Trump: End birthright citizenship for some US-born babies

[Umka36 781]

While I agree that we should modify the 14th Amendment, the EO won't get anywhere.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-end-birthright-citizenship-us-111625767.html

[Dashinka 24,492]

Maybe it is not meant to go anywhere?

 

By the way, what is an "unauthorized immigrant"?

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

8 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Maybe it is not meant to go anywhere?

 

By the way, what is an "unauthorized immigrant"?

Google helps....

 

https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/population-estimates/unauthorized-resident

[NikLR 13,227]

Actually I totally agree with ending Jus Soli in both the USA and Canada.  I believe you should have at least 1 parent of that citizenship to acquire that citizenship and I agree with the current recommendations of having lived in the USA for at least 5 years, 2 of which are after the age of 14 (but personally I think it should be 18.) 

[Unlockable 7,314]

I saw the headlines this morning and knew there would be a topic started here.

 

Just so people know, there are about 35 countries that have unrestricted birthright citizenship. If you see the list below, almost all of them are North and South American countries (including the Caribbean).

 

Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina 
Barbados 
Belize
Bolivia
Brazil
Canada
Chad
Chile
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominica
Ecuador
El Salvador

Fiji
Grenada
Guatemala
Guyana
Honduras
Jamaica
Lesotho
Mexico
Nicaragua
Pakistan
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Trinidad and Tobago
Tuvalu
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela

 

People should also know that the 14th Amendment, which focused on birthright citizenship, was only implemented after the Civil War. Birthright citizenship was not something that was originated at the birth of this nation when many immigrants migrated to this new found land. What is more important, is that the 14th amendment was implemented to protect the rights of slaves. Slaves were brought here against their will and suffered for many generations, which means most had lost their connection to their African home and heritage. And when the slaves were freed, Congress had to insure that the slaves, who were previously only referred to as "property", would not be without a country of their own. So the 14th Amendment was put into place.

 

There are other countries that allow for birthright citizenship, but if you review their polices they require eligibility. For example, Thailand requires that in order for a child to be granted citizenship, the parents must have residency in the country for at least 5 years. There are about 23 countries that allow citizenship by birth but under specific restrictions.

 

The difference between unrestricted birthright citizenship and restricted citizenship could impact how people feel about immigrating to certain countries. If jus soli is not abolished, it could still be changed to restricted. And birth tourism, anchor babies, even asylum seekers would still be affected.

Edited October 30, 2018 by NuestraUnion

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

Google helps....

 

https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/population-estimates/unauthorized-resident

Unauthorized immigrant vs. illegal immigrant.  Which sounds worse?  Why?  

 

Legal resident immigrant, never heard of an authorized resident immigrant.  Again... why?

 

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

6 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

By the way, what is an "unauthorized immigrant"?

Lovely fluffy cuddly migrant worker? 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

8 hours ago, NikLR said:

Actually I totally agree with ending Jus Soli in both the USA and Canada.  I believe you should have at least 1 parent of that citizenship to acquire that citizenship and I agree with the current recommendations of having lived in the USA for at least 5 years, 2 of which are after the age of 14 (but personally I think it should be 18.) 

My wife and I completely agree with this. I talked with her about this today about what Trump wants to do and she has no problems with it at all. 

[lierre 224]

The economics of this change would have dire complications. Politically, it makes sense for this current administration. Long-term economic stability -- history shows younger people are needed.

 

 

Make your own conclusions using this link: https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p25-1140.pdf

 

An Aging Nation: The Older Population in the United States Population Estimates and Projections Current Population Reports
Issued May 2014 P25-1140
By Jennifer M. Ortman, Victoria A. Velkoff,  and Howard Hogan

 

"The U.S. population is projected to grow older over the next several decades. Much of this aging is due to the baby boom generation moving into the ranks of the 65 and over population. As the  U.S. population grows older, the racial and ethnic composition of the older population is also expected to change... Relative to other countries in the world, the United States is projected to have a larger older population than the other developed nations, but a smaller older population compared with China and India, the world’s two most populous nations...

These projections are based on the 2010 Census and may, therefore, contain nonsampling error due to potential enumeration errors such as differential undercoverage or overcoverage by demographic characteristics. Technical documentation for the 2010 Census is  available at <www.census.gov /prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf>..."

Edited October 31, 2018 by lierre

[Boiler 45,486]

10 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Maybe it is not meant to go anywhere?

 

By the way, what is an "unauthorized immigrant"?

Prospective Democrat.

1 hour ago, lierre said:

The economics of this change would have dire complications. Politically, it makes sense for this current administration. Long-term economic stability -- history shows younger people are needed.

 

 

Make your own conclusions using this link: https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p25-1140.pdf

 

An Aging Nation: The Older Population in the United States Population Estimates and Projections Current Population Reports
Issued May 2014 P25-1140
By Jennifer M. Ortman, Victoria A. Velkoff,  and Howard Hogan

 

"The U.S. population is projected to grow older over the next several decades. Much of this aging is due to the baby boom generation moving into the ranks of the 65 and over population. As the  U.S. population grows older, the racial and ethnic composition of the older population is also expected to change... Relative to other countries in the world, the United States is projected to have a larger older population than the other developed nations, but a smaller older population compared with China and India, the world’s two most populous nations...

These projections are based on the 2010 Census and may, therefore, contain nonsampling error due to potential enumeration errors such as differential undercoverage or overcoverage by demographic characteristics. Technical documentation for the 2010 Census is  available at <www.census.gov /prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf>..."

An unsustainable ponzi scheme.

[Chris Duffy 1,257]

10 hours ago, Umka36 said:

While I agree that we should modify the 14th Amendment, the EO won't get anywhere.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-end-birthright-citizenship-us-111625767.html

This would be the greatest thing to ever happen to the USA related to Immigration in the last 100 years.

 

This would do a lot to stop illegal aliens coming to the USA.  Many of them main goal is to come here to have a child born in the USA.

 

Hopefully this will make it to the Supreme Court and it gets made a law.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, lierre said:

The economics of this change would have dire complications. Politically, it makes sense for this current administration. Long-term economic stability -- history shows younger people are needed.

 

"The U.S. population is projected to grow older over the next several decades. Much of this aging is due to the baby boom generation moving into the ranks of the 65 and over population.

Younger people are (wait for it...) born every single day in the US. 

 

There were 3,853,472 births in the U.S. in 2017.  There were  2,712,630 deaths in 2015.  I think we’ll be fine.  We don’t need the birth rate to exceed the death rate by much to continue growing.

 

People get older every day.  Less teens are giving birth, which is a great thing.

 

Also...  http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/18/is-u-s-fertility-at-an-all-time-low-it-depends/

[Shiran 1,134]

5 hours ago, Chris Duffy said:

This would be the greatest thing to ever happen to the USA related to Immigration in the last 100 years.

 

This would do a lot to stop illegal aliens coming to the USA.  Many of them main goal is to come here to have a child born in the USA.

 

Hopefully this will make it to the Supreme Court and it gets made a law.

Immigrants do not come to US to have child. They come for multitude of reasons, economical being one of them. Those who are asylum seekers are not illegal btw. The recent trend is actually wealthy Chinese legal tourist who do come here specifically for the purpose of giving birth to American citizen child. They have no intentions of staying though, and stay within bounds of their tourist visas, returning back to China afterwards. If anything, it will be a hit to niche economy that now exist supporting these services. It cost about $20K for the duration of birthing stay. What is commonly referred as "illegal immigrants" while some, naturally, do end up giving birth on US soil, are generally not motivated by that concern. As matter of fact number of such incidents has been declining last 10 years. Also US citizen child is unable to sponsor parents until child is 21, so this is not a magical gateway for chain migration. 

[lierre 224]

This Executive Order is unconstitutional. This amendment can only be changed by an act of Congress.

 

Quite sad how discussion hasn’t examined the 14th Amendment in terms of how the courts have interpreted it. Let’s go to at least ten of the Supreme Court rulings, shall we?

 

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/10-huge-supreme-court-cases-about-the-14th-amendment

 

Excerpts:

 

“Brown v. Board of Education (17 May 1954) ―It is impossible to mention the victories of the Civil Rights Movement without pointing to Brown v. Board of Education. Following the Court’s ruling in 1896 of Plessy v. Ferguson, segregation of public schools based solely on race was allowed by states if the facilities were “equal.” Brown overturned that decision. Regardless of the “equality” of facilities, the Court ruled that separate is inherently unequal. Thus public school segregation based on race was found in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause”

 

”Loving v. Virginia (12 Jun 1967) ―By 1967, 16 states had still not repealed their anti-miscegenation laws that forbid interracial marriages. Mildred and Richard Loving were residents of one such state, Virginia, who had fallen in love and wanted to get married. Under Virginia’s laws, however, Richard, a white man, could not marry Mildred, a woman of African-American and Native American descent. The two traveled to Washington D.C. where they could be married, but they were arrested under a state law that prohibited inter-racial marriage. Because their offense was a criminal conviction, after being found guilty, they were given a prison sentence of one year. The trial judge suspended the sentence for 25 years on the condition that the couple left Virginia. On Appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia ruled that the state had an interest in preserving the “racial integrity” of its constituents and that because the punishment applied equally to both races, the statute did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The United States Supreme Court in a unanimous decision reversed the Virginia Court’s ruling and held that the Equal Protection Clause required strict scrutiny to apply to all race-based classifications. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the law was rooted in invidious racial discrimination, making it impossible to satisfy a compelling government interest. The Loving decision still stands as a milestone in the Civil Rights Movement.”

 

 

Click the link for a fascinating quick read on the 14th Amendment through the centuries.

[Chris Duffy 1,257]

3 hours ago, Shiran said:

Immigrants do not come to US to have child. They come for multitude of reasons, economical being one of them. Those who are asylum seekers are not illegal btw. The recent trend is actually wealthy Chinese legal tourist who do come here specifically for the purpose of giving birth to American citizen child. They have no intentions of staying though, and stay within bounds of their tourist visas, returning back to China afterwards. If anything, it will be a hit to niche economy that now exist supporting these services. It cost about $20K for the duration of birthing stay. What is commonly referred as "illegal immigrants" while some, naturally, do end up giving birth on US soil, are generally not motivated by that concern. As matter of fact number of such incidents has been declining last 10 years. Also US citizen child is unable to sponsor parents until child is 21, so this is not a magical gateway for chain migration. 

 

The come here and have many children and use them as anchor babies. 

 

You take that angle away and there is even less reason for them to come here, right now they get rewarded with coming here illegally with having a many anchor US Citizen children