Trump live just called birthright citizenship "frankly ridiculous".

[Deleted User 276]

It depends. Are you in Mexico illegally? No? Then your kids should be Mexicans. If you're in America illegally, your kids should not be Americans. I don't see why this is so complicated for some of you.

I think why you are confused is because you seem to think there are two classes of people in the US - citizens and illegal immigrants - which totally discounts the hundreds of thousands of legal green card and visa holders. In M2B's case, she is a US citizen (has said so multiple times). She has not lived in the US for enough years for her children to be granted US citizenship. This is the case for many expats.

That's fine. I never said her kids should get US citizenship. I simply said (and it IS REALLY SIMPLE if you just don't overthink it)

If you are not a US citizen then neither are your kids born in the US.

Super simple.

I realized why you may think it's "super simple" but it's not.

[morgan]

I mean legal as in being legal in Mexico. You're fine not having American kids.

Actually, no.
My children don’t have a right to American citizenship and you know why? Because America grants citizenship by birth, not ancestry.
But I’m glad you think they should be welcome citizens of the U.S just by being my kids!

Okay. Which means you are legal and so are your kids.

Be legal. Do it right.

Not legal? Bye.

God I hope Birthright Citizenship gets revoked. It's "frankly ridiculous."

No, I have dual citizenship.

[Momto2boys973]

Yes, they are.
Sorry you’re too hateful to just admit it.

It depends. Are you in Mexico illegally? No? Then your kids should be Mexicans. If you're in America illegally, your kids should not be Americans. I don't see why this is so complicated for some of you.

I think why you are confused is because you seem to think there are two classes of people in the US - citizens and illegal immigrants - which totally discounts the hundreds of thousands of legal green card and visa holders. In M2B's case, she is a US citizen (has said so multiple times). She has not lived in the US for enough years for her children to be granted US citizenship. This is the case for many expats.

That's fine. I never said her kids should get US citizenship. I simply said (and it IS REALLY SIMPLE if you just don't overthink it)

If you are not a US citizen then neither are your kids born in the US.

Super simple.

[Momto2boys973]

Yes, it’s fine.
As long as America has jus soli.
But the moment Trump ends that right, America will have to grant jus sanguinis and then my kids will be American citizens.

I mean legal as in being legal in Mexico. You're fine not having American kids.

Actually, no.
My children don’t have a right to American citizenship and you know why? Because America grants citizenship by birth, not ancestry.
But I’m glad you think they should be welcome citizens of the U.S just by being my kids!

Okay. Which means you are legal and so are your kids.

Be legal. Do it right.

Not legal? Bye.

God I hope Birthright Citizenship gets revoked. It's "frankly ridiculous."

[Deleted User 1344]

Well, but international law is international law. Every country has to choose between two citizenship conditions: jus soli (right of soil) or jus sanguinis (right of ancestry). No in between. So if America has jus soli, then that means that a person born in America territory is an American citizen. If America has jus sanguinis then that means the descendants of American citizens have a right to citizenship. As of now, America does put restrictions on rights of ancestry. My children, for example, aren’t American citizens simply because I am. I would have to prove a minimum amount of residency in the U.S in order for them to qualify. Because the U.S Constitution doesn’t grant jus sanguinis, just jus soli.

Even with those clear laws, it sometimes happen that a person has no right of citizenship. Let’s say, for example, that a person whose parents come from a country with jus soli and is born in a country with jus sanguinis, neither country will grant nationality and that’s a problem. So if a country takes it upon itself to choose one and then add its own restrictions, that problem increases. So it’s either one or the other, you can’t have it both ways (or as some of you seem to wish, neither way). And, as I said, each has its pros and cons and each can be used in ways that others will deem “unfair”. Well, that’s life.

And, OMG... you do know that at the time the 2nd Amendment was written assault weapons didn’t exist? That’s the point.
Here’s the text of the 14th Amendment: “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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
So... could you show us where does it say explicitly that “no children of foreigners/aliens would have citizenship by birth”...

Jacob Howard, author of the 14th amendment:

"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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

you might be thinking subject to the partial jurisdiction of the USA is enough, nope.

Howard also made clear that simply being born in the U.S. was not enough to be a citizen when he opposed an amendment to specifically exclude Native Americans from the Citizenship Clause. He said, “Indians born within the limits of the United States and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” Native Americans maintain their tribal relations so they are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Senator Edgar Cowan said, “It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in the country has not heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power.”

Weird, you forgot to cite your source for the bottom portion. An article by the totally credible, not at all racist and white nationalist expert on constitutional law Steve F***ing King, lol.

https://steveking.house.gov/media-cente ... -amendment

He’s despicable. Horrible.

[morgan]

I'm NOT hateful.
I just have a different opinion on immigration laws than you do.
Sorry you're too ignorant to understand that.

Yes, they are.
Sorry you’re too hateful to just admit it.

I think why you are confused is because you seem to think there are two classes of people in the US - citizens and illegal immigrants - which totally discounts the hundreds of thousands of legal green card and visa holders. In M2B's case, she is a US citizen (has said so multiple times). She has not lived in the US for enough years for her children to be granted US citizenship. This is the case for many expats.

That's fine. I never said her kids should get US citizenship. I simply said (and it IS REALLY SIMPLE if you just don't overthink it)

If you are not a US citizen then neither are your kids born in the US.

Super simple.

[Deleted User 276]

I'm NOT hateful.
I just have a different opinion on immigration laws than you do.
Sorry you're too ignorant to understand that.

Yes, they are.
Sorry you’re too hateful to just admit it.

That's fine. I never said her kids should get US citizenship. I simply said (and it IS REALLY SIMPLE if you just don't overthink it)

If you are not a US citizen then neither are your kids born in the US.

Super simple.

But you do come across hateful in your lack of understanding of immigration laws. You may believe that only children born to US citizens should be granted citizenship but you have no clue what that means to expats, non citizens, and immigrants. This comes across as an opinion without any understanding of consequences which in turn comes across as hateful.

[Momto2boys973]

You’re hateful when you don’t realize that just because someone isn’t an American citizen that doesn’t mean they’re in the country illegally and that they don’t have rights. Even someone not living in America, but with a current and valid visa is in America legally. And therefore, since they are legally in the U.S, their children born in the U.S ARE American citizens.

Furthermore, international law doesn’t allow for America to deny citizenship to anyone born in the country because it chose jus soli as it’s condition to grant citizenship. It would be a violation of human rights. Under those grounds, the legal status of the parents is irrelevant. America chose jus soli, it must grant citizenship by jus soli.

So again, if you want to change that, cool. But if you think that means that only children born IN the U.S to American parents would have a right to citizenship, you’re wrong. It would mean that children of all American citizens, even those living abroad would have a right to citizenship, even if they themselves are born abroad. And jus sanguinis doesn’t just limit to parents. Any proven ancestry gives a person the right to that citizenship. In fact, many American citizens whose parents or grandparents immigrated from a country with jus sanguinis could apply for citizenship of those countries. As I said, that’s why my nephews were granted Spanish citizenship and now also enjoy the benefits of the European Union.

If you think that’s a better, more fair way of granting citizenship, great. But what shows hatred is your idea that then only children of citizens born in the US should have a right to citizenship and you dismiss all those children of citizens born abroad together with all the children of legal immigrants born in the U.S.

I'm NOT hateful.
I just have a different opinion on immigration laws than you do.
Sorry you're too ignorant to understand that.

Yes, they are.
Sorry you’re too hateful to just admit it.

That's fine. I never said her kids should get US citizenship. I simply said (and it IS REALLY SIMPLE if you just don't overthink it)

If you are not a US citizen then neither are your kids born in the US.

Super simple.

[Momto2boys973]

Exactly.
You can’t go around dismissing both the children born in America of non-citizens AND the children of citizens born outside America.
It’s one or the other, there’s nothing wrong with picking one and dismissing the other. As I said, in countries with jus sanguinis, the children of non-citizens are dismissed even if born in the land, in countries with jus soli (like America) the children of citizens born abroad are dismissed unless the parents can prove residency in America as well as citizenship.
But dismissing both sounds indeed, hateful. As if no one but a very select few have the privilege of being American. A citizenship is a right, not a privilege.

I'm NOT hateful.
I just have a different opinion on immigration laws than you do.
Sorry you're too ignorant to understand that.

Yes, they are.
Sorry you’re too hateful to just admit it.

But you do come across hateful in your lack of understanding of immigration laws. You may believe that only children born to US citizens should be granted citizenship but you have no clue what that means to expats, non citizens, and immigrants. This comes across as an opinion without any understanding of consequences which in turn comes across as hateful.

[morgan]

I'm NOT hateful.
I just have a different opinion on immigration laws than you do.
Sorry you're too ignorant to understand that.

Yes, they are.
Sorry you’re too hateful to just admit it.

But you do come across hateful in your lack of understanding of immigration laws. You may believe that only children born to US citizens should be granted citizenship but you have no clue what that means to expats, non citizens, and immigrants. This comes across as an opinion without any understanding of consequences which in turn comes across as hateful.

I can't be held responsible for your feelings.