As someone who wants a reasonable compromise on immigration that combines legalization of millions who have been present in the U.S. for many years without a felonious criminal record with enhanced border security and interior enforcement, I am receptive to some of this article's arguments. But Chinese birth tourism is obviously outrageous and cannot plausibly be described as within the letter or spirit of the law, and "the Constitution is not a suicide pact." All of the 10 million-ish migrants that Joe Biden admitted with highly dubious asylum claims legally should have been waiting outside of the country while their applications were processed, they were improperly allowed in and to give their children citizenship is to reward Biden's unconscionable abuse of power. If the children of asylum fraudsters nonetheless do retain citizenship, they should still be returned home along with their parents (forever barred from any form of legal residency) and be allowed to return when they've reached the age of majority.
I am generally supportive of birthright citizenship, though there are some corner cases (birthright tourism and fraudulent asylum claims) that I think make the case for a more nuanced interpretation of the 14A clause than this article provides. I also think the arrogance on display here—“the other side has no legitimate argument”—does a disservice to the readers here. Do better.
Republicans are free to propose a constitutional amendment exempting “birthright tourism and fraudulent asylum claims” from birthright citizenship. Until then, get out of here with that noise.
I am not a Republican, but thanks for your uninformed judgment. And while I appreciate your presumptuous request to leave, it seems the opposite of what discussion forums are supposed to be about. But you go enjoy your echo chamber.
Having accomplished the objectives of the 14th Amendment there is an argument that birthright citizenship is no longer necessary to ensure the equal treatment of all US Citizens.
The cure for that is the passage and ratification of a constitutional amendment because no legislation, let alone an Executive Order, can change the letter of the 14th Amendment without a corrupt interpretation of the text dependent on definitions of words like allegiance and jurisdiction. The Constitution establishes citizenship by birth and prescribes a procedure to change that.
Citizenship by birth is irrational and most nations condition that with citizenship by relation to another citizen.
I hope the court comes back with a rejection of the Trump's preposterous EO and restates the proper way to change the current status of birthright citizenship.
As someone who wants a reasonable compromise on immigration that combines legalization of millions who have been present in the U.S. for many years without a felonious criminal record with enhanced border security and interior enforcement, I am receptive to some of this article's arguments. But Chinese birth tourism is obviously outrageous and cannot plausibly be described as within the letter or spirit of the law, and "the Constitution is not a suicide pact." All of the 10 million-ish migrants that Joe Biden admitted with highly dubious asylum claims legally should have been waiting outside of the country while their applications were processed, they were improperly allowed in and to give their children citizenship is to reward Biden's unconscionable abuse of power. If the children of asylum fraudsters nonetheless do retain citizenship, they should still be returned home along with their parents (forever barred from any form of legal residency) and be allowed to return when they've reached the age of majority.
Except practical and common sense
I am generally supportive of birthright citizenship, though there are some corner cases (birthright tourism and fraudulent asylum claims) that I think make the case for a more nuanced interpretation of the 14A clause than this article provides. I also think the arrogance on display here—“the other side has no legitimate argument”—does a disservice to the readers here. Do better.
Republicans are free to propose a constitutional amendment exempting “birthright tourism and fraudulent asylum claims” from birthright citizenship. Until then, get out of here with that noise.
I am not a Republican, but thanks for your uninformed judgment. And while I appreciate your presumptuous request to leave, it seems the opposite of what discussion forums are supposed to be about. But you go enjoy your echo chamber.
"I am not a Republican"
So what? I didn't accuse you of being one.
" I appreciate your presumptuous request to leave."
It's a figure of speech you goober.
Having accomplished the objectives of the 14th Amendment there is an argument that birthright citizenship is no longer necessary to ensure the equal treatment of all US Citizens.
The cure for that is the passage and ratification of a constitutional amendment because no legislation, let alone an Executive Order, can change the letter of the 14th Amendment without a corrupt interpretation of the text dependent on definitions of words like allegiance and jurisdiction. The Constitution establishes citizenship by birth and prescribes a procedure to change that.
Citizenship by birth is irrational and most nations condition that with citizenship by relation to another citizen.
I hope the court comes back with a rejection of the Trump's preposterous EO and restates the proper way to change the current status of birthright citizenship.