can be no exceptions approach? If your parents brought you personally here as a kid being born here and the government tried to deport you as a 30 year old man to a third world country, what would you think and feel? Would that be justice?

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution confers citizenship to everyone born in the U.S., excluding ONLY the children of foreign diplomats and those born to a foreign occupying force.

The first sentence of section 1 is very clear and straightforward. “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.”

What it does not say is, “Unless whiney baby Trump throws a tantrum, or “unless they are black or brown”.

The second sentence includes “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What it does not say is, “unless Trump wants to deport people without due process” or “if the wear masks they do not have to abide by Constitutional law”.

Sorry MAGA, you did not overthrow the government on January 6, you are not above the law, just get over it.

Even the best Supreme Court money can buy can't deny the Constitution.

Laws are not written on stone. Americans can ammend it.

It's not a human right violation if Americans don't give citizenship to tourist's babies born in the US. Most of the countries have an embassy in the US, so it's very easy for the tourists to register their babies in their respective embassy.

This law makes no sense.

Well at least we have a law that keeps foreign sex workers from coming illegally to the USA and being First Ladies. Oh wait!

I am not suprised by the decision to maintain birthright citizenship. I oppose it because of the effect on birth by "tourism" being a reason - and it is becoming a huge issue

Setting aside the actual constitutionality of the case, your reason for being against the ruling is because of the consequences of keeping BRC in place. Where in your calculation do you factor the consequences of overturning it given that millions of American citizens are citizens because of it which has been the case for over a century? Overruling BRC on the basis that this is not what the constitution says cannot coherently leave in place the citizenship of any American who only has citizenship because of it, and by extension, their kids wouldn’t be citizens, etc.

The problems with overturning it go far beyond the problems with leaving it in place.

Tourism birth was not likely an issue the 14th framers anticipated.

So if the framers of the amendment couldn’t have foreseen the issues the future would bring, that’s reason for us to consider reinterpreting it?

Interesting. Now do the 2nd amendment.

Misterio wrote:

Laws are not written on stone. Americans can ammend it.

Well yeah, but it is much easier if Americans actually want to amend it, problem is the majority (55%) of Americans want birthright citizenship. MAGA does not represent America, they just make the most noise.

It's not a human right violation if Americans don't give citizenship to tourist's babies born in the US. Most of the countries have an embassy in the US, so it's very easy for the tourists to register their babies in their respective embassy.

No, it's not a human right violation, but it is a violation of the Constitution, and no matter how much you whine about it, Americans aren't going to change the constitution to abolish birthright citizenship. I think most Americans are kind of attached to that pesky due process thing too.

This law makes no sense.

Tourist babies are not why Trump wants to abolish Birthright Citizenship, that's just a distraction he fed to the gullible people to agitate them. People who are agitated and divisive are easy to control, Trump works with your outrage like Picasso worked with paint. They love to talk about "owning the libs" but it's really Trump's mindless followers that he owns.

Birth tourism in the United States is a very rare practice, and obtaining a tourist visa with the intent of giving birth in the U.S. is already illegal, "tourist babies" is much ado about nothing.

We aren't going to amend the Constitution for a non-problem just because Trump is throwing a tantrum.

Shoresy wrote:

2 percent of 4 million is still 80,000 people a year, most of whom have documentation as a US citizen on paper, but many are living abroad in a foreign country with their non-American parents.

I feel like you might object to them living here with their parents too...

They may or may not learn English, they may or may not learn any US history,

This is true of Americans too, thanks to our education system.

they may or may not currently reside in a rival country, and may even be raised in a culture that stands for most things Americans culturally despise, like racism, female subjugation, slavery [human trafficking]

If MAGA is any indication, Americans dont despise these enough...

Why did you feel the need to replace Communism with human trafficking?

I suppose you could equate the two since it trafficks humans to the bread lines.

linate wrote:

There's pros and cons to birth right citizenship. One con is some people are born here and effectively have no home country. Does it make sense for someone born here and lived for 30 years to suddenly be deported to a random foreign country that they know nothing about?

My understanding is that the most straightforward interpretation of the birthright amendment is that birthright citizenship makes most sense

Do you want a more straightforward interpretation of the Second Amendment then? Boy, I would love that! (My point here is that contextual interpretation is best).

Anyway, the idea that these "birthright citizens" know nothing of the country they're being deported to doesn't seem logical. Their parents would be first-generation immigrants who barely understand US culture, and will raise their kids like it. If anything, they're more likely to know more about their parents' country than they do the US, just from being raised that way. And as a near certainty, they will feel greater loyalty to their parents' original country than the US.

For a moderate example, I know quite a few 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants who say "viva la Mexico!" and are quite critical of American culture... while living here instead of the country they say they love more. And then they vote migrant-friendly politicians in, who accelerate the demographic and cultural replacement of the real Americans. They help the more radical ones.

And for an extreme example, you get extraordinarily brainwashed individuals who boldly proclaim the glory of the Mexican invasion because apparently California is rightful Mexican land... even though they didn't have it for anywhere near as long as Spain or the US did. And so they protest, demanding welfare and reparations, and then burn cars and buildings when the administration doesn't give them their way.

The latter should just be instantly deported, or shot if they resist with more than just trying to wriggle free. The former can stay, but the immigration system should be rebuilt to filter those types out for the future. Also, I think we should take a page out of Japan's playbook and deny immigrants voting rights. Preferably the first three generations. Oh, and end the welfare state.

Why did you feel the need to replace Communism with human trafficking?

Why did you feel the need to reply to my post without tagging me? Cowardly...

Brackets indicate something not said in the original quote. Slavery and human trafficking are closely related in my eyes. Communism wasnt relevant to the point and was not included. I see no indication MAGA is into Comunism. Racism, female subjugation, and human trafficking are a different story.

Is she? Current news says she is in New York, performing a one-woman show... Can't get the bucks she's getting in NYC. So much for not bluffing.

children of diplomats... children born to occupying enemy forces... and Native Americans who maintained allegiance to their tribes.

By the numbers:

1. Diplomats who... delayed leaving when their diplomacy was done
2. Enemy forces who... delayed leaving when their militancy was done
3. Native Americans... who delayed calling themselves such until the 1960s. They of the 60s ripped off the name, "Native American" [it was never used before by those tribes - they knew themselves byt their tribal name] from first-generation Americans born of Irish immigrants in the mid 1600s, before we were Americans, but proud to be American. I know; my first ancestor in America was a Scot arriving in 1625. Oops.

the court can't simply engage in judicial rule 

So, what was the Fuller Court doing in 1898, which held this "birthright" argument after decisions of lower courts from the 1860s, even before the 14A? There's a reason why the 14A offers a two-phrase cistizenship requirement, not just one, The second is a qualifier of the first, not just a rewrite of it. If all children born here, regardless of parantage are to be citizens, why make the commentary in the first clause of being born here of parents who are already citizens, which neither slaves, nor "native Americans" on tribal lands, beholding to those tribes were considered, prior to the 14A? Got to understrand English syntax of the 18th & 19th centuries, not just the 21st.

.2%, 2%, or 20%. Percentages are obfuscation. We neither vote, pay taxes, nor engage in any other right by percentages. Nor should we be citizens or not by such qualification.