Thats legitimately wild. Ending birth right citizenship going forward is relatively fine, but retroactively taking it away would be one of the most inhumane and evil things I could think of... and I don't throw the word evil around like ATW when he meets a mild point of disagreement over inconsequential things either. Like I'd probably be ready to fight in a civil war over the issue of deporting citizens. Salvy brother, consider reflecting a bit deeper on what you're saying here. There are people who don't have a 2nd home they feel a connection to like you. There are people with no family, or language skills in the country their parents came from. There are people with disabilities, there's elderly people, there's children. These are people who were born here legally, and are literally equal as citizens, and as Americans, to any other, including the president. You don't have to feel compassion for your personal situation, but you could still have it for others. I don't think this is something that has a bats chance in hell in materializing, and if I had to guess you probably don't either which might be why you're so flippant about it, but I have to say, this take, if genuine, and if I'm understanding it correctly, is truly awful.
I keep on telling this to liberals who want to ban semiautomatic rifles. All the right wing chuckle ****s who hate immigrants and minorities are the ones who will be grandfathered into owning their arsenal of ar15s while law enforcement at the same time hold many of the same bigoted beliefs that these right wing armed hate entities hold. So who's going to protect marginalized communities?
Ending birthright citizenship going forward is a massive problem that will cause even greater social divisions and most importantly create a even more obvious indentured servitude class of humans that don't have basic labor protections. That's literally the end game goal of the right wing forces trying to do things like end birthright citizenship while demonizing migrants. They went to create a class of despised non citizens that are too afraid to come forward when abused by their bosses which creates a indentured servitude class. That's it. That is the entire point of these policy desires. But your heart is in the right place. You at least express empathy here. Some people as you can see with the content you replied to can be psychopaths and don't understand the emotional consequences of the desires they have
It’s your right to be a US citizen. You have the same right as I and anyone else born here even if their ancestors came here in the Mayflower. That you would be so willing to passively accept stripping of your right to citizenship how wiling then are you to stand up for any other right?
I understand your point but you're assuming it just ends here. If this EO was actually upheld, it makes the text of the 14th amendment largely meaningless as it converts us to jus sanguinis citizenship by order. Aside from the fact that it essentially makes all of the other amendments vulnerable to executive order, it also opens the door to future leaders to place even more restrictions (including retroactive stripping of citizenship). I understand that might sound crazy but this exact scenario happened in the Dominican Republic. First the court there allowed birthright citizenship to be struck down (but not applied retroactively). And then a future court allowed retroactive application. The reason in both cases was racism against Haitians born in the DR. By the time the second order happened, you had mass profiling of black people in the DR who were being deported en mass to Haiti even though many had never lived there. Once you crack open this door, you can't close it in the future. And future demogogues will be free to expand on this. The fact that we are even contemplating overturning an amendment by Executive Order means that none of our rights are safe and that my citizenship isn't safe in the future. I'll forever be one EO away from losing my passport. Even if Trump isn't the one to do it, all it takes is another president to make the order. Not to mention what would happen to kids born today of Indian and Chinese origin? An Indian immigrant in Germany may not get citizenship at birth but their parents can get PR within a few years. I'm even ok with making PR harder by adding English language requirements to PR and Citizenship (which is a thing here in Canada as well) but I also believe in reasonable timeframes for PR. Indian and Chinese immigrants are not afforded that opportunity in the US so concurrently stripping birthright citizenship to future children and denying Indian and Chinese immigrants a path to PR and citizenship is beyond inhumane. That's the kind of bs that Middle Eastern countries pull on immigrants there. Fortunately for me, I'm a year away from a Canadian passport so I at least have my backup plan. But the fact that we're even talking about this is just lunacy to me.
I understand the concern from an emotional perspective, but I just don't see it happening. I wouldn't worry about it. Much likelier that getting a passport will be made much harder than it was, so I should be more concerned than you . But I'm not worried. My children pledge allegiance to the flag every day, I think they basically feel like Americans at this point, so I think it would be natural for them to eventually get the citizenship, if possible. We'll see. I think it should not be easy to get it. Gotta earn it.
This is not just about me. I'd like to believe that I'm not so self centered as to think of this only through my experience. This is also about kids born in the US today who will grow up in a country that won't offer them citizenship and won't offer their parents PR. I genuinely don't know how I could look at an Indian or Chinese child born after this EO and not feel awful. That child will grow up to be as American as I am but because of an executive order of all things, that child will never be American and if PR laws don't change, they'll be forced out of the US once they turn 21.
Once you are citizen, then have all the rights of a citizen, and no one should be able to deprive you of those rights. You can't just make someone a non-citizen. This similar to how they justified slavery. Slaves weren't people, they were property so the constitution didn't apply to them. Not surprising that people who like this idea also have no problems with schools named after confederate generals.
You got a up your immigrant hate game to truly want the title of American. Not you specifically. You clear that bar in spades. You good to go on that front. Make sure your children are good to go on that front or they won't be truly American.
https://unherd.com/2025/01/the-case-for-ending-birthright-citizenship/ January 21 2025 8:11 PM The case for ending birthright citizenship by Ryan Williams President Trump’s second term thrusts the question of birthright citizenship to the forefront of American politics: should the United States automatically grant citizenship to any child who happens to be born on US soil? Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution requires doing such a thing. Yet defenders of birthright shut down any debate by framing opposition as cruel and racist — and obviously wrong as a legal matter. But there is a strong constitutional and moral case for limiting birthright citizenship. It’s the argument that led the Trump administration to issue an executive order that defines a new status quo: going forward, children of illegal aliens won’t receive recognition of their citizenship by the US Department of State or any other executive agency. Start with the Constitution. The question of birthright citizenship goes back to the 14th Amendment, one of the three ratified in the immediate wake of the Civil War. The relevant portion reads: “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.” The phrase at issue is “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (known as the jurisdiction clause). Proponents of birthright maintain that the phrase merely means subject to the laws and courts of the United States. Yet the debates over the 1866 Civil Rights Act, the legislation that led to the 14th Amendment, as well as the principles of the American founding, suggest a different interpretation. The 1866 act was meant to secure the full benefits of citizenship for recently freed slaves and their descendants — and all black citizens, for that matter. The law’s proponents were determined to convert it from legislation to constitutional text, thus insulating its protections from change by a future Congress. Hence, the 14th Amendment. This means that the legislative history of the 1866 act can help illuminate what the 14th Amendment was supposed to be all about. The 1866 legislation’s citizenship clause read: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” A few months later, when the 14th Amendment was debated, the floor manager, Sen. Jacob Howard, described it as “simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already”, namely, that “every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” By the “law of the land already”, Howard meant the recently passed 1866 Civil Rights Act. The then-chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lyman Trumbull, addressing an objection over the absence of the Civil Rights Act’s phrase “Indians not taxed” from the 14th Amendment, stated that it was obvious that Indians were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States “in the sense of owing allegiance solely to the United States”. In such language from some of the 14th Amendment’s chief proponents, we can discern the outlines of an argument that the jurisdiction clause meant more than merely being subject to the law and courts on US soil. It had to do with a fundamental tenet of citizenship: loyalty or allegiance. So how did we end up with the children of even illegal aliens receiving automatic citizenship? The US Supreme Court first addressed the meaning of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment in an 1898 case. It concerned the fate of Wong Kim Ark, a child of Chinese nationals who were permanent US residents. In a 6-2 decision drafted by Justice Horace Gray, the high court held that the common law was the proper interpretive guide to the US Constitution’s text. Since the common law mandated birthright citizenship — jus soli as opposed jus sanguine, “right of soil” instead of “right of blood” — the child was a citizen under the 14th Amendment. To this day, the case remains the controlling precedent for the maximalist position on birthright citizenship, cited by sympathetic judges and law professors on both sides of the aisle. Yet the dissenting opinion, written by Chief Justice Melville Fuller, offers an interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause that is more consonant with American principles of just government than Justice Gray’s opinion. Fuller argued that the common law couldn’t be the controlling authority, because in separating from the British Crown in 1776, the American colonists had elevated the principles of the Declaration of Independence over the common law. The common law of England contemplated subjects owing perpetual allegiance, rather than citizens of a government based on consent. Fuller was right. The common law didn’t come up at all during the debate over the 14th Amendment. There were no references to Sir Edward Coke or to Blackstone, the eminent English authorities on common law, and the lawmakers were much more comfortable speaking of the interaction between the principles of America and her institutions than they were citing English precedents on jus soli. They believed that the principles of the Declaration would control — and, where necessary, overrule — the common law of England. If human equality is a fact of nature, then nobody may rule another without their consent. All ought to enjoy their liberties and the pursuit of happiness alike. The existence of slavery, the ensuing crisis brought on by the conflicts between these principles and American practice, and the subsequent Civil War are the historical context for the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. American citizenship, defined constitutionally for the first time in the 1860s, was never based in blood. But crucially, it was never based in soil, either. American citizenship was based on consent. Wong Kim Ark, then, should be overturned, and we should have a robust national debate about citizenship, immigration, and national allegiance. Congress is well within its enforcement powers under section 5 of the 14th Amendment to restrict birthright citizenship much more than it does currently. Let’s start with two issues on which we might reach a broad national consensus: illegal immigration and birth tourism. It seems to go against common sense to allow a million or two immigrants to cross our southern border illegally and then to confer citizenship upon the children they may have here. Children of foreign soldiers born on US soil have always been excluded from birthright citizenship, in the same way as the children of ambassadors and diplomats. It’s controversial to call the flood of economic migrants of recent years a slow-moving invasion — but what of the subset of that group that constitute criminals, foreign spies, and terrorists? Does it redound to American national interest or civic health to confer citizenship on any children they may produce on US soil? Is it prudent, let alone just, to allow wealthy foreigners from China or Russia to purchase birth-tourism packages costing as much as $100,000 and including a final-trimester hospital stay in Florida or California as well as a fresh US passport for the new babies? Should we be in the business of exporting tens of thousands of newly minted Americans every year, with all the attendant privileges and benefits, to the homelands of our foreign adversaries? To be sure, the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause is contested. The prospects for overturning Wong Kim Ark any time soon are remote. But even under the Wong Kim Ark precedent, controlling emphasis was placed on the importance of Ark’s parents being “permanently domiciled” in the United States. Let’s update and apply that precedent to a world transformed by transportation technology in the ensuing 127 years. If you are not a lawful permanent resident, any children you may have in the United States are permanent residents with you, not automatic citizens. The next step after Trump’s executive order will be to get the American people more involved, which means Congress should debate, openly and with great fanfare, the meaning of the 14th Amendment on the relationship between birth, citizenship, and government by consent. None of these issues is as settled or obvious as defenders of birthright citizenship insist. Ryan P. Williams is the president of the Claremont Institute and publisher of the Claremont Review of Books.
Skimmed through it. The funny thing about all these cases for ending birthright citizenship is..... Why don't they use data from the past century of case study to give an argument with some scientific merit on how this has harmed America? Can they do that first step first before they give a argument on principle why my citizenship status is less deserved? I actually would like to hear evidence how my type of citizenship has harmed this country.
Anyone, who does not support Trump CANCELLING the WOKE 14th Amendment, does not deserve their US citizenship and should be sent back to where they came from or Venezuela since it is a certified hell hole.
You are 100% right, I was not thinking about other people. I was insensitive and that was wrong on my part. I grew up very poor but my parents worked very hard to accomplish lets say financial stability that ties in to my career in real estate. My situation is much different than other's and I quite frankly wasn't thinking about them yesterday. It would be absolutely awful if Trump pushed for retroactively taking away citizenship. It would be in my opinion evil, unethical and a downright betrayal to many in this country. Its not that I'm not willing to fight for my home @rocketsjudoka , its that I haven't taken this retroactive thing serious. Maybe I'm being ignorant here but doing this would be an enormous hit to the economy and workforce. I just don't see how doing it would benefit this country in any way. I'm actually pro immigration, I've expressed it over and over on this forum. I think immigration is what makes countries truly great, when immigration is handled accordingly and responsibly. Right now, we have to get back control and going a step above and removing birthright citizenship could greatly deter people from making the dangerous journey. I wish this country offered more opportunities for people to migrate legally but that probably won't happen in our lifetime. I appreciate your sentiment and boldness to even consider saying you would fight for my rights. I really do... If it came down to it, fighting is the right thing to do and I'm sincerely with you. Its only been what? 3 days since Trump took over... Looks like we are heading towards a long 4 years.....
Did either Trump or his EO mention retroactively taking away citizenship from anyone? Or is that just a complete Trump derangement syndrome fantasy?
Trump said he's going to solve a Haitian problem of them eating dots and cats. How is he going to do that?
