Summary

Donald Trump has pledged to end birthright citizenship through an executive order if re-elected, targeting the 14th Amendment’s provision that grants citizenship to all born in the U.S.

Critics argue this policy would defy the Constitution, specifically its post-Civil War intent to ensure citizenship for former slaves.

Legal experts widely agree that the Amendment’s language includes children born to undocumented parents, but Trump’s proposal could lead to an immediate legal battle.

The policy would require federal agencies to verify parents’ immigration status, complicating access to Social Security numbers and passports for U.S.-born children.

  • MerrySkeptic
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    46
    ·
    1 month ago

    Unpopular opinion here, perhaps, but I don’t see the logic of birthright citizenship beyond its original intent of granting citizenship to former slaves. I actually think ending it might help some of the border crisis stuff. What other countries have it? The idea that at least one parent needs to be a citizen does not sound insane to me.

    I think adding a legal unskilled temporary worker status might also mitigate the humanitarian issues.

    What am I missing?

    • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      57
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      the border crisis stuff

      What “border crisis stuff”? There are no massive groups of people crossing the border illegally, all of the talk about that is GOP propaganda.

      The majority of illegal immigrants in the US enter the country legally and then overstay their visas.

      • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        The only “crisis” is racists and xenophobes getting their testes in a twist about becoming a minority race and maybe having to learn a second language. People traveling hundreds of miles just to come here and commit crimes is a stupid argument for stupid people. The stats also don’t hold up as far as crime goes. They’re much less likely to commit crimes over fear of deportation. And all of the actual drug dealers that enter the country illegally will probably be back in the US in under a month of being deported.

      • MerrySkeptic
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        I’m 100% for humanitarian alternatives to help people whose countries are not safe. Full stop.

        I’m not sure that it’s fair to handwave away the idea that there’s a crisis as GOP propaganda when both Obama and Trump called it one. I don’t think it’s fair to say that there’s no massive groups coming when between 2021 and 2024 7.2 million migrants were encountered by border officials, and that number does not include migrants who successfully made it through. And Biden deported more migrants in 3 years than Trump did in 4.

        I don’t claim to be an expert on this topic by any means. I am open to other ideas. But there is, I think, a valid issue here.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico–United_States_border_crisis?wprov=sfla1

      • draneceusrex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Not exactly. The current majority are claiming asylum at the border and then get lost in the system, no-showing court dates, etc. That’s why the border bill this year had provisions for more judges to expedite the process.

    • xmunk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      1 month ago

      First off it really really fucking sucks to be stateless.

      Secondly, if you grew up in America and got an American education, you’re American enough for me. We’ve invested a big chunk of money into training you so it’d be swell if you’d put that education to use in the American economy.

      Lastly, as one of the favorite shirts on res points out - why the fuck do you assume you’re American anyways:

      Original Homeland Security

      • MerrySkeptic
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Honest question, do most countries in the Americas withhold citizenship from children born to citizens of that country who happen to be abroad? I’m just trying to understand how big the stateless thing would be

    • Billiam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      What other countries have it?

      Countries influenced by English common law, so nearly every country in North and South America, Australia, and Europe.

      You can’t possibly see the downside of people being born in your country but not having the same rights as citizens? What makes you think slavery wouldn’t return if it were ended?

      • ladel@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 month ago

        To be fair, it’s only the countries in dark blue on that map that have it. The light blue countries have something like one of your parents has to be a citizen/settled, which is what the previous commenter was suggesting as an alternative.

    • jacksilver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 month ago

      You should really read up on things like H1B visas then. They were for skilled workers and still got abused in a variety of ways including to suppress wages and get more or less indentured workers. I know places like GameStop loved them because the person would basically forfeit their visas if they quit so could abuse them more than a regular worker.

      The more power an employer has over a worker and the less rights people who live in the country have, the worse it will be in general.

    • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      It looks like much of the Western Hemisphere has jus soli. A quick search says:

      • Colombia
      • Peru
      • Venezuela
      • Ecuador
      • Paraguay
      • Canada
      • Mexico
      • Argentina
      • Brazil
      • Chile
      • Uruguay

      What I can’t say is whether, with the exception of Canada and the U.S., that has any impact on the immigration of those countries. I will cop to ignorance, but many of those countries don’t seem like they would be a big step up in the world for most people.

      I have a friend from Brazil. I don’t think he’d recommend being from Brazil. He moved to Portugal.

      I know basically nothing about any of those countries other than having vacationed in Mexico twice. I haven’t seen anyone say they are fed up with the U.S. and moving to Paraguay.

      • dragontamer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        I know basically nothing about any of those countries other than having vacationed in Mexico twice. I haven’t seen anyone say they are fed up with the U.S. and moving to Paraguay.

        Note: Mexicans have been emigrating out of USA for about a full decade now.

        So statistically speaking, Mexicans have been saying they’re tired of USA and have moved back to Mexico.

    • dragontamer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      English common law: a citizen is born in a land and that land was owned by a king. As such, the citizen and the land are like one. Citizens based upon birth are owed protection by the local king, while the local king is owed the work of said citizens.

      The tradition of birthright citizenship is far older than the 14th Amendment. People were arguing about this crap in the middle ages.

    • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Cool, you still can’t override a constitutional amendment via executive order if you want to pretend that law matters.