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.
We have 30 million plus illegal immigrants in the United States. That’s insane and no other country in the world would allow it. Why does America always have to allow the ridiculously stupid and expensive things to happen?
I’m not a fan of birthright citizenship, but it is also true that the only way to change that is to amend the Constitution.
It does not make sense to have birthright citizenship with today’s easy, convenient, and cheap travel; it certainly made sense 200 years ago and (arguably) even during the WW2 era.
Now, it does not. It simply opens the door for undesirables like Chinese spies.
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.
Actually, US's history of forceful occupation does indicate why this discussion is even on the table. They themselves are illigal immigrants but wait, today's illegals, they serve the so called locals. What did the immigrants do, whos descendents claim to be citizens today, we all know that very well.
What happens is the destabilizing of families without land and the pride of belonging somewhere, kills humanity with-in those who have orchestrated this very scene.
Why are the immigrants illegal in the first place?
> Trace the money, that trail never lies. Buisnesses thrive n profit from the control of fear of being illegal.
Why are they leaving their country in the first place?
> We all know the truth somewhere deep down with-in. The fact that they are being forced to flee, means that something is inherently wrong at the roots of our modern GeoPolitical and SocioEconomical systems of our world.
So when illegal immigrants who did what they did and claim to be citizens driving away today's illegal immigrants who are actually the grassroot critical contributors, I'm like todays world is the heros are the real villains, and no good deed goes unpunished.
I hope trump acts just as he usually does at the Supreme Court today
Blurts out. Interrupts when any female talks. Says when any black human or Latino human talks —trump proclaims they are low IQ!
Please please trump ACT YOUR USUAL INHUMANE. DEMENTED. RACIST. MISOGYNISTIC. FELONIOUS SELF IN THE SUPREME COURT TODAY!
THEN let us observe how the justices react toward the thug in person.
Will they order him to leave the court room? Will they order him in contempt? Will any justice speak to him THE EXACT WAY THEY SPEAK TO EVERYONE ELSE before the court?
Will they treat trump- a public servant- ABOVE THE US CONSTITUTION LAWS???
The legal argument against Trump’s EO denying birthright citizenship to children born in the US to undocumented immigrants is almost as strong as the legal argument against absolute presidential immunity laid out in the DC Circuit’s opinion on that subject, so we can expect SCOTUS to give it almost as much credence.
I cannot fathom the idea that besides the Supreme Court's power to declare a Congressional law unconstitutional, that it can also declare any part of the Constitution itself to be unconstitutional. Article V of the Constitution describes procedures for amending the Constitution. An example is Amendment XXI repealing Amendment XVIII. Neither the President nor the Supreme Court can cancel any part of the Constitution.
I also wonder where will adopted children will fall in this? If they were from outside the US, will their citizenship be revoked, while those born and adopted within the US remain citizens? This is so disturbing on every level.
The history of immigration is interesting. Pretty much anyone who came here could just come. Millions came through Ellis Island with few exceptions could walk off the boat and stay here. Ifayou wanted to become a citizen after we became a country, there were residency requirements. Up to 14 years at one time. In 1940 foriegers did have to register with the government. Green Cards became a thing in 1946. While birth tourism is a thing, I doubt many of those babies when they are old enough are coming here to vote. I assume when you register to vote you have to provide an adress and ID showing wherre you live. I doubt they are applying for absentee ballots or fying thousands of miles to vote. There is nothing in the 14th A that says you can't be considered a citizen because your parents were illegal. I wonder if there was not slavery here and every one was counted as citizens including native people would there have been a need for the 14th amendment.
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.
We have 30 million plus illegal immigrants in the United States. That’s insane and no other country in the world would allow it. Why does America always have to allow the ridiculously stupid and expensive things to happen?
I’m not a fan of birthright citizenship, but it is also true that the only way to change that is to amend the Constitution.
It does not make sense to have birthright citizenship with today’s easy, convenient, and cheap travel; it certainly made sense 200 years ago and (arguably) even during the WW2 era.
Now, it does not. It simply opens the door for undesirables like Chinese spies.
Chinese spies? Give me a break. They have probably been here since we established diplomatic relations with China
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.
Actually, US's history of forceful occupation does indicate why this discussion is even on the table. They themselves are illigal immigrants but wait, today's illegals, they serve the so called locals. What did the immigrants do, whos descendents claim to be citizens today, we all know that very well.
What happens is the destabilizing of families without land and the pride of belonging somewhere, kills humanity with-in those who have orchestrated this very scene.
Why are the immigrants illegal in the first place?
> Trace the money, that trail never lies. Buisnesses thrive n profit from the control of fear of being illegal.
Why are they leaving their country in the first place?
> We all know the truth somewhere deep down with-in. The fact that they are being forced to flee, means that something is inherently wrong at the roots of our modern GeoPolitical and SocioEconomical systems of our world.
So when illegal immigrants who did what they did and claim to be citizens driving away today's illegal immigrants who are actually the grassroot critical contributors, I'm like todays world is the heros are the real villains, and no good deed goes unpunished.
Another important question is - when are humans going to have an equal global citizenship regardless where we are born?
For those of you who think changes might be needed you should read this
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2026/03/30/birthright-citizenship-case-could-create-a-noncitizen-class/ and this https://archive.ph/LtUWy
Meanwhile…
Trump is attending the hearing on birthrightcitizenship at SCOTUS in an attempt to intimidate them.
I hope trump acts just as he usually does at the Supreme Court today
Blurts out. Interrupts when any female talks. Says when any black human or Latino human talks —trump proclaims they are low IQ!
Please please trump ACT YOUR USUAL INHUMANE. DEMENTED. RACIST. MISOGYNISTIC. FELONIOUS SELF IN THE SUPREME COURT TODAY!
THEN let us observe how the justices react toward the thug in person.
Will they order him to leave the court room? Will they order him in contempt? Will any justice speak to him THE EXACT WAY THEY SPEAK TO EVERYONE ELSE before the court?
Will they treat trump- a public servant- ABOVE THE US CONSTITUTION LAWS???
The legal argument against Trump’s EO denying birthright citizenship to children born in the US to undocumented immigrants is almost as strong as the legal argument against absolute presidential immunity laid out in the DC Circuit’s opinion on that subject, so we can expect SCOTUS to give it almost as much credence.
I cannot fathom the idea that besides the Supreme Court's power to declare a Congressional law unconstitutional, that it can also declare any part of the Constitution itself to be unconstitutional. Article V of the Constitution describes procedures for amending the Constitution. An example is Amendment XXI repealing Amendment XVIII. Neither the President nor the Supreme Court can cancel any part of the Constitution.
I also wonder where will adopted children will fall in this? If they were from outside the US, will their citizenship be revoked, while those born and adopted within the US remain citizens? This is so disturbing on every level.
The history of immigration is interesting. Pretty much anyone who came here could just come. Millions came through Ellis Island with few exceptions could walk off the boat and stay here. Ifayou wanted to become a citizen after we became a country, there were residency requirements. Up to 14 years at one time. In 1940 foriegers did have to register with the government. Green Cards became a thing in 1946. While birth tourism is a thing, I doubt many of those babies when they are old enough are coming here to vote. I assume when you register to vote you have to provide an adress and ID showing wherre you live. I doubt they are applying for absentee ballots or fying thousands of miles to vote. There is nothing in the 14th A that says you can't be considered a citizen because your parents were illegal. I wonder if there was not slavery here and every one was counted as citizens including native people would there have been a need for the 14th amendment.
Except practical and common sense
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.