Trump: End birthright citizenship for some US-born babies

[RLA 323]

I guess ending birthright citizenship was just a campaign stunt so I don't expect Trump to bring it up again anytime soon.  But if he does I'd like him to be more specific, e.g., if he's only targeting children of illegal and non-immigrants or children of all non-citizens.  I'd also like to hear how he'd handle some of the practical problems such as what status children born to non-citizens will have or if non-citizens will need to spend time and $$$$ to obtain a defined status for their newborns.  Or what happens to a child's citizenship if a parent is de-naturalized due to fraud.  Or how citizens would be able to prove their citizenship in the future.  Now you just need a birth certificate but that would obviously not cut it. 

 

Whatever else you may think of birthright citizenship, it's probably the simplest and most unbureaucratic system possible.  Ending it would mean even more workload for USCIS, possibly even a whole new agency that keeps track of everybody's citizenship status.  I'm not convinced that ending birthright citizenship would be worth the additional bureaucracy with all the hassle and the costs. 

[Boiler 45,519]

Every European country somehow manages it.

[Dashinka 24,505]

6 hours ago, RLA said:

I guess ending birthright citizenship was just a campaign stunt so I don't expect Trump to bring it up again anytime soon.  But if he does I'd like him to be more specific, e.g., if he's only targeting children of illegal and non-immigrants or children of all non-citizens.  I'd also like to hear how he'd handle some of the practical problems such as what status children born to non-citizens will have or if non-citizens will need to spend time and $$$$ to obtain a defined status for their newborns.  Or what happens to a child's citizenship if a parent is de-naturalized due to fraud.  Or how citizens would be able to prove their citizenship in the future.  Now you just need a birth certificate but that would obviously not cut it. 

 

Whatever else you may think of birthright citizenship, it's probably the simplest and most unbureaucratic system possible.  Ending it would mean even more workload for USCIS, possibly even a whole new agency that keeps track of everybody's citizenship status.  I'm not convinced that ending birthright citizenship would be worth the additional bureaucracy with all the hassle and the costs. 

Are you taking bets on that?  Although I do agree that an EO is not the proper route (I feel the same about DACA) to getting this question in the system and eventually answered by SCOTUS, the GOP still controls the House for a little less than two months, so maybe they will do something per their powers outlined in Article I.

 

Maybe to make it even simpler on USCIS, we should just make it so every person that enters the US (legally or illegally) is automatically considered a citizen whether they want it or not.  I think the Democrats have suggested abolishing ICE, maybe we can use the ICE agents to help the illegal aliens get their passports when they cross the Southern Border.

[RLA 323]

8 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Are you taking bets on that?  [...] the GOP still controls the House for a little less than two months, so maybe they will do something per their powers outlined in Article I.

I'm not a betting type of person.  I'm just noticing that nobody has even presented a draft yet that Congress could debate.  The last immigration act took 1.7 years to enact so I don't expect them to get it done in two months this time.  That the GOP didn't made any attempts to end birthright citizenship in the last two years lets me believe that they don't find the issue important or that they don't think they could get it done.  It might also mean that they don't actually want to end it.  Paul Ryan sure didn't sound like he'd want to. 

 

9 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Maybe to make it even simpler on USCIS, we should just make it so every person that enters the US (legally or illegally) is automatically considered a citizen whether they want it or not.

Trading in false dilemmas, are we?  How about we just keep the system that has worked so well for America for 150 years?  Keeping a proven system instead of creating a new bureaucracy sounds like something a conservative would like, I'd think. 

[Dashinka 24,505]

3 minutes ago, RLA said:

I'm not a betting type of person.  I'm just noticing that nobody has even presented a draft yet that Congress could debate.  The last immigration act took 1.7 years to enact so I don't expect them to get it done in two months this time.  That the GOP didn't made any attempts to end birthright citizenship in the last two years lets me believe that they don't find the issue important or that they don't think they could get it done.  It might also mean that they don't actually want to end it.  Paul Ryan sure didn't sound like he'd want to. 

 

Trading in false dilemmas, are we?  How about we just keep the system that has worked so well for America for 150 years?  Keeping a proven system instead of creating a new bureaucracy sounds like something a conservative would like, I'd think. 

So all the European countries created new bureaucracies to control foreign births on their soil?  It sounds like you are trading in fear mongering to keep a flawed system.  It was clear what the writers of the 14th Amendment meant when it was written, it is also a fact that the question was never addressed by SCOTUS since that time specifically regarding illegal immigrants.  I agree that Congress will most likely not act prior to January, and will not act after that since they will be too busy writing subpoenas, but it would be something that should eventually get answered so we can get our country in line with most of the rest of the world.

[Boiler 45,519]

15 minutes ago, RLA said:

I'm not a betting type of person.  I'm just noticing that nobody has even presented a draft yet that Congress could debate.  The last immigration act took 1.7 years to enact so I don't expect them to get it done in two months this time.  That the GOP didn't made any attempts to end birthright citizenship in the last two years lets me believe that they don't find the issue important or that they don't think they could get it done.  It might also mean that they don't actually want to end it.  Paul Ryan sure didn't sound like he'd want to. 

 

Trading in false dilemmas, are we?  How about we just keep the system that has worked so well for America for 150 years?  Keeping a proven system instead of creating a new bureaucracy sounds like something a conservative would like, I'd think. 

So why does Germany not take it up?

[Ben & Katy 168]

My spouses uncle down in Mexico did this with his oldest son.  For his entire life he has always had a US Tourist visa and when he married his wife she got one too.  He has also always had really high paying jobs as manager of the maquiladoras down in Mexico.  

 

When they planned their first child, they also planned on her having the baby on US soil.  Since he earns very well they saved up for the hospital bills in advance and then he sent her up here on her tourist visa.  She had the oldest son in Arizona and then they both came back to Mexico.  I am not sure but I think they did this so later on he would have the opportunity to go to college in the US as a citizen versus a foreign exchange student.  But up until now the son has no desire to be here because he grew up in Mexico.  

 

Since then the family has grown and now the oldest is about 15-16 years old and has no interest in visiting the USA  LOL.  They come on vacation here every summer break for a week but they always got to drag their oldest who is the american citizen because he never wants to go.  

 

The point is the USA and the hospitals don't care about tourists coming here and having babies as long as they can pay for it.  He paid for it so nobody can say nothing to them.  It didn't cost tax payers a dime.  

[Ben & Katy 168]

On 11/3/2018 at 1:26 PM, Steeleballz said:

 

    If they resolve it the way you stated, it would be the opposite of current practice. That seems to indicate it's not that clear at all, based on prior supreme court rulings, or that they got it wrong for the last 150 years or so. I'm not sure it's going to change without a constitutional change. 

  

   The way you stated your interpretation would probably mean that a child born in the USA to 2 LPR parents would also not be a USC. Do you think that should be also be the case? 

This!  How would this be sorted out?  Again this is one of the many things that makes this a non starter. 

[Ben & Katy 168]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

So all the European countries created new bureaucracies to control foreign births on their soil?  It sounds like you are trading in fear mongering to keep a flawed system.  It was clear what the writers of the 14th Amendment meant when it was written, it is also a fact that the question was never addressed by SCOTUS since that time specifically regarding illegal immigrants.  I agree that Congress will most likely not act prior to January, and will not act after that since they will be too busy writing subpoenas, but it would be something that should eventually get answered so we can get our country in line with most of the rest of the world.

European countries up until recently didn't have the gigantic wave of immigration which made it easier to create new bureaucracies.  There are more cons to this than pros although I do agree that people without papers having kids here needs changes.  But anyone else that is here legally and footing their own doctors bills should not be a problem.  

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

34 minutes ago, Ben & Katy said:

My spouses uncle down in Mexico did this with his oldest son.  For his entire life he has always had a US Tourist visa and when he married his wife she got one too.  He has also always had really high paying jobs as manager of the maquiladoras down in Mexico.  

 

When they planned their first child, they also planned on her having the baby on US soil.  Since he earns very well they saved up for the hospital bills in advance and then he sent her up here on her tourist visa.  She had the oldest son in Arizona and then they both came back to Mexico.  I am not sure but I think they did this so later on he would have the opportunity to go to college in the US as a citizen versus a foreign exchange student.  But up until now the son has no desire to be here because he grew up in Mexico.  

 

Since then the family has grown and now the oldest is about 15-16 years old and has no interest in visiting the USA  LOL.  They come on vacation here every summer break for a week but they always got to drag their oldest who is the american citizen because he never wants to go.  

 

The point is the USA and the hospitals don't care about tourists coming here and having babies as long as they can pay for it.  He paid for it so nobody can say nothing to them.  It didn't cost tax payers a dime.  

I dont think the medical bills  are an issue here

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

2 hours ago, RLA said:

I'm not a betting type of person.  I'm just noticing that nobody has even presented a draft yet that Congress could debate.  The last immigration act took 1.7 years to enact so I don't expect them to get it done in two months this time.  That the GOP didn't made any attempts to end birthright citizenship in the last two years lets me believe that they don't find the issue important or that they don't think they could get it done.  It might also mean that they don't actually want to end it.  Paul Ryan sure didn't sound like he'd want to. 

 

Trading in false dilemmas, are we?  How about we just keep the system that has worked so well for America for 150 years?  Keeping a proven system instead of creating a new bureaucracy sounds like something a conservative would like, I'd think. 

Like erasing Daca? That was not in place 150years ago, be careful what you wish for

[JimandChristy 1,689]

What happened to the Caravan? Fox News are reporting about it like it never happened.

[RLA 323]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

So all the European countries created new bureaucracies to control foreign births on their soil?

European countries have typically had compulsory civil registration for a long time, often derived from their pre-existing state church registers.  So when citizenship became a thing they could easily adapt those systems and have them keep track of one more datapoint.  I'm not sure America has a suitable system in place (and no official church).  I guess from a technical standpoint the SSA might be a candidate if only they could be trusted to clean up their records and address the security concerns.  Plus, we'd then have to resolve the issue that some Americans choose to exercise their legal right to remain outside of the SSA system.  I'm not sure the Constitution even allows for making the SSA compulsory for the purpose of keeping track of all American citizens.  I'm also not sure how many Americans, left or right, would be comfortable with such a mandatory central register. 

 

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

It sounds like you are trading in fear mongering to keep a flawed system.

Projecting much?  

 

Anyway.  The system isn't really flawed.  It's not perfect—no system ever will be—but the problems are being exaggerated (the real fear-mongering if you ask me).  The current system makes a legitimate trade-off, erring on the side of generosity in favor of simplicity and legal certainty.  American pragmatism at its finest. 

 

I mean, personally I wouldn't really have a problem with a system that's more like the German one, as long as kids born and raised here aren't discriminated against based on their parent's actions.  It's just that such a system would strike me as foreign to America.  Certainly not what the founding fathers had in mind. 

 

The German system is also not really better, just different.  Apart from the additional bureaucracy, tying citizenship to ancestry also has the effect that you then get people from places like Romania or Russia who've never been to Germany claiming citizenship based on their great-great grandfather's ethnicity. 

 

4 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

It was clear what the writers of the 14th Amendment meant when it was written

I'd have thought it was clear based on the language of the amendment as well as how it's been applied over the last 150 years.  But apparently there are a few dissenters out there who claim that it doesn't really mean what everybody thinks it means. 

[Boiler 45,519]

1 hour ago, RLA said:

European countries have typically had compulsory civil registration for a long time, often derived from their pre-existing state church registers.  So when citizenship became a thing they could easily adapt those systems and have them keep track of one more datapoint.  I'm not sure America has a suitable system in place (and no official church).  I guess from a technical standpoint the SSA might be a candidate if only they could be trusted to clean up their records and address the security concerns.  Plus, we'd then have to resolve the issue that some Americans choose to exercise their legal right to remain outside of the SSA system.  I'm not sure the Constitution even allows for making the SSA compulsory for the purpose of keeping track of all American citizens.  I'm also not sure how many Americans, left or right, would be comfortable with such a mandatory central register. 

 

Projecting much?  

 

Anyway.  The system isn't really flawed.  It's not perfect—no system ever will be—but the problems are being exaggerated (the real fear-mongering if you ask me).  The current system makes a legitimate trade-off, erring on the side of generosity in favor of simplicity and legal certainty.  American pragmatism at its finest. 

 

I mean, personally I wouldn't really have a problem with a system that's more like the German one, as long as kids born and raised here aren't discriminated against based on their parent's actions.  It's just that such a system would strike me as foreign to America.  Certainly not what the founding fathers had in mind. 

 

The German system is also not really better, just different.  Apart from the additional bureaucracy, tying citizenship to ancestry also has the effect that you then get people from places like Romania or Russia who've never been to Germany claiming citizenship based on their great-great grandfather's ethnicity. 

 

I'd have thought it was clear based on the language of the amendment as well as how it's been applied over the last 150 years.  But apparently there are a few dissenters out there who claim that it doesn't really mean what everybody thinks it means. 

Must admit do not knwo the details of how it works in Europe, certainly not the case in the UK.

[Dashinka 24,505]

2 hours ago, RLA said:

European countries have typically had compulsory civil registration for a long time, often derived from their pre-existing state church registers.  So when citizenship became a thing they could easily adapt those systems and have them keep track of one more datapoint.  I'm not sure America has a suitable system in place (and no official church).  I guess from a technical standpoint the SSA might be a candidate if only they could be trusted to clean up their records and address the security concerns.  Plus, we'd then have to resolve the issue that some Americans choose to exercise their legal right to remain outside of the SSA system.  I'm not sure the Constitution even allows for making the SSA compulsory for the purpose of keeping track of all American citizens.  I'm also not sure how many Americans, left or right, would be comfortable with such a mandatory central register. 

 

Projecting much?  

 

Anyway.  The system isn't really flawed.  It's not perfect—no system ever will be—but the problems are being exaggerated (the real fear-mongering if you ask me).  The current system makes a legitimate trade-off, erring on the side of generosity in favor of simplicity and legal certainty.  American pragmatism at its finest. 

 

I mean, personally I wouldn't really have a problem with a system that's more like the German one, as long as kids born and raised here aren't discriminated against based on their parent's actions.  It's just that such a system would strike me as foreign to America.  Certainly not what the founding fathers had in mind. 

 

The German system is also not really better, just different.  Apart from the additional bureaucracy, tying citizenship to ancestry also has the effect that you then get people from places like Romania or Russia who've never been to Germany claiming citizenship based on their great-great grandfather's ethnicity. 

 

I'd have thought it was clear based on the language of the amendment as well as how it's been applied over the last 150 years.  But apparently there are a few dissenters out there who claim that it doesn't really mean what everybody thinks it means. 

You still haven’t provided sufficient proof that a new government department would be necessary to end jus soli.  I believe the burden of proof is on the person claiming to be a citizen rather than on the government.  When I filed for my then fiance’s Visa I had to provide proof that I was a citizen,  when my wife went to apply for a US passport, she had to provide her proof of citizenship.  Just because something has been generally accepted for years does not mean it is the correct course of action.