Mr. Fingerbottom said:

---

No rewards for illegal scumbag behavior


If you can't bother to come here legally, your spawn don't get to stay either

---

And what of the spawn of a 2 year old who was drug in illegally and 15-18 years later had children? Where does your "got to send them back" line stop? 3rd generation 4th?

For me, if you live here for 10 years straight, then your kids born after that should be given provisional citizenship and if they stay in the country for 13 years they are granted full citizenship. They go back at any time before that they lose it.

This will stop the young Egyptian couple I ran into in September at Heathrow who carried red passports while their 2-3 month old baby had a blue one.

It will also be humanitarian to children who are culturally American and have never lived in their parents home country.

If you close the border moving forward these corner cases start to go away.


Edit: if to of

Instead of creating an EO changing the law why not just have policy to deport the parents even if their kid is a citizen? If the kid is born a US citizen the parent would have to decide if the kid is going to go back with them or stay with a relative or guardian that has legal residence. If the kid goes back and wants to come to America when they are an adult so be it.

jacketman03 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

So you really believe that a female from China that schedules a trip over here right when she is due so she can have a baby here to give it citizenship is what the founders envisioned? No way in hell!

---

I'm saying the text of the amendment says what it says, and no amount of wishing can change that.

The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, and one reason for the Citizenship Clause was a desire to put the Civil Rights Act of 1866 into the Constitution.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 said

Quote:

---

That 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; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude...

---

The 14th Amendment says

Quote:

---

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.

---

Seems like the Congress was aiming for a more expansive grant of citizenship than the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

---

Intention and historical context is also considered when deciding "what it says". Heck, I can give you numerous court cases where we have re-interpreted "what it says". How can that be if "it says what it says"?!

Ever hear of DC vs Heller?!

I don't think it will change except by another amendment. Here's the best analysis I have seen, from James Ho, who is now a 5th Circuit judge.

Defining 'American': Birthright Citizenship And The Original Understanding Of The 14th Amendment

I doubt the originalist Supreme Court will conclude that illegal aliens aren't subject to this amendment, since the issue was directly discussed during the debates over the amendment, as Ho outlines:

Quote:

---

When the House of Representatives first approved the measure that would eventually become the Fourteenth Amendment, it did not contain language guaranteeing citizenship.[url=https://thefederalist.com/2015/08/25/defining-american-birthright-citizenship-and-the-original-understanding-of-the-14th-amendment/#_ftn18][18][/url] On May 29, 1866, six days after the Senate began its deliberations, Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI) proposed language pertaining to citizenship. Following extended debate the next day, the Senate adopted Howard's language.[url=https://thefederalist.com/2015/08/25/defining-american-birthright-citizenship-and-the-original-understanding-of-the-14th-amendment/#_ftn19][19][/url] Both chambers subsequently approved the constitutional amendment without further discussion of birthright citizenship,[url=https://thefederalist.com/2015/08/25/defining-american-birthright-citizenship-and-the-original-understanding-of-the-14th-amendment/#_ftn20][20][/url] so the May 30, 1866 Senate debate offers the best insight into Congressional intent.
Senator Howard's brief introduction of his amendment confirmed its plain meaning:

Quote:

---

"Mr. HOWARD. … This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, 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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."[url=https://thefederalist.com/2015/08/25/defining-american-birthright-citizenship-and-the-original-understanding-of-the-14th-amendment/#_ftn21][21][/url]

---

This understanding was universally adopted by other Senators. Howard's colleagues vigorously debated the wisdom of his amendment indeed, some opposed it precisely because they opposed extending birthright citizenship to the children of aliens of different races. But no Senator disputed the meaning of the amendment with respect to alien children.

---

The strongest legal precedence for birthright citizenship is US v Wong Kim Ark where an American born man was denied admission to the US in the 1800s after returning from a trip to China. His parents were here legally at the time of his birth so I'm not sure if that distinction would sway today's court but it obviously swayed Trump and his attorneys.

This will be a fun one to watch the left meltdown over. They are already reeing about it "It's in the constitution!".

Logos Stick said:

---

jacketman03 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

So you really believe that a female from China that schedules a trip over here right when she is due so she can have a baby here to give it citizenship is what the founders envisioned? No way in hell!

---

I'm saying the text of the amendment says what it says, and no amount of wishing can change that.

The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, and one reason for the Citizenship Clause was a desire to put the Civil Rights Act of 1866 into the Constitution.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 said

Quote:

---

That 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; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude...

---

The 14th Amendment says

Quote:

---

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.

---

Seems like the Congress was aiming for a more expansive grant of citizenship than the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

---

Intention and historical context is also considered when deciding "what it says". Heck, I can give you numerous court cases where we have re-interpreted "what it says". How can that be if "it says what it says"?!

Ever hear of DC vs Heller?!

---

Why yes, I have, which is why I don't think a president could interpret the 2A to apply only to organized militias.

Have you ever heard of US v. Wong Kim Ark?

CampSkunk said:

---

I don't think it will change except by another amendment. Here's the best analysis I have seen, from James Ho, who is now a 5th Circuit judge.

Defining 'American': Birthright Citizenship And The Original Understanding Of The 14th Amendment

I doubt the originalist Supreme Court will conclude that illegal aliens aren't subject to this amendment, since the issue was directly discussed during the debates over the amendment, as Ho outlines:

Quote:

---

When the House of Representatives first approved the measure that would eventually become the Fourteenth Amendment, it did not contain language guaranteeing citizenship.[url=https://thefederalist.com/2015/08/25/defining-american-birthright-citizenship-and-the-original-understanding-of-the-14th-amendment/#_ftn18][18][/url] On May 29, 1866, six days after the Senate began its deliberations, Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI) proposed language pertaining to citizenship. Following extended debate the next day, the Senate adopted Howard's language.[url=https://thefederalist.com/2015/08/25/defining-american-birthright-citizenship-and-the-original-understanding-of-the-14th-amendment/#_ftn19][19][/url] Both chambers subsequently approved the constitutional amendment without further discussion of birthright citizenship,[url=https://thefederalist.com/2015/08/25/defining-american-birthright-citizenship-and-the-original-understanding-of-the-14th-amendment/#_ftn20][20][/url] so the May 30, 1866 Senate debate offers the best insight into Congressional intent.
Senator Howard's brief introduction of his amendment confirmed its plain meaning:

Quote:

---

"Mr. HOWARD. … This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, 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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."[url=https://thefederalist.com/2015/08/25/defining-american-birthright-citizenship-and-the-original-understanding-of-the-14th-amendment/#_ftn21][21][/url]

---

This understanding was universally adopted by other Senators. Howard's colleagues vigorously debated the wisdom of his amendment indeed, some opposed it precisely because they opposed extending birthright citizenship to the children of aliens of different races. But no Senator disputed the meaning of the amendment with respect to alien children.

---

---

It makes no sense to me. There is no reason to use the terms "foreigners, aliens" there.

This "who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States" is sufficient.

jacketman03 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

jacketman03 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

So you really believe that a female from China that schedules a trip over here right when she is due so she can have a baby here to give it citizenship is what the founders envisioned? No way in hell!

---

I'm saying the text of the amendment says what it says, and no amount of wishing can change that.

The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, and one reason for the Citizenship Clause was a desire to put the Civil Rights Act of 1866 into the Constitution.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 said

Quote:

---

That 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; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude...

---

The 14th Amendment says

Quote:

---

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.

---

Seems like the Congress was aiming for a more expansive grant of citizenship than the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

---

Intention and historical context is also considered when deciding "what it says". Heck, I can give you numerous court cases where we have re-interpreted "what it says". How can that be if "it says what it says"?!

Ever hear of DC vs Heller?!

---

Why yes, I have, which is why I don't think a president could interpret the 2A to apply only to organized militias.

Have you ever heard of US v. Wong Kim Ark?

---

So you've never heard of US versus Miller? It changed! That's the point!

This "it says what it says" is simply a nonsensical argument

Yes, I thought that too, but I guess it was just a way of 19th century speaking. He said all he needed when he ended it with "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."

Ho's essay is pretty long but it includes all the links to his sources and is very persuasive.

I don't know the chances of this going through and getting implemented but...

If it does, this could solve the H1B misuse problem. A lot of foreigners here who are on H1B will have to think about whether they stay or go back. It takes about 25 years for people from India to get their green card. So by the time they can have kids with auto citizenship, they are 50-60. Too late. This may make them go back on their own.

I have been reading reddit and many are saying they are planning to go back if this goes through.

Bay Area house prices are going to crash.
Interesting times ahead.

Logos Stick said:

---

CampSkunk said:

---

I don't think it will change except by another amendment. Here's the best analysis I have seen, from James Ho, who is now a 5th Circuit judge.

Defining 'American': Birthright Citizenship And The Original Understanding Of The 14th Amendment

I doubt the originalist Supreme Court will conclude that illegal aliens aren't subject to this amendment, since the issue was directly discussed during the debates over the amendment, as Ho outlines:

Quote:

---

When the House of Representatives first approved the measure that would eventually become the Fourteenth Amendment, it did not contain language guaranteeing citizenship.[url=https://thefederalist.com/2015/08/25/defining-american-birthright-citizenship-and-the-original-understanding-of-the-14th-amendment/#_ftn18][18][/url] On May 29, 1866, six days after the Senate began its deliberations, Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI) proposed language pertaining to citizenship. Following extended debate the next day, the Senate adopted Howard's language.[url=https://thefederalist.com/2015/08/25/defining-american-birthright-citizenship-and-the-original-understanding-of-the-14th-amendment/#_ftn19][19][/url] Both chambers subsequently approved the constitutional amendment without further discussion of birthright citizenship,[url=https://thefederalist.com/2015/08/25/defining-american-birthright-citizenship-and-the-original-understanding-of-the-14th-amendment/#_ftn20][20][/url] so the May 30, 1866 Senate debate offers the best insight into Congressional intent.
Senator Howard's brief introduction of his amendment confirmed its plain meaning:

Quote:

---

"Mr. HOWARD. … This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, 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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."[url=https://thefederalist.com/2015/08/25/defining-american-birthright-citizenship-and-the-original-understanding-of-the-14th-amendment/#_ftn21][21][/url]

---

This understanding was universally adopted by other Senators. Howard's colleagues vigorously debated the wisdom of his amendment indeed, some opposed it precisely because they opposed extending birthright citizenship to the children of aliens of different races. But no Senator disputed the meaning of the amendment with respect to alien children.

---

---

It makes no sense to me. There is no reason to use the terms "foreigners, aliens" there.

This "who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States" is sufficient.

---

The concept of mass illegal immigration (or even illegal immigration afaik) also wasn't really a thing back then either unfortunately. The amendment is awfully written and out of date which makes this all the more harder of a case to change precedent.


Quote from the above article:

Quote:

---

Foreign diplomats enjoy diplomatic immunity,[url=https://thefederalist.com/2015/08/25/defining-american-birthright-citizenship-and-the-original-understanding-of-the-14th-amendment/#_ftn12][12][/url] while lawful enemy combatants enjoy combatant immunity.[url=https://thefederalist.com/2015/08/25/defining-american-birthright-citizenship-and-the-original-understanding-of-the-14th-amendment/#_ftn13][13][/url] Accordingly, children born to them are not entitled to birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.

---

IMO this is the only way you change (but not eliminate) birthright citizenship short of a new amendment. You declare the mass illegal immigration as basically a war against our own sovereignty. The "lawful combatants" here being illegal aliens whose goal is to invade and stay in our country. Sure, its a war fought mostly without bullets - but it IS an invasion and wars are declared to stop invasions. And as participants in such the 14th shouldn't apply to them.

This of course would not affect people who enter legally with Visas, etc. - their children born here would still be citizens.

Trump better have thought this one through.

If he fails because an SC overturn, then he would have egg on his face.

javajaws said:

---

IMO this is the only way you change (but not eliminate) birthright citizenship short of a new amendment. You declare the mass illegal immigration as basically a war against our own sovereignty. The "lawful combatants" here being illegal aliens whose goal is to invade and stay in our country. Sure, its a war fought mostly without bullets - but it IS an invasion and wars are declared to stop invasions. And as participants in such the 14th shouldn't apply to them.

This of course would not affect people who enter legally with Visas, etc. - their children born here would still be citizens.

---

So Trump should declare a "War on Illegal Immigration" akin to the "War on Terror" and "War on Drugs" and voila, illegal immigrants are enemy combatants.

TxLawDawg said:

---

javajaws said:

---

IMO this is the only way you change (but not eliminate) birthright citizenship short of a new amendment. You declare the mass illegal immigration as basically a war against our own sovereignty. The "lawful combatants" here being illegal aliens whose goal is to invade and stay in our country. Sure, its a war fought mostly without bullets - but it IS an invasion and wars are declared to stop invasions. And as participants in such the 14th shouldn't apply to them.

This of course would not affect people who enter legally with Visas, etc. - their children born here would still be citizens.

---

So Trump should declare a "War on Illegal Immigration" akin to the "War on Terror" and "War on Drugs" and voila, illegal immigrants are enemy combatants.

---

Well, those are apples vs oranges, but...yes!

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

President Donald Trump's bid to cut off birthright citizenship is a "flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage," attorneys for 18 states, the city of San Francisco and the District of Columbia said Tuesday in a lawsuit challenging the president's executive order signed just hours after he was sworn in Monday.

The lawsuit, filed by 18 Democratic attorneys general, accuses Trump of seeking to eliminate a "well-established and longstanding Constitutional principle" by executive fiat.

---

LINK

---

Yeah, well that "well-established and longstanding Constitutional principle" hasn't previously been abused until the executive fiats of the last administration. So they can suck it.

CampSkunk said:

---

Yes, I thought that too, but I guess it was just a way of 19th century speaking. He said all he needed when he ended it with "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."

Ho's essay is pretty long but it includes all the links to his sources and is very persuasive.

---

I read it as a list:

"Mr. HOWARD. … This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, 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 (1) foreigners, (2) aliens, (3) who belong to the families of ambassadors or (4) foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

Indians worried returning H1Bs will work 100 hour weeks for cheaper pay. Sounds like a cultural problem, amirite?

“We don’t want the H-1B workers to return because they will saturate our job market and unemployment will increase.” 😭 pic.twitter.com/luk8ohYeEn

— Unfiltered Truth (@UnfiltdTruth) January 21, 2025

techno-ag said:

---

Better to have fought and lost on this one than to never have fought at all.

---

Is it, though? If SCOTUS rules that the 14th Amendment mandates birthright citizenship, that precedent likely stands forever. An open question that could be posed to a more favorable court in the future is better than a closed question that goes against you.

Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Roberts all appear to be risks to vote against Trump's position, and all it takes is two.

What they should do is deport the parents. They can take their child with them but it's their choice. Just because a child is a citizen it doesn't make the parents citizens. Deport their ass and let them choose what to do with their child.

techno-ag said:

---

jacketman03 said:

---

So, quick question: everybody here is pretty okay with this, but what about if the next Dem president issues one saying that the 2nd amendment only applies to organized militias?

---

This one dealt with freed slaves, though. Not Chicom nationals flying into LA just to give birth then leaving.

---

I've seen it many times clearing immigration at LAX.
Mom on a PRC passport and little anchor babies on USA passports.

You may or may not know this but there were two of these birth tourism babies on Malaysia Airlines Flight MH 370 that disappeared.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1063617-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-passenger-list/

Interesting. Are there any theories as to the significance of the anchor babies on the flight or is it just something worth noting?

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Better to have fought and lost on this one than to never have fought at all.

---

Is it, though? If SCOTUS rules that the 14th Amendment mandates birthright citizenship, that precedent likely stands forever. An open question that could be posed to a more favorable court in the future is better than a closed question that goes against you.

Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Roberts all appear to be risks to vote against Trump's position, and all it takes is two.

---

Who knows? A future court may be even more hostile. Trump is seizing the day.

Birthright citizenship is pretty much an Americas thing and is idiotic.

Everyone is assigned below reading:

14th with clarification links within

infinity ag said:

---

Trump better have thought this one through.

If he fails because an SC overturn, then he would have egg on his face.

---

No he would not. He would have done all he could do, force it to the court to consider. If they then overturned, it would be the next dumb incorrect call since Roe v Wade. That wouldn't be on him.

In fact, it would strengthen the argument that such things should be decided by national referendums.

BigRobSA said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

What does this EO mean?

Kids of Illegal immigrants born in the US are no longer auto US citizens.
What about tourists on tourist visa who have babies here? Babies of H1B workers? Babies of people on Green Cards?

Can someone explain?

---

Pretty easy, I believe:

Unless one of your parents is a citizen, even if you're born here, you're not a citizen.

So none of your scenarios would anchor a baby to citizenship.

---

This is consistent with most of the rest of the world. Unrestricted birthright citizenship, known as jus soli (birthright citizenship regardless of parental citizenship status). Trump was incorrect saying the US is the only place in the world, but it's a practice only seen in the western hemisphere and 2 or 3 other countries, which amounts to about 35 countries across the globe.

There are another 30-35 countries that allow birthright citizenship with restrictions. They vary, but primarily it means that one parent must be a citizen, sometimes a legal resident for 5-10 years, or some extreme situations (unknown parents, orphans, stuff like that). Some countries only care about the father's citizenship status.

techno-ag said:

---

Interesting. Are there any theories as to the significance of the anchor babies on the flight or is it just something worth noting?

---

No theory. Just an observation that this behavior wasn't my imagination, it is common for wealthy Chinese.

The news at the time reported 3 Americans were on the flight. But you had to look into the details to discover that 2 of the 3 Americans were birth tourism babies.

Households headed by illegal immigrants are more likely to use welfare than are homes headed by U.S.-born individuals, according to a recent report by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS).

At least 59.4 percent of illegal immigrant-headed homes use one or more welfare programs, compared with 39 percent of households headed by people born in the United States, according to the Dec. 19 report.

High rates of welfare use among illegal immigrants "primarily reflect their generally lower education levels and their resulting low-incomes, coupled with the large share who have U.S.-born children who are eligible for all welfare programs from birth," the report reads. "More than half of all illegal immigrant households have one or more U.S.-born children."

According to data from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the total number of U.S.-born children of illegal aliens in the United States stood at 5.78 million as of June 2023. This is a population more than two times that of Chicago.

FAIR estimated that "illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children impose a net annual cost of $150.6 billion on American taxpayers as of the beginning of 2023." Over the past five years, the annual cost has risen by almost $35 billion.

"This burden will only continue to grow as a result of the Biden administration's open-borders policies," it warned.

Illegal Immigrants With Anchor Babies Using up More Welfare Than American Citizens: Report | NTD

titan said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Trump better have thought this one through.

If he fails because an SC overturn, then he would have egg on his face.

---

No he would not. He would have done all he could do, force it to the court to consider. If they then overturned, it would be the next dumb incorrect call since Roe v Wade. That wouldn't be on him.

In fact, it would strengthen the argument that such things should be decided by national referendums.

---

No thank you. We are not a democracy.


A constitutional amendment would be the way to address it. Not the fickle decisions of a referendum