I never sat down and gave this a good pondering. Is it time to put it in the dustbin of time? If so, how easy would it be to get around? We already see presidents and congress passing initiatives to give illegals citizenship. Would this really make a difference?
4 Likes
The easiest solution, I think, is to say that the kid can stay, but the illegal parents must go. Most will take their kids and leave. Those who don’t won’t be able to manipulate them into abusing the system…more.
7 Likes
Simple answer. YES. It has been abused for too long .
Canada and Mexico also have Birthright citizenship.
Ban it and implement Brads idea. 
6 Likes
Then you play right into the dumbocraps wheel house: you’re breaking up the family. I lIke Hossman’s answer, send the whole family back.
6 Likes
If the parents are not here legally, the child(ren) are not legal. Plane tickets all around.
12 Likes
But they’ll have to change the constitution to make it happen, or find something very creative.
3 Likes
If they’re deported in a timely manner, it would make a difference. But the political winds ebb and flow so frequently, with so many parents being declared citizens by executive fiat, it seems it would only make a small difference. Having said that, I’ve long advocated for birthright citizenship ONLY if the parents are citizens first. Even if it’s a small improvement, it’s worth the effort to change things. I doubt it would ever happen in my lifetime, because politicians are cowards and fear not being re-elected. They also fear “mostly peaceful” demonstrations outside their homes.
3 Likes
Not going to be easy to change, since it’s in the Constitution. 2/3 House, 2/3 Senate and 3/4 of states to amend or remove.
3 Likes
The article seems to be arguing that it’s not a proper interpretation of the Constitution.
===============
" This is flatly wrong. This erroneous interpretation is the byproduct of a slipshod and lazy construction of that particular Amendment, through the prism of erroneous interpretations of largely discredited, or at least, increasingly obsolete legal precedent.
Renowned and constitutional experts – from yours truly, to John Eastman, to Mike Anton, to countless others, have delved into these issues at great length elsewhere, all worthwhile reads that make compelling cases for the alternative (and frankly, common sense) view that not only does the Fourteenth Amendment not, by letter or spirit, authorize citizenship by birthright – its Framers would have actively objected to the pernicious interpretation favored by so many leftist academicians today, basically calling unconstitutional any policy that places any limits whatsoever on citizenship."
4 Likes
Make the entire family take the oath of citizenship and pledge allegiance to the flag.
Our problem is ungrateful “residents” with dubious loyalties.
Exhibit A: that lawmaker from Minnesota who described 9/11 as “some people did something.”
7 Likes
In my opinion if the patents are illegal so are the children
4 Likes
I’ve also heard the term ‘birth tourism’ where they use a tourist visa to visit, have the birth here so the child gets US citizenship, then they all return back home.
4 Likes
I don’t disagree, but what the fight will be will likely be what I typed. The logic escapes me. Seems that if you aren’t born to American citizens, you aren’t American.
7 Likes
This is a difficult issue. Politicians over the years have abused and confused this issue to the point many do not understand it. What irritates me is that my wife from the Philippines had to endure a long and frustrating path to US citizenship. My oldest son I adopted from the Philippines and his path to citizenship even for a child of 2 US citizens was again long and at times very frustrating process. My youngest son was born in Japan at a military facility. As a US service member I had to complete several forms and sign a statement that he was indeed my child.
I feel that there should be a vetting process to determine if a child born in the US is entitled to citizenship by birth.
6 Likes
Except those who are on path to citizenship, the ultimate goal is to become citizens.
Sadly, that’s what’s questionable about today’s births.
5 Likes
So, 9 month pregnant Maria and Pedro scramble across the border screaming asylum, and she has the child in the holding cell?
IMHO, send all 3 back.
Now, let’s say Maria and Pedro have been here on legal work visas or educational programs.
they’re actively keeping their legal status and working towards naturalization and citizenship when they decide to GET pregnant….
That’s a different story.
8 Likes
That is the key difference. Other countries recognize a birth in the country IF the family or mother is there legally. The US Constitution does not make this distinction or difference.
3 Likes
That’s would be cost effective compared to all the expenses that they would rack up staying a lifetime on taxpayers life support.
1 Like
Emphasis on legal
3 Likes
Sen. Mike Lee has the “best” legal answer, in my view, so far.
Clause from 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.”
The highlighted “subject to…” implies that Congress makes the decision through law, via the US Constitution. (Not completely satisfying to me)
So far, Congress ignores the issue, but they (we?) have the legal ability to solve it.
5 Likes