Supreme Court takes up Key Arguments on Birthright Citizenship
Posted by renge-refurion@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 142 comments
The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments on President Trump's February 2025 executive order attempting to restrict birthright citizenship — the constitutional guarantee, rooted in the 14th Amendment, that children born on U.S. soil are American citizens. The case, *Trump v. Barbara*, represents one of the most significant constitutional challenges of the Trump era. Widely watched and 10+ sources reporting this morning the ruling could have significant downstream impacts on Trump and US policy-makers going forward, not to mention both sides of the immigration debate. Not to be lost in the shuffle, the millions of people in the US with status in questions (even naturalized) who are watching this closely. Prediction markets peg a Trump "loss" at well over 70% on average, expecting the judges to take a narrow interpretation and kick back the challenge 7-2 or 6-3 against the administration's position.
imunfair@reddit
Honestly I hope they can fix our laws on birthright citizenship, they've been a thorn in our side for generations, and are contrary to the way most civilized places handle citizenship. It should come from your parents, not from where you are in the world when you plonk out the baby.
Thisitheone@reddit
Username checks out
imunfair@reddit
Feel free to explain why you think this particular loophole in our immigration law is sensible and a good way to do things. Why should someone who's in the US on vacation from Europe, or someone who's working here illegally from a high-immigration country have US citizenship granted to their child?
supesboots@reddit
Me. The explanation is me. And a bunch of my friends who were also born to (formerly) undocumented immigrants.
We love our country and contribute to the economy and our communities. We are proud of Americans who recognize that birthright citizenship is truly revolutionary and one of the most beautiful things about the USA.
alkbch@reddit
That's not a good explanation.
supesboots@reddit
Why not?
My friends and I are delightful. You'd love us!
alkbch@reddit
I have no doubt you and your friends are delightful, and would have no problem loving you.
I already love a lot of people from various nationalities living across the globe; but loving someone does not explain why this loophole is a sensible and good way to do things.
loggy_sci@reddit
The 14th amendment isn’t a loophole. It was a remedy for Dred Scott, and birth citizenship was already a thing in the U.S. according to British common law.
The only people who are mad at birthright citizenship are right wingers who need to scapegoat immigrants for political purposes. This country suffers more from tax loopholes for billionaires and corporations than it does from birthright citizenship.
alkbch@reddit
Let’s address both.
loggy_sci@reddit
Birthright citizenship isn’t an actual problem. Even if we’re thousands of such cases, it would be a tiny fraction of US births.
Trump and MAGA don’t like it because they’re racists who need to scapegoat immigrants, and they’re willing to trash the constitution to do so.
alkbch@reddit
There are literally businesses setup to welcome and support pregnant women to travel, give birth in the U.S., get the paperwork for their kid and fly back.
loggy_sci@reddit
So instead of doing something about those businesses (Like Obama did when he cracked down on them), you want the Supreme Court to overturn the 14th amendment and create an entire subclass of people living here. This shit happens over and over again with every issue.
Truly insane. This is why nobody can fucking stand Donald Trump and MAGA. It’s entirely built on grievance and a willingness to destroy the U.S. to punish brown people. Donald Trump declares he doesn’t want some part of the constitution and you all line up behind him with your torches. Jesus Christ.
alkbch@reddit
That has nothing to do with Brown people, bring people of all colors legally.
The Constitution only matters to you when you agree with it? Otherwise, do you carry the same energy when Democrats vote for the Patriot Act, or unconstitutional gun laws?
loggy_sci@reddit
So instead of defending Trump or this executive order you immediately try and pivot to blaming Democrats for the Patriot act, which was bipartisan legislation introduced by Bush. You think that pointing out that Democrats can be hypocritical is a valid defense of Trump. As always MAGA is incapable of being honest.
This is absolutely about racial animus. ICE is kicking down doors and throwing people here legally into detention centers, based entirely on their skin color and accents. Literally driving around and targeting people based on skin color.
Anyway, if you want people to immigrate here legally overturning the 14th amendment does nothing to get you there. It creates an entire sub class of people, throws the citizenship of even more people into question, and it still doesn’t do anything to fix the broken immigration system. You people are truly incapable of governing, and it’s why you have to cheat to win. I cannot wait for the midterms.
alkbch@reddit
LOL you sound just as unhinged as the MAGA chanting STOP THE STEAL back in 2020.
Either the Constitution matters, or it doesn't. We shouldn't pretend to care about it selectively when it suits our political interests.
No doubts ICE could do things better, but we also have 10+ million illegal immigrants in the country, because of dubious political decisions from previous leaders.
I agree, an immigration reform to make legal immigration more straightforward is long overdue.
loggy_sci@reddit
If you support Trump overturning the 14th amendment by executive order, you cannot pretend to be outraged by anything Democrats have ever done.
You support political leaders who are now benefiting from monetizing the dysfunction, and pushing for even more dysfunction. You do not care about immigration policy if you support ICE or overturning the 14th amendment.
“ICE could do things better”? That’s a joke. The President that you support wants them to do exactly what they are, and wants to inject them and their tactics into everyday life. You support their mission because you are so brainwashed and pilled by the immigration debate that you’ve removed your brain from your head and shoved it up your ass. Your strident views are the problem.
But instead of having that discussion you support trashing the constitution.
alkbch@reddit
So we should only be outraged at what Trump does? And give Democrats a pass? Do you hear yourself?
I don't particularly support those political leaders, nor the President. Either you stop the insults and character attacks, or I'm done discussing with you. If you can't have a discussion with someone who doesn't agree with you on everything without insulting, that says a lot about you.
loggy_sci@reddit
You accused me of giving Democrats a pass (which I did not do) in order to change the topic. We are discussing what Trump is doing, which is trying to overturn the constitution by EO. Which apparently your only defense is “because democrats”.
You accused me of defending democrats and being a hypocrite based on literally nothing, and of being unhinged, and of only selectively supporting the constitution in an argument where I’m the only person actually defending the constitution.
alkbch@reddit
I am trying to establish consistency. You claim to support the Constitution. Do you support the right of citizens to bear arms? Including standard (10+) capacity magazines? Including machine guns? Including rocket launchers?
loggy_sci@reddit
You’re trying to talk about guns so that you can change the subject and disqualify my opinion, versus making a case for your own.
Do you think that Trump should be able to issue an executive order to end birthright citizenship as clearly and unambiguously guaranteed in the 14th amendment? If so, should the next president have the ability to overturn the 1st amendment via Executive Order for reasons of national security? Of course not.
The fact of the matter is that this is a case of executive overreach which is being done for political purposes. He is trying to fulfill campaign promises and does not care about the constitutionality of what he is doing. And you support that because you are brainwashed into thinking that birthright citizenship is some grave national problem despite never having bothered to make that case.
alkbch@reddit
I’ll answer your question when you answer my questions.
loggy_sci@reddit
Ridiculous punt. Just as I suspected. This is why nobody can stand you guys, seriously.
alkbch@reddit
You don't get to ignore my questions and demand I answer yours only to then make some claim about "nobody can stand you guys"... Look at the mirror
loggy_sci@reddit
Your question has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Typical partisan hack. You cannot defend this executive order so you need to change the subject to democrats. Pathetic, truly pathetic.
alkbch@reddit
Classic Redditor who deflects and resorts to character attacks…
loggy_sci@reddit
You literally have not even tried to defend what Trump is doing and have tried to deflect for this entire interaction. Average Fox news watching chud.
alkbch@reddit
I don’t watch Fox News. Why do you feel the need to keep attacking? Were you not given a proper education?
loggy_sci@reddit
Still not even attempting to defend Trump’s executive order and your support for trashing the constitution. Keep deflecting.
alkbch@reddit
Still waiting for you to answer the question...
loggy_sci@reddit
Because you’re unable to defend the indefensible and need to change the subject. You are a waste of mine and everyone else’s time. You support Trump overturning the 14th amendment because you are a vile racist that scapegoats immigrants and blames them for whatever the GOP tells you. I’d have a more productive interaction with a dog than you.
supesboots@reddit
It's not a loophole. It's the constitution.
The children of legal and undocumented immigrants are a boon to this country. They're not a drain, they're a blessing.
People are a fantastic resource for any nation. Every person born in this country has the potential to contribute to our economy, culture, and communities.
Birthright Citizenship is an essential part of the American identity, and one that should be celebrated for the beautiful and revolutionary idea that it truly is.
alkbch@reddit
Yeah? Well, you know, that's just like uh, your opinion, man.
imunfair@reddit
"I benefited from a broken system" is not an argument.
supesboots@reddit
I never said the system was broken (that was you, silly goose!).
I'm arguing that birthright citizenship is mutually beneficial.
OMG, you do get it!
Immigrants (legal and undocumented) and their children have contributed so much to this country. I value those contributions and feel that birthright citizenship is one of our nation's greatest cornerstones.
imunfair@reddit
And you don't. I asked why we should have a loophole based on birth proximity, you gave me a reason we should allow legal immigration.
hussainhssn@reddit
What about the loophole Trump created by allowing wealthy people overseas the opportunity to buy citizenship? Same guy that also tried to call white South Africans “refugees” and gives them preference in immigration now by the way, not a loophole apparently
loggy_sci@reddit
He announced the “gold card” but it hasn’t been approved by Congress. Nicki Minaj got souvenir and not actual citizenship.
That said a number of countries have programs where rich people can invest and become citizens by virtue of having money.
imunfair@reddit
Most wealthy countries have a high-wealth or job-provider exception, because those people are a net benefit to the economy - they pay into the social safety net rather than using it. I didn't realize Trump created it for the US, but it's a fairly common exception with a logical reason behind it, as opposed to the birthright reasoning being raw proximity of a foreign national.
hussainhssn@reddit
Ahhh ok so the rest of us aren’t net benefits to the economy? Who do you think does most of the work? Funny how that “logic” goes, people that have been taxes and doing actual work are castigated while people that have nothing but money are somehow “net positive”. They could easily buy up real estate and squeeze Americans dry and that would be a “net positive” by your definition. That’s something they do by the way, it isn’t even a hypothetical
imunfair@reddit
Oh now we're doing strawman arguments and running off on tangents because you failed to prove your point. Nice.
hussainhssn@reddit
Nah it’s just funny hearing someone whose ancestors came here illegally talk about how to do it the right way. What the fuck would you know about that
ineq1512@reddit
Because US was build by immigration. All of US proud achievment was done by 1st or 2nd gen immigrant. If you cut that part off, then it is still be fine short or long term. But, remember that no bad immigration then also no good immigration. Many high skilled people go to the US because of a secure future for their children. Now without that, many will have to recalculate their decision. Maybe europe, korea, singapore, or even china could be a relevant choice now?
imunfair@reddit
No one is suggesting that we shouldn't have immigration. Try again.
ineq1512@reddit
Have you read the remaining part?
imunfair@reddit
Yup, nothing answered my question. It amuses me that every single person who has answered this question has given an argument in support of legal immigration, not birthright citizenship.
JAMisskeptical@reddit
It’s not a loophole, it’s the law. If you want to change that fine, but in no sense of the word is it a ‘loophole’.
imunfair@reddit
It's a loophole to bypass immigration quotas. If I'm from a country that has a long waiting list for US naturalization, I can come to the US and give birth to automatically give by kid "a better life" by jumping the queue.
It's an understandable motivation, but it's still an end-run around the proper channels, due to decades long wait lists for certain countries because there are a lot of people who would love to be US citizens. And I still haven't heard a good argument for why it makes sense out of several dozen replies from people angry at me for saying it doesn't make sense.
JAMisskeptical@reddit
I’m now confused as to whether you’re a US citizen as your posts seem contradictory.
Again it’s not a loophole it’s in the constitution.
You ask about ‘making sense’ It’s not about making sense. It’s like claiming the first amendment doesn’t make sense, because you don’t personally agree, but it is what it is. To me American gun laws don’t make sense, doesn’t mean they’re a loophole, they are what they are.
squidkidqueer@reddit
"a thorn in our side for generations" is a weird way to say "a guiding principle of the country enshrined in the constitution since 1868 and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 1898."
imunfair@reddit
In our early history we didn't have social welfare programs to worry about, you can't have it both ways. If you want a good social safety net you can't have unchecked immigration, and anchor babies are an end-run around immigration quotas.
The other problem is employment to send wages home, and that's easily fixed by making e-verify mandatory for employers, rather than optional like it is now.
Fix those two things, and we have zero problems with illegal immigration, because you've fixed the cause rather than fighting over the symptoms like we have been for half a century. And both of those items are logical and uncontroversial, I question the motives of anyone who has a problem with them being solved - I can't think of a non-political argument against either item.
Soepkip43@reddit
Who not just put a 50k fine and mandatory 6 month scentence for owner/CEO, supervisor and hiring manager for each illegal found working at a company. That would have fixed the issue yeeeaaaarrrsss ago.
But this is textbook pulling up the ladder behind you. Your president is only 2nd generation american ffs, your first lady is import, your richest citizens started as illegal immigrants. But sure, latinos are the problem.
imunfair@reddit
It's just a proximity/quantity issue. That's the whole reason we have per-country quotas, to prevent too large of an influx from one particular region/neighbor. Especially given that many of our South American neighbors are much poorer so working in the US and sending money home is just a sensible move if you can make it happen.
Soepkip43@reddit
Your (grand) parents most likey started the same.
imunfair@reddit
Nah, my lineage goes back to the Mayflower.
CadaDiaCantoMejor@reddit
The Mayflower lol -- after 400 years either you're incredibly inbred or you've got plenty of immigrants in your "lineage".
Regardless, if you were born in the US, your citizenship is almost certainly gained through the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship. Don't believe me? Check to see if your birth certificate -- the thing that we use to prove citizenship -- states the citizenship (and not merely the birthplace) of your parents. If it doesn't, and if you didn't file any naturalization paperwork to establish your citizenship by other means, then your citizenship is determined solely by the place of birth stated on the certificate. Ditto for your parents.
You're arguing that the basis of your own US citizenship is illegitimate, which suggests that you likely don't have plenty of immigrants in your "lineage".
imunfair@reddit
Nope, it was just a retort to a dumb argument that "you're a recent immigrant too therefore you shouldn't have a logical opinion on immigration loopholes". You can seethe about it if you want, but trying to conflate citizens having children with the 250k children of non-immigrants that get citizenship automatically each year isn't going to work.
CadaDiaCantoMejor@reddit
Oh, I'm not trying to do this at all. You're confusing me with the Constitution of the United States of America. Please direct your little tantrum at the document, not me.
Again, assuming you were born in the US, unless you've filed naturalization paperwork your citizenship is derived from the 14th Amendment's clear language on birthright citizenship. You're literally arguing that you're own citizenship is illegitimate, an opinion I'm starting to share.
imunfair@reddit
Learn how to have a conversation rather than acting like the constitution forbids any discussion of whether a long abused loophole is beneficial.
CadaDiaCantoMejor@reddit
Lol - I never suggested that we can't discuss the Constitution, ffs. Your complaining about the 14th Amendment doesn't somehow make it go away.
And what exactly is this "long abused loophole" in the clear language of the 14th Amendment? You know, the part of the Constitution on which your own citizens based. You still haven't explained exactly why you think that your own citizenship is illegitimate. I'm curious why you think that.
imunfair@reddit
Feel free to read up on Birthright Citizenship if you really don't understand the topic as you're pretending not to, check back once you have something to say that resembles how real people communicate and not a series of angry bad faith remarks.
CadaDiaCantoMejor@reddit
Oh, I understand the issue, but I'm not convinced that you do. You literally just criticized me for what the Constitution says, which pretty much suggests that you aren't very familiar with the thing you're criticizing.
I'm curious why you keep deflecting instead of actually stating why you believe that your own citizenship is illegitimate. I've asked a few times now, and all you've done is dodge the issue. At this point I assume it's because you don't have anything to say other than some whining about the Constitution saying what it says instead of what you want it to say. It's embarrassing, honestly.
At the end of the day, I understand that you reject the clear language of the 14th Amendment. I do. For that, I'll refer you to Article V.
As for me, I don't think that you'll be able to convince me that a republic founded on the explicit rejection of monarchy, whose founding documents proclaim universal equality, should determine citizenship based on "lineage". And so far I haven't seen you present a single coherent argument about why. Thankfully, it doesn't matter: the 14th Amendment is extremely clear on the matter. Seethe and cope, I guess.
imunfair@reddit
That's a lot of babble to avoid giving an actual answer. I've now fielded upwards of 35 comments and it says a lot that not a single one of you are able to give a coherent argument on the benefits of 250k non-citizen parents having their newborns given automatic citizenship based on proximity over legal naturalization. Whereas it encourages illegal immigration to keep the loophole open.
The vast amount of impotent anger with no actual argument speaks volumes.
CadaDiaCantoMejor@reddit
Again, deflecting. You can't explain why you think the basis of your own citizenship is illegitimate. I've asked you to explain this several times now, and each time you've deflected with insults.
I totally get that you reject the 14th Amendment and think that citizenship should be determined by your xenophobic criteria. I totally get that. I really do. Not agreeing with you doesn't mean that I don't understand you.
Since you haven't given a coherent explanation for your rejection of the basis of your own citizenship, I'm going to keep assuming that you can't. And since you can't explain your own view, I'm sure you'll understand that I don't find your xenophobic diatribes terribly engaging.
Anyway, you reject the 14th Amendment. Check Article V for how to go about changing that.
imunfair@reddit
I'm not deflecting, I'm holding you to answering my question, which you seem unable to do as you type paragraphs of bad faith bullshit like I won't notice. Either answer the question or go troll someone else, this silly rhetorical tactic isn't going to work on me.
CadaDiaCantoMejor@reddit
I addressed this already:
You're turn now, even though technically I asked first: why exactly do you think that the basis of your own citizenship is illegitimate?
imunfair@reddit
This conversation is like playing chess with a pigeon, please learn how to talk to people before bothering anyone else with your posts. I won't be responding to you any further.
JAMisskeptical@reddit
You’ve throughly embarrassed yourself across this entire thread and now you run away because you can’t actually make an argument beyond ‘what I think is the right way to do things’. Your pompous arrogance of claiming yourself objectively right is hilarious when coupled with your lack of knowledge and inability to make a coherent point.
imunfair@reddit
Are you an alt of pigeon guy, upset that I won't respond to him further after he refused to answer my question multiple times and just spent the whole time on bad faith nonsense? Because you sure sound salty and like him you lack any sort of substance beyond insults in your post. Feel free to answer my simple question if you aren't a pigeon.
JAMisskeptical@reddit
Cry more little man, I’m sure you’ll be able to convince the Supreme Court of your genius.
CadaDiaCantoMejor@reddit
He's using one of the typical far-right strategies: refuse to answer basic questions, ignore any answers to the questions that you pose, and use constant disingenuous claims that their super crucial questions haven't been answered as an excuse to dodge the issue. It's pretty transparent.
Clearly this guy doesn't want to state clearly why he opposes the birthright citizenship from which his own citizenship is derived: he knows that his view is based on xenophobia and racism. But he wants to pretend that it is instead some well-reasoned stance that he will definitely explain once you jump through the endless series of arbitrary hoops he's created to explain that somehow it's everyone else's fault that he can't explain himself.
It's pretty obvious. I asked him several times to state his reasons for opposing the constitution on this, and he never managed to state it. Only after that did he "ask" the question that he insists I haven't answered, even though I have literally answered it three times.
He's just flailing about trying to avoid showing that he's simply a xenophobe and/or racist, and he's pretending like his inability to explain himself is somehow everyone else's fault.
Like I said, it's pretty typical of these folks on the far right.
CadaDiaCantoMejor@reddit
I answered your question. Twice. You have dodged my question at least four times now.
You literally can't do something as simple as explain your own position. The self-righteous posturing and gratuitous insults would be tolerable if you had could do that basic task, but I have no idea why you expect them to compensate for your inability to do so.
And, of course, that you can't explain why you believe what you believe is someone else's fault.
You folks are laughably predictable.
xcaltoona@reddit
Ah, native killers.
Cynical_Tripster@reddit
Natives were doing a Hella good job killing each other before the white man made it over. They were also prolific slave owners and many fought for the Confederacy
mnmkdc@reddit
All of it? That’s not likely at all, and that would still make them immigrants. Arguably your ancestors were a part of the immigrant generation that did the most damage to Americans
imunfair@reddit
Well none of my great great grandparents were immigrants, that's as far as I know personally, which makes his claim that my grandparents were objectively incorrect.
The rest of your post is just changing the argument to the value of immigration to avoid the question I asked, and I'm not going to chase you down that rabbit hole.
Soepkip43@reddit
Horse manure.
imunfair@reddit
Nope, my Grandma was very into genealogy, so I got dragged around to a lot of graveyards looking for ancestors headstones as a kid. I don't really care, but you're silly for thinking that everyone in the US is a recent immigrant just a few generations back.
trapezoidalfractal@reddit
That is just a few generations back lmao. One half of my family has been in North America for at least 10,000 years.
imunfair@reddit
If you incorrectly use the word "few" to mean 16, sure.
trapezoidalfractal@reddit
So they were undocumented immigrants who invaded and settled in a foreign nation, engaged in warfare against that nation, and violated treaties in order to enrich themselves. Sounds sorta like the people who came here recently did a lot less harm to the continent than your family.
hussainhssn@reddit
Get a load of this guy, his ancestors didn’t do any of the things immigrants have to do now to become citizens and yet he’s bitching about it. Everyone whose ancestor didn’t get a green card should have to go back and re-apply, we’ll see how long this charade lasts then
Jurodan@reddit
What was the method of becoming a US citizen before the 14th amendment?
barc0debaby@reddit
Thanks for letting us know you wrote that comment with a hood on.
Sea-Cancel1263@reddit
You know just how much money Trump and Republicans burned on the iran bullshit? Immigrants are not the problem, stop being a bigot and check yourself
imunfair@reddit
Two things can be bad at the same time.
Sea-Cancel1263@reddit
You are absolutely correct about that. At the same time, you insinuate that immigrants are a problem that we cant afford to support via social safety nets. Sure. If we want to continue being warmongers and letting billionaires suck up all the air then we cant afford it
imunfair@reddit
No, I didn't insinuate anything. I outright said that unchecked immigration is innately incompatible with social safety nets, which is objectively true and exactly why we have immigration quotas.
You can't be an in-demand destination offering free services and have open borders, especially when you have a land border to a poorer population nearly twice the size of your own.
No amount of reigning in military spending or taxing billionaires is going to fix that equation.
emperorpathetic@reddit
non-political being the key qualifier - politicians on both sides want immigration to be an issue so they have something to run on. repubs want to bitch about the problem and so directly perpetuate the problem. but dems want to bitch about repubs bitching about it, and so will not push back as hard as they could/should.
Butane9000@reddit
We didn't have birthright citizenship until the amendment that was purposefully designed to give the state less people of the time (i.e. slaves) citizenship. It was never intended to give carte blanche citizenship to anyone who sets foot on US soil. It has created a defacto birth tourism industry and questions regarding efficacy around social welfare programs long term. These are questions and concerns that need to be answered.
I've used it before as an example but in the case US vs Sitladeen an illegal immigrant was trying to avoid gun charges for the illegal firearm he had possession of. The courts ruled that besides the fact that the US government has a vested interest in regards to who can obtain arms that illegal immigrants aren't "of the people" I'm regards to constitutional rights and their application. This ruling was never challenged or made it to the supreme Court ending in appellate courts.
Jurodan@reddit
What were the laws to become a citizen before the 14th amendment?
loggy_sci@reddit
It wasn’t super clear and varies by state. There were holdovers of British common law about where a person was born, but pre-Civil War most people would consider themselves a citizen of their individual state.
Jurodan@reddit
So, you are correct that they would generally be considered citizens of the state as long as they were in the country, but I decided to check Google, so let's see the results:
Alabama: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement).
Arkansas: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement), or became a citizen as part of the Louisiana Purchase.
California: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement), or became a citizen as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
Connecticut: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement).
Delaware: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement).
Georgia: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement).
Florida: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement), or became a citizen as part of Florida becoming a US territory/state.
Illinois: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement).
Indiana: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement).
Iowa: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement), or became a citizen as part of the Louisiana Purchase.
Kentucky: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement).
Kansas: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement), or became a citizen as part of the Louisiana Purchase.
Louisiana: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement), or became a citizen as part of the Louisiana Purchase.
Maine: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement).
Maryland: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement).
Massachusetts: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement).
Michigan: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement).
Minnesota: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement), or became a citizen as part of the Louisiana Purchase.
Mississippi: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement).
Missouri: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement), or became a citizen as part of the Louisiana Purchase.
Nebraska: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement), or became a citizen as part of the Louisiana Purchase.
Nevada: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement), or became a citizen as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo or Gadsden Purchase.
New Hampshire: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement).
New Jersey: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement).
New York: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement).
North Carolina: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement).
Ohio: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement).
Oregon: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement), or became a citizen as part of the Oregon Treaty of 1846.
Pennsylvania: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement).
Rhode Island: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement).
South Carolina: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement).
Tennessee: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement).
Texas: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement), or became a citizen upon annexation.
Virginia: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement).
Vermont: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement).
West Virginia: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement).
Wisconsin: Birthright citizenship in the state or via federal naturalization laws (free white persons with a five-year residency requirement).
So, uh... yeah, looks like they all had birthright citizenship for all free white males. And pretty easy immigration laws to boot, assuming you were white and free.
Halfonion@reddit
We are a completely and utterly different country then when our constitution was penned, and our forefathers knew this and thus allowed for amendments to meet the demands of the times.
Outrageous_Joke4349@reddit
Neat idea. But the commenter advocates for the supreme court 'fixing' it, not for an amendment. So not really relevant.
ConcernHealthy876@reddit
I.e. birther tourism
ParagonRenegade@reddit
There's nothing to fix, the law was a key component of the US' meteoric strengthening from immigration.
imunfair@reddit
Say more. How does granting citizenship by proximity to freshly born babies offer benefits over legal immigration, and not a detrimental incentive for parents to illegally immigrate or overstay visas to get their children a free citizenship?
ParagonRenegade@reddit
That is legal immigration and gives people an easy avenue of moving tot he country, which is a good thing.
imunfair@reddit
Oh I thought you understood what we were talking about. Nevermind then.
ParagonRenegade@reddit
I understand just fine.
America is strong because of immigrants, including people born here with no other attachments. There isn’t an argument against this.
imunfair@reddit
Yes you understand how immigration is good, bravo, not what I asked. Refer two posts up the conversation chain if you need a refresher on the actual question.
ParagonRenegade@reddit
I read and responded to your question.
Birthright citizenship is a legal means of someone getting citizenship and giving their family roots in the country.
There’s literally no downside to giving this. By all means, pretend otherwise and shit put your ethnonationalist excuse.
imunfair@reddit
Ah yes, all those 750k a year ethnonationalist legal immigrants. /eyeroll
ParagonRenegade@reddit
Give me one reason why children born on American soil should not be given citizenship.
imunfair@reddit
Because it's a silly and arbitrary way to hand citizenship to foreign nationals. I'd much rather hand those 250k citizenships to adults who actually applied for it than to the children of people here by chance or intentionally breaking the rules to cut the line.
ParagonRenegade@reddit
They're not foreign nationals, they're Americans. Americans who aren't breaking any law, and are using time-honoured and constitutionally protected extremely successful rights. You're using circular reasoning. I don't give a shit what you personally "prefer" for no reason.
It creates more Americans, which makes America stronger.
imunfair@reddit
It's funny how every argument in favor of the birthright loophole is nothing more than a vague pro-immigration post. So far I've fielded 40+ comments on this topic and most have just been angry, or had no idea what they were talking about. A few went with the "it's constitutional" argument, which wasn't the question, and a few others like your comment explained why immigration is good, making no specific justification for why the birthright loophole is beneficial.
Zero comments have explained why it's better to have 250k random babies assigned citizenship with non-citizen parents, rather than just closing the loophole and raising the immigration quota by 30% if we need that many extra bodies. Not one single argument, not even a bad one.
ParagonRenegade@reddit
It’s not a loophole, it’s a specific protected provision to encourage immigration, which is a good thing. That’s all there is to it.
There’s really nothing else to say. You can continue flailing around saying “omgggg you’re so predictable and soy!!” but you haven’t actually defended anything. The sole reason you’ve offered is that anchor babies encourage lawbreaking behaviour, which, who cares, you can fix that by extending amnesty and giving them a path to citizenship.
imunfair@reddit
Darn, we can fix lawbreaking by making the illegal act legal? Why didn't anyone think of that before?!?
If you don't have an answer just say that, although why a Canadian with no answers is so passionate about preserving an immigration loophole in the US is a mystery to me. Seems like a lot of you guys just see Trump is against it and that's enough for you to take the other side with zero actual thought about the issue.
ParagonRenegade@reddit
Yes, why should I care about the law if the law is immoral and doesn’t even serve a practical purpose? This isn’t some radical left idea, it was championed by… Ronald Reagan.
And both my parents are undocumented immigrants from Italy who later became citizens of Canada.
Canada, which also has birthright citizenship and a population that is heavily bolstered by polices like family reunification.
Trump has nothing to do with this either.
nando_calrissian1@reddit
That's a weird way to say "I don't care about the US Constitution, get rid of it!"
imunfair@reddit
"living document"
FuzzyKittyNomNom@reddit
That’s just an insular race to the bottom. If the only way to become a citizen is if your parents are citizens and their parents were citizens and their parents were citizens and their parents were citizens and their parents were citizens…
818,500 new citizens were naturalized in 2024 (down 7% from 2023).
3,072,666 deaths in 2024
3,622,673 births in 2024
The math ain’t great. Birth rate is well below 2.1 needed to maintain population.
imunfair@reddit
This is all so wildly off-topic. No one is discussing stopping legal immigration. If you're a naturalized citizen obviously your kids would be citizens too.
FuzzyKittyNomNom@reddit
????
You brought it up. If the only path for citizenship, as you said, is that your parents were citizens (aka NOT birthright) then, as I said, it’s a race to the bottom.
imunfair@reddit
Your assumption is that the only immigration is newborn babies, which it is not. You also assume that declining population is a bad thing, which is debatable.
That said, we could allow 30% more legal immigrants if we didn't allow people to skip the queue using birthright citizenship - which seems like a pretty solid reason to get rid of it.
TommyTwoNips@reddit
We should revisit our citizenship laws, but only in the context of revoking every magat's citizenship and stripping them of their right to vote.
You magat pedolovers are a burden on this nation, and humanity in general, and stripping you parasites of your citizenship is the first step in fixing the problem.
Most_Sir8172@reddit
Another way to solve this will be to remove all pregnant illegal immigrants from the US before they give birth. Ice can work with hospitals to find out who is pregnant, verify status and plane pregnant illegal immigrants out of the US.
AlludedNuance@reddit
Please tell me this comment was April Fools
MikeyBastard1@reddit
This subreddit is cooked. The entirety of this post is nothing but US centric context which explicitly goes against the rules and is just being allowed to stay up. This place has become just as bad as places like Worldnews. Lame as hell
AlludedNuance@reddit
Oh come on don't be hyperbolic. World News is an absurd place
RisingDeadMan0@reddit
lol, no chance cough in the direction of Israel on that sub and you get banned...
there_is_no_spoon1@reddit
The Executive Order is without merit or authority because it violates the Constitution. The Supreme Court exists to uphold the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and to check against any unconstitutional behavior. This qualifies. The president doesn't have a leg to stand on here and the ruling should take place in about a friggin' week if the SCOTUS is doing their danged jobs. This is some BS : "expecting the judges to take a narrow interpretation". There is no interpretation. The Constitution is the law, period.
TherronKeen@reddit
That is predicated on the idea that the current President gives one single dementia-riddled fuck about the Constitution, and in case you haven't heard yet, I've got some bad news for you...
church-rosser@reddit
Trump shits himself?
SavageJeph@reddit
Often and with gusto
qwe304@reddit
The Constitution is law, yes. And the 14th ammentment's birthright clause is predicated on "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
This is what the administration is arguing over. You may not like it or you may think it's a sham, but that's the piece that's up for interpretation. In my opinion it does need clarification, if those writing the Constitution did not think it necessary, it simply would have been omitted, so it has some purpose, birthright citizenship is not strictly universal.
BakerUsed5384@reddit
Yeah and what’s not universal is very clearly outlined in the 14th amendment and past cases regarding it.
church-rosser@reddit
invoking that clause per the Trump admin is stupid.
brrbles@reddit
The Supreme Court now effectively exists to do this, but like most things in our government this is less formally established than we believe. SCOTUS gave themselves that role, and it has always been more of a story they tell about themselves in the same way that law is mostly just a story that we tell about our influence over society and the decisionmaking about it. Birthright citizenship seems pretty clearly established based on the words that were written and ~agreed upon 150 years ago, but whether SCOTUS affirms that reading is still up to them believing it is in their interests to keep telling that story. If enough of the Supremes see it in their interests to come out with a wild reinterpretation that might further shore up their or their allies' collective power, and if they actually do it the plain reading will only be sustained by political movement against their legitimacy, either within or without the existing political system. SCOTUS has affirmed some plainly unconstitutional things in the past, so I don't find it particularly encouraging to rely on them just doing the right thing because it's obvious on the page.
lufan132@reddit
IDK, the supreme court also has no power under the constitution, their existing power comes exclusively from them giving it to themselves via marbury v. Madison.
And I don't trust these people to be neutral arbiters given... Well, most other recent decisions that had no basis in reality.
Psy-Kosh@reddit
Ehhh... I'd say constitutional review is pretty much a reasonably natural implication of the structure of our system. What is the job of the courts? To interpret the law and judge if it's been violated, and to apply appropriate remedies. The constitution, among other things, is the law about laws, setting what kinds of laws are allowed to exist and how they may be formed.
So, just following the normal thing that courts do, they judge if the law has been violated. Just, in this case, it's the meta law about laws.
Without that, what meaning does the constitution have at all? That is, there, presumably, has to be some part of our system that is allowed to say "no, this law violates the law-of-laws," right? And given that courts have the job of determining of judging if laws have been violated and applying appropriate remedies...
Though I'm with you on the whole thing with them having, especially of late, showm themselves to not be neutral or consistently linked to reality. Kinda wrecking stuff there... :p
attikol@reddit
The fact that we have any fear in this case is proof of how much damage has been done to the supreme courts reputation through decades of work. Its so open and shut that they could just skip arguments and say no you cant do that
kero12547@reddit
BRC does need to be reformed for modern times. Changes shouldn’t affect anyone that has been born already but should be adjusted case by case going forward.
CallMeClaire0080@reddit
Sidenote, why are we including prediction markets as if they mean anything? It's literally people betting on shit, regardless of how informed or not they are. This "70%" figure is indicative of nothing.
renge-refurion@reddit (OP)
I don’t mind them, betting money can be pretty correlated with news events.
CallMeClaire0080@reddit
Why does everything need gambling now, and more importantly why is it worthwhile to even bring up these numbers? What practical application does it have, other than to publicize gambling?
Sharky-PI@reddit
It's a useful gauge on the opinion of a section of the public informed enough to put their money behind their opinions. They may be wrong, of course.
church-rosser@reddit
gambling addicts are not my preferred metric
merc08@reddit
The whole post reads like a ChatGPT summary.
MikeyBastard1@reddit
side note why is this post allowed to stay up? It directly goes against rule 2.3 for US content restriction. This place was created to get away form US/China/Indian news, and lately 70% of the shit that gets upvoted to my home feed has been US content. This place has lost its grounding
aquoad@reddit
Is there any reasonable way scotus would be able to actually eliminate it, since it’s an actual part of try constitution? Or would it be more a matter of whittling down the definition of “birth” or “citizen” until it’s effectively moot?