Birthright citizenship

[vraiblonde]

There's a simple solution to this:

The kid born in the US is entitled to citizenship
The parents etc are not and have to go back home
They can take the kid with them or leave it here

I don't really understand the problem.

 

[PrchJrkr]

There's a simple solution to this:

The kid born in the US is entitled to citizenship
The parents etc are not and have to go back home
They can take the kid with them or leave it here

I don't really understand the problem.

But, but, but, "THE BABIES!!!" They can't leave their babies!!

 

[limblips]

How about this.

Child born to two parents here legally gets citizenship. Either parent illegal and the bambino/a and illegal parent get a free trip back to where the illegal came from.

 

[stgislander]

It probably is time to review BRC since it has been expanded over the years to include more than just providing former slaves citizenship.

 

[Tech]

It probably is time to review BRC since it has been expanded over the years to include more than just providing former slaves citizenship.

It didn't include natives till 1922.
Citizenship comes from the parents. Children of parents that have green cards and have lived here for 7 years also included.

 

[stgislander]

It didn't include natives till 1922.
Citizenship comes from the parents. Children of parents that have green cards and have lived here for 7 years also included.

That's through judicial interpretation of the phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" correct?

 

[Tech]

That's through judicial interpretation of the phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" correct?

I'm assuming, like children of diplomats are not citizens because they have diplomatic immunity, not subject to arrest.
Major European nation have dropped birthright.

 

[stgislander]

I'm assuming, like children of diplomats are not citizens because they have diplomatic immunity, not subject to arrest.
Major European nation have dropped birthright.

Many on the left keep saying that this was 'settled' back in xxxx. Nothing is ever settled when it comes to judicial rulings as we've all seen recently with Dobbs v. Jackson.

 

[Kyle]

Many on the left keep saying that this was 'settled' back in xxxx. Nothing is ever settled when it comes to judicial rulings as we've all seen recently with Dobbs v. Jackson.

It’s only settled when it goes their way.

 

[Ken King]

That's through judicial interpretation of the phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" correct?

Actually, not judicial interpretation, it was given by law with the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act (also known as the Snyder Act).

 

[LtownTaxpayer]

Many on the left keep saying that this was 'settled' back in xxxx. Nothing is ever settled when it comes to judicial rulings as we've all seen recently with Dobbs v. Jackson.

I love how the left says that something is settled as long as it is settled the way they want it. If they don't get the decision they want, they keep after it like water torture until they get the answer they want, and then the matter is settled. Riiiight!

 

[stgislander]

Actually, not judicial interpretation, it was given by law with the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act (also known as the Snyder Act).

So is that the Act the left is referencing to justify BRC to illegal immigrants?

 

[vraiblonde]

Well, the big problem with the Dumbocrats is that they don't want families separated because the parents are here illegally but they have a child born in the US, like we're going to go, "Mmmm....no...that kid is ours now, sorry for your luck." So the simple solution is they take their child with them when they go. The kid would have dual citizenship anyway and there's no law that says if you're born in the US you are a prisoner here for life.

Dembots are insisting that because a child is born in the US and is a legal American citizen, that means their parents and cousins and everyone even remotely related to that child gets citizenship as well, and there is nothing in the Constitution that even suggests that.

 

[Ken King]

So is that the Act the left is referencing to justify BRC to illegal immigrants?

No, the left interpretation is based on the opinion of SCOTUS in United States v Wong Kim Ark.

 

[LtownTaxpayer]

Well, the big problem with the Dumbocrats is that they don't want families separated because the parents are here illegally but they have a child born in the US, like we're going to go, "Mmmm....no...that kid is ours now, sorry for your luck." So the simple solution is they take their child with them when they go. The kid would have dual citizenship anyway and there's no law that says if you're born in the US you are a prisoner here for life.

Dembots are insisting that because a child is born in the US and is a legal American citizen, that means their parents and cousins and everyone even remotely related to that child gets citizenship as well, and there is nothing in the Constitution that even suggests that.

Chain migration has been abused for decades. Grandparents, aunt, uncles, cousins, and such have been able to get in when someone gets citizenship. Immigration is a very lucrative practice for many attorneys and NGOs.

 

[BOP]

Well, the big problem with the Dumbocrats is that they don't want families separated because the parents are here illegally but they have a child born in the US, like we're going to go, "Mmmm....no...that kid is ours now, sorry for your luck." So the simple solution is they take their child with them when they go. The kid would have dual citizenship anyway and there's no law that says if you're born in the US you are a prisoner here for life.

Dembots are insisting that because a child is born in the US and is a legal American citizen, that means their parents and cousins and everyone even remotely related to that child gets citizenship as well, and there is nothing in the Constitution that even suggests that.

Well, the best and brightest (purportedly) was seen fake crying next to a fence - surrounding an empty parking lot.

AOC WAS FAKE CRYING OVER AN EMPTY PARKING LOT

This is what cheap propaganda looks like. Today’s leading democrats simply need unlimited migration from the third world for votes, that’s all. They do not care for poor people at all. …

abruptearthchanges.com

 

[GURPS]

 

[stgislander]

So @Ken King , any chance the Sups hear this before their Oct '24 term ends in June?

 

[Ken King]

So @Ken King , any chance the Sups hear this before their Oct '24 term ends in June?

Possibly, don"t know what is pending before them. Plus it seems the Congress is taking up the matter with proposed legislation. I haven't read any of the filings yet, but it seems, from what I am hearing, that those already born won't be impacted by the EO as it states that it only impacts those born 30 days after the EO was signed.

I would like to see SCOTUS pitch the Wong Kim Ark decision - the facts for that case were compelling in my mind that Ark, by law and treaty, clearly indicated he should have never been granted birthright citizenship.

 

[Monello]

Now is the time to remove as many incentives as possible for illegals to come here.