# Trump plans to end birthright citizenship



## x65943 (Oct 31, 2018)

What are your thoughts on Trump's plan to end birthright citizenship in the US?

He plans to do it by executive order - which most people think is not constitutionally possible.

Regardless of its feasibility at the moment, do you support this measure?






Dark blue = birthright citizenship
Intermediate blue = restrictions
light blue = abolished birthright citizenship
grey = no such system

As you can see the Americas are essentially on their own with unconditional birthright citizenship. Most other western nations have much more restrictive systems in place. 

With documented cases of birth tourism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_tourism, some people think it's finally time to end the loophole. 

Thoughts?


----------



## the_randomizer (Oct 31, 2018)

What I want to know is, how is this somehow more criminal or "unfair" compared to other countries' restrictions on birthright citizenship?


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 31, 2018)

I wonder if they do that will they also end the requirement for US citizens to file (and in some cases pay) taxes when not living in the country.

Anyway for now I will go with it is an amusing quirk of law, and while it is not unpopular in the US (I see several threads of US based legal logic greatly enjoy it and consider it a benefit) there also seem to be many other countries, ones of similar size, scope and problems faced, that are doing OK without it.

"loophole"
I am always wary of phrases using it. There are certainly, for want of a better term, "legitimate"* loopholes that might need closing but so often I see it used as a phrase to bypass thought and consideration of a subject. This is especially true in the UK where it is pretty much the main phrase.

*some exception gets explicitly made for a then notable group but then they fade from prominence and it becomes a loophole 30 years later. To that end it is probably as tricky as "civilised" in some cases.
Back on topic this I can not see being an unwarranted loophole, one born of a confluence of laws or legal quirks. It is an established part of US law, known to many and used by lots over many years.
To that end I await arguments for and against.

I should also note it goes beyond this -- someone sneaks in/overstays a visa/whatever and gives birth to someone. Many are then reluctant to deport the child's parents and make said child a ward of the state or subject one of their citizens to a hard life (here kid you are 14 with all the trappings of a US lifestyle and don't speak the language, might not even technically be a citizen of some war torn shithole, enjoy).


----------



## AkikoKumagara (Oct 31, 2018)

I don't necessarily oppose changing the system, really, but rather that the acting president thinks he can violate the Constitution with executive orders.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Nov 1, 2018)

its interesting because, if it is done via executive order, because of its "wording" what is to stop the next guy to do the same to the second amendment via executive order as well? Just food for thought for conservatives.

I am just saying that this leaves the door open to a mess.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 1, 2018)

There has been some disagreement for over 100 years over the exact meaning of the words, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the 14th Amendment, whether this is inclusive of illegal aliens or not. Regardless, I don't think Trump is serious about this. He's trolling, and it's working. He's got people on the TV and all over the internet talking about this now, and that results in Democrats unambiguously advocating for open borders, limitless anchor babies, basically no restrictions on immigration whatsoever.


----------



## Viri (Nov 1, 2018)

He won't do it. I agree birthright should be ended, but the correct way via congress.

Also, Trump knows how to play the media, and it's all working, just in time for the midterms. This is the same guy who pretty much got free publicity during the 2016 election. He pretty much knows how to fuck with the media.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Nov 1, 2018)

this sounds more like a gambit to me. Latino's are (statistically speaking) known to not show up and vote in large numbers. Who is to say that this may get them motivated? we will see.


----------



## ZachSZ (Nov 1, 2018)

While I'm not opposed to him changing it, I don't like that he's trying to do it via executive order. I just don't like the idea that something could be potentially changed in the constitution by a single person with no input from anyone else with an executive order. It should be interesting though as there are legal experts saying he doesn't have the power to do it via executive order and some saying he does.


----------



## Pluupy (Nov 1, 2018)

I wonder how many born citizens would be able to do the citizenship test...? Specifically Civics.  I remember when my dad was studying for the test. I didn't know the answers to some of the questions. 

If anyone interested in what kind of questions are asked, here is the study guide they give to people: 
https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learners/study-test/study-materials-civics-test 

People who are 65 or older get very simple questions like what is the first amendment and who is the current president. I think that is nice.


----------



## Yepi69 (Nov 1, 2018)

Damn, and here I thought Trump was imposing a limit on if couples should be allowed to have kids or not.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 1, 2018)

Pluupy said:


> People who are 65 or older get very simple questions like what is the first amendment and who is the current president. I think that is nice.




Why is it nice? Nearly all immigrants seeking to naturalize as citizens into a new country after they're already over 65 will never contribute to the big money pile (tax revenues, including social security) ... but they'll almost certainly draw from it.

As for 'birthright citizenship' .. it's an issue but not the biggest one. Personally I think chain migration is a worse policy.


----------



## Pluupy (Nov 1, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Why is it nice? Nearly all immigrants seeking to naturalize as citizens into a new country after they're already over 65 will never contribute to the big money pile (tax revenues, including social security) ... but they'll almost certainly draw from it.
> 
> As for 'birthright citizenship' .. it's an issue but not the biggest one. Personally I think chain migration is a worse policy.


It's nice because you can't possibly expect someone at that age to learn so much of US history. It's not _really_ important. They get core questions relevant to the United States (and Martin Luther King Jr) and that's it. Whether they contribute or not is your own opinion. My grandma worked when she came to the US and contributes just as much as any jackass my age walking around.


----------



## x65943 (Nov 1, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Why is it nice? Nearly all immigrants seeking to naturalize as citizens into a new country after they're already over 65 will never contribute to the big money pile (tax revenues, including social security) ... but they'll almost certainly draw from it.
> 
> As for 'birthright citizenship' .. it's an issue but not the biggest one. Personally I think chain migration is a worse policy.


I know a family who has been here for 19 years, and they are just now naturalizing - despite having the right to do so for some time now.

Some citizens who have obtained residency and lived here for years have never become citizens because their home country does not accept dual citizenship (mainly China). So if an older person who has been here a long time wishes to become a citizen - even going so far as to give up their right to citizenship in their native land - I think that should be encouraged.

It's not like we are getting a lot of older people moving here legally anyway, because we have really restrictive immigration laws. So the ones that are here have likely been here for a while or are refugees - so I say make it easier for them.


----------



## Hugopugo (Nov 1, 2018)

love it how trump is an immigrant himself and he dislikes this... we are living an era where people think its ok to exclude others or diminish them because of their race/beliefs/ideas... immigration is good, its what keeps the economy moving... but because people believe that immigration takes jobs, increases in crime, loss of nationality and identity people dismiss it.

Brazil is following in the steps of America, bringing a person that is in not qualified to run a country into power. with stupid idealist ideas. This is how Hitler and the nazi party gained popularity after the wwI... its sad to see this hapening.

I still believe that we need younger people in power... not millennials, but people close to that(80's)... im sick of old basterds telling me what they think is good for the country... we need younger people in power who understands the new generations...

the old basterds are dying, nobody cares what a 70 year old man thinks this world is heading too... they wont be alive for much longer


----------



## kuwanger (Nov 1, 2018)

I raise the obvious question, but if Trump were to redefine birthright citizenship and it were applied retroactively*, would Trump be a US citizen?  Would most US citizens?  The fact is that before the 14th Amendment people understood that natural born citizenship** was a thing.  That it extended to "all persons" meant slaves was precisely because of the racism that excluded blacks as persons.  Then a later court case extended it to Asian-Americans who also had been historically deprived citizenship.

Really, the discussion that was brought up is true, that at the time of the 14th Amendment there wasn't an "illegal alien" problem.  Why?  Because heavily the US had an open border policy.  But the racism took hold and the West Coast fought to keep out the Chinese and the East Coast tried to keep out the Catholics/Irish.  It's little wonder there's a massive influx of racism now and how all the "changing demographic" will upset the purity of the United States--ie, utter hogwash given how impure the United States is and really deplorable how many people fight against the real melting pot the US is.

So, the real reason I asked the question at the start?  Look again at the map.  Why is the "New World" so birthright citizen happy?  No doubt because to claim any other mechanism of citizenship as fundamentally supreme and the genocidal conquerors of the "New World" would have all their asses deported back to which they came by the native inhabitants.  It'd outright undercut any claim they have to the land they took over.

Listen to the language.  The assholes stole the United States and now see more "invaders" who are going to pull the same shit they did, and they want nothing of it.  But they want to conveniently exclude only "those" people.  If the blackness of what is in their heart were any more bare to the world, they'd all be shards of coal.

* Nominally, US courts don't consider their decisions which change the status/condition of things retroactive even if it has that effect but merely a realization of a correct interpretation/definition.

** In 1844 (ie before the 14th Amendment) there was already an acknowledgment of birthright citizenship.


----------



## Joe88 (Nov 1, 2018)

Hugopugo said:


> love it how trump is an immigrant himself and he dislikes this... we are living an era where people think its ok to exclude others or diminish them because of their race/beliefs/ideas... immigration is good, its what keeps the economy moving... but because people believe that immigration takes jobs, increases in crime, loss of nationality and identity people dismiss it.
> 
> Brazil is following in the steps of America, bringing a person that is in not qualified to run a country into power. with stupid idealist ideas. This is how Hitler and the nazi party gained popularity after the wwI... its sad to see this hapening.
> 
> ...


Trump was never an immigrant, he was born in NYC, his father was a US citizen and his mother immigrated LEGALLY and was a US citizen by the time he was born
He is going after illegal immigration


----------



## chrisrlink (Nov 1, 2018)

may i say something what about LEGAL immagration? will it still apply to them or would you have to hold off on having a baby with you immagrant spouse for 4-6 years and you do realize this is political suicide he's basicly screwing himself and the GOP if he tries (don't mind it that orange turd needs to go)


----------



## bitjacker (Nov 1, 2018)

Born in the U.S. is not the only condition of the statement. The other condition following the word "and" states that the human being in question is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Both parts of the statement must be satisfied to continue reading. What is naturalization?


----------



## Hugopugo (Nov 1, 2018)

Joe88 said:


> Trump was never an immigrant, he was born in NYC, his father was a US citizen and his mother immigrated LEGALLY and was a US citizen by the time he was born
> He is going after illegal immigration



yes, although you can claim that before america had an open boarder it still does not deny his part german or that his mother could have come in illegally just like some people claim that his wife did the same thing, and that he helped her get citizenship, how do you know? couse you read somewhere?...


----------



## chrisrlink (Nov 1, 2018)

@bitjacker basicly a green card holder (legal alien) get's citizenship and get pretty much all rights of being a american (except to become president) I've been to a naturization ceremony held at a federal courthouse for my mom's friend from England


----------



## Viri (Nov 1, 2018)

Pluupy said:


> I wonder how many born citizens would be able to do the citizenship test...? Specifically Civics. I remember when my dad was studying for the test. I didn't know the answers to some of the questions.


I took those practice test. They're pretty easy. It's a shame how most people in the country probably would fail it.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 1, 2018)

This is a political stunt for mid-terms.  Not that I don't believe Trump hates birthright citizenship (despite the fact that he and his wife come from immigrant families), but it's ingrained in the constitution.  There's no way he's going to be able to stay focused on this issue long enough to have the fight over revising/undoing constitutional amendments.  Especially because he believes he already undid it with an executive order (he didn't and he can't).



Joe88 said:


> Trump was never an immigrant, he was born in NYC, his father was a US citizen and his mother immigrated LEGALLY and was a US citizen by the time he was born
> He is going after illegal immigration


Except ending birthright citizenship would harm legal immigrants just as much as illegal immigrants.  Thus encouraging more illegal immigration because people will realize they'll be treated like shit either way.


----------



## Captain_N (Nov 1, 2018)

Pluupy said:


> It's nice because you can't possibly expect someone at that age to learn so much of US history. It's not _really_ important. They get core questions relevant to the United States (and Martin Luther King Jr) and that's it. Whether they contribute or not is your own opinion. My grandma worked when she came to the US and contributes just as much as any jackass my age walking around.



Since when is not learning the history of the country you want to live in not important? You think just because it happens in the past does not make it important? Perhaps we should forget about how the Nazis killed 6 million Jews and almost took over the world, Because you know it happens in the past to its not important....

As for the topic, I dont think you can bend constitutional amendments with executive orders. An executive order is only legal if it does not violate the bill of rights and the us constitution.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 1, 2018)

Sophie-bear said:


> I don't necessarily oppose changing the system, really, but rather that the acting president thinks he can violate the Constitution with executive orders.



Well, it worked for Obama and his constitutional circumvention to pass executive orders, so, really, Trump's doing that is nothing new AFAIK *shrug*


----------



## Xzi (Nov 1, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Well, it worked for Obama and his constitutional circumvention to pass executive orders, so, really, Trump's doing that is nothing new AFAIK *shrug*


What?  If Obama had tried to issue executive orders contrary to the language of the constitution, they would have been null and void just like this Trump order is.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 1, 2018)

Xzi said:


> This is a political stunt for mid-terms.




Already agreed above. An effective one? Maybe.



> Except ending birthright citizenship would harm legal immigrants just as much as illegal immigrants.  Thus encouraging more illegal immigration because people will realize they'll be treated like shit either way.



I don't understand what you're suggesting here. If you're a legal resident (i.e. legal immigrant), you are 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States. Your presence in the country is recognized, registered, and approved. If you're an illegal immigrant, none of those things are true. All Trump would have to do, in theory, is define "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to exclude anyone not legally residing here.

I think the interpretation of that language in the 14th Amendment is debatable, but an E.O. declaring the meaning just means protracted litigation. Of course its pretty clear Obama played fast-and-loose with the law on DACA (especially since he stated he couldn't legally do it with the authority of POTUS alone, and then did it anyway) ... but the only way the birthright citizenship issue ever sees a finalized change is a Constitutional amendment, and President Trump knows that. So yeah, this is just to make it the topic of the day, derail the news cycle, and get some liberals on-record supporting open borders in the last week before the election. The guy's got a real talent for knowing when and how to manipulate the discussion like that. It's almost on par with the master of the art, Bill Clinton.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 1, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Already agreed above. An effective one? Maybe.


Negative.  He already had his immigrant hating/fearing base riled up with the 'caravan' nonsense.  I don't see how adding a strictly anti-constitutional stance helps him turn those people out to vote any more than they already would've.



Hanafuda said:


> I don't understand what you're suggesting here. If you're a legal resident (i.e. legal immigrant), you are 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States. Your presence in the country is recognized, registered, and approved. If you're an illegal immigrant, none of those things are true.


Yes, but legal immigrant is not the same as citizen.  The process of becoming a citizen after immigrating in any way is basically non-existent in 2018.  That's largely beside the point because Trump and his base have made it clear that they're only cool with immigrants from white countries.  Overall tourism and immigration are sharply down under Trump.



Hanafuda said:


> I think the interpretation of that language in the 14th Amendment is debatable, but an E.O. declaring the meaning just means protracted litigation. Of course its pretty clear Obama played fast-and-loose with the law on DACA (especially since he stated he couldn't legally do it with the authority of POTUS alone, and then did it anyway) ... but the only way the birthright citizenship issue ever sees a finalized change is a Constitutional amendment, and President Trump knows that. So yeah, this is just to make it the topic of the day, derail the news cycle, and get some liberals on-record supporting open borders in the last week before the election. The guy's got a real talent for knowing when and how to manipulate the discussion like that. It's almost on par with the master of the art, Bill Clinton.


It's a joke to pretend he's somehow "winning" in the midst of all this.  Anybody with half a brain knows it's just a distraction from the recent far right extremist attacks.  Which I expect to continue as long as he fails to call it by name.  Probably the only thing that's really 'by design' for Trump.  His endorsement to other candidates in special elections has thus far been toxic nearly across the board, we shall see if that trend continues in the mid-term election.

The 14th is pretty damn clear and his EO means nothing because it violates the constitution.  Now, getting his famous frat alcohol-boofer buddy Kavanaugh and also Gorsuch to help "redefine" the 14th is a different matter altogether, and I wouldn't put it past Republicans as a whole to wipe their asses with the constitution like that.  We'd certainly be a Banana Republic at that point, best case scenario.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 1, 2018)

Joe88 said:


> Trump was never an immigrant, he was born in NYC, his father was a US citizen and his mother immigrated LEGALLY and was a US citizen by the time he was born
> He is going after illegal immigration


Expect what he is doing is a violation of the 14th Amendment. People born on US soil are considered legal Americas. It's also worth noting that anyone born of European descent, are all children of immigrants and this is regardless if the parents were legally here or not.


the_randomizer said:


> Well, it worked for Obama and his constitutional circumvention to pass executive orders, so, really, Trump's doing that is nothing new AFAIK *shrug*


Can you actually name a time Obama actually did this?


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 1, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Expect what he is doing is a violation of the 14th Amendment. People born on US soil are considered legal Americas. It's also worth noting that anyone born of European descent, are all children of immigrants and this is regardless if the parents were legally here or not.
> 
> Can you actually name a time Obama actually did this?



No, I can't, you're right. I've got nothing. I'd best move on before making an dumbass  out of myself for the second time today. Sorry.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 1, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> No, I can't, you're right. I've got nothing. I'd best move on before making an dumbass  out of myself for the second time today. Sorry.


Hey man, at least you admit that you done goofed. I couldn't find an example, but I am also more than willing to be proven wrong. Still goofs happen.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 1, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Hey man, at least you admit that you done goofed. I couldn't find an example, but I am also more than willing to be proven wrong. Still goofs happen.



I haven't been feeling all that well this week (long story, but I've cried a couple times this week), and as a result, my logic went to shit. Still wanted to apologize.  Political discussions bring out the worst in me and I haven't figured out why I get caught up in them. No hard feelings.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 1, 2018)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> its interesting because, if it is done via executive order, because of its "wording" what is to stop the next guy to do the same to the second amendment via executive order as well? Just food for thought for conservatives.
> 
> I am just saying that this leaves the door open to a mess.


If this was possible, then a Republican will change it, then a Democrat will change it back, it will continue never-ending.



Hanafuda said:


> There has been some disagreement for over 100 years over the exact meaning of the words, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the 14th Amendment, whether this is inclusive of illegal aliens or not. Regardless, I don't think Trump is serious about this. He's trolling, and it's working. He's got people on the TV and all over the internet talking about this now, and that results in Democrats unambiguously advocating for open borders, limitless anchor babies, basically no restrictions on immigration whatsoever.


What's crazy is that the Democratic party were always against illegal immigration. Republicans use to be the ones for open borders. Democrats were against illegal immigration because they said it lowered wages for legal people in this country. If people don't believe me, there are plenty of videos floating on the internet of many people from the Democratic party saying they are against illegal immigration from Hillary, Bill Clinton, to Obama, and a bunch of others. Even Bernie Sanders said that immigrants lower wages. Illegal immigrants were hired for less pay, and Democrats were about protecting wages, raising the minimum wage, and keeping those wages high.

The all of a sudden a 180 happened during Trumps presidency. They started calling Trump a racist for promoting Democratic policies. And they called him a racist for saying we need to put borders. Like WTF! These were things Democrats were saying for years. Democrats said that they need to stop criminals from coming into this country. It seems they recent change was to virtue signal, they say what they can to get votes, they're politicians.

And the left use to praise Cesar Chavez for his anti-immigration rhetoric. Cesar Chaves would gather a group of armed Union members in the desert to assault Mexican Nationals trying to sneak across the border with chains and whips with barbed wires. They firebombed Illegal Aliens houses that worked as scabs.

Obama against illigal immigration


Hillary against immigration


----------



## Xzi (Nov 1, 2018)

SG854 said:


> What's crazy is that the Democratic party were always against illegal immigration. Republicans use to be the ones for open borders.


Talk about some revisionist history.  The truth is that there _have_ been _some_ Republicans pushing for common sense immigration reform over the years (which is not a negative thing), but they've always been in the minority.  GWB attempted to create a path to citizenship but it was shot down by the Republican leadership at large.

OTOH Democrats have never been against enforcing the laws on the books, they just don't see a reason that it can't be done humanely and why we can't make some changes to the existing system (which is clearly far from perfect).


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 1, 2018)

To be honest  I don't believe the word "plans". Sure,  it's his position, and I don't even disagree that much. I mean : I can name instances (and I'm sure others can name examples) where granting citizenship because of birth (and nothing else) would be just silly.

But this is Donald Trump were talking about. He doesn't follow any ethics, has no overall goal or long term intention and is a notorious liar. I give it far more chance that he just says that at meetings without having done any research on his case of it pulling through. At best, he already has the name in his mind for whom to blame a future failure (basically : the first person who has to say to him that it's unconstitutional).


----------



## smf (Nov 1, 2018)

Viri said:


> Also, Trump knows how to play the media, and it's all working, just in time for the midterms. This is the same guy who pretty much got free publicity during the 2016 election. He pretty much knows how to fuck with the media.



More importantly, he knows how to fuck with the electorate. Personally I would be so offended by that, that I wouldn't vote for him even if I agreed with the slime coming out of his mouth. I'm not sure how the people who vote for him get over that, I guess they are so excited by racism and #MAGA that they'll let it all slide.



Joe88 said:


> Trump was never an immigrant, he was born in NYC, his father was a US citizen and his mother immigrated LEGALLY and was a US citizen by the time he was born
> He is going after illegal immigration



Illegal immigration is a man made concept, it was invented by a bunch of old white guys who pulled up the drawbridge after they arrived without gaining permission from the american natives.

It's easy to get rid of illegal immigration, don't put people in a position where they know they'll be turned down due to racism.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Nov 1, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Talk about some revisionist history.  The truth is that there _have_ been _some_ Republicans pushing for common sense immigration reform over the years (which is not a negative thing), but they've always been in the minority.  GWB attempted to create a path to citizenship but it was shot down by the Republican leadership at large.
> 
> OTOH Democrats have never been against enforcing the laws on the books, they just don't see a reason that it can't be done humanely and why we can't make some changes to the existing system (which is clearly far from perfect).




It is insane how broken our system is. My hope is that this stunt will cause some kind of change; though I'm not holding my breath on that one.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 1, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Talk about some revisionist history.  The truth is that there _have_ been _some_ Republicans pushing for common sense immigration reform over the years (which is not a negative thing), but they've always been in the minority.  GWB attempted to create a path to citizenship but it was shot down by the Republican leadership at large.
> 
> OTOH Democrats have never been against enforcing the laws on the books, they just don't see a reason that it can't be done humanely and why we can't make some changes to the existing system (which is clearly far from perfect).



Out of curiosity, what's your views in immigration?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Taleweaver said:


> To be honest  I don't believe the word "plans". Sure,  it's his position, and I don't even disagree that much. I mean : I can name instances (and I'm sure others can name examples) where granting citizenship because of birth (and nothing else) would be just silly.
> 
> But this is Donald Trump were talking about. He doesn't follow any ethics, has no overall goal or long term intention and is a notorious liar. I give it far more chance that he just says that at meetings without having done any research on his case of it pulling through. At best, he already has the name in his mind for whom to blame a future failure (basically : the first person who has to say to him that it's unconstitutional).



I disagree. You don't become president by having 'no overall goal'. This is the same guy who was tossed out of the predictions entirely. This is the same guy who somehow has enough control over congress to avoid impeachment.

Sheer luck?

I don't think so.

Whether you love him or hate him, it's a terrible idea to underestimate him.


----------



## smf (Nov 1, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Sheer luck?
> 
> I don't think so.



The easiest way to become a millionaire is to inherit a billion dollars.

Trump has taken advantage of his luck, but it's still luck.


----------



## Cyan (Nov 1, 2018)

I don't know a lot about america history, current political situation and all the laws. so my comment might be wrong or offtopic.

I knew birthright citizenship (getting nationality?) was a thing, and it was useful for things like GPA (assisted birth, child born from another mother, etc.) where the newborn got american nationality by rights, and didn't have to wonder if it had to get the biological or natural parent's nationality.
well, that's just a specific thing, I don't know how common it is.

I'll talk about France which I know better.
France changed a LOT all the nationality laws over the last 2 centuries, and it's just how it is. change is change. there's nothing good or bad, that's decided and we comply, but all these are mainly historical reasons.
America is maybe less constrained about historical reason, because it's a big country and had less wars than europe.
In France, for example, the law changed regarding marriage with someone from a different country based on the fact that country was allied or enemies during the WW2. Nothing is really automatic or always identical, every country and every nationality has different rules applied to become French.

For birth citizenship, France changed it in 1850 to be "double jus solis", you need 2 generations of birth to get it. If you are born in France, from one of your parent born in France too, then you get citizenship.
it's like that for a long time and I don't see it as a problem. on the contrary, seeing how the country is providing social help to people, if there were birth right right away then we would had a lot more immigrant coming to France just to give birth and earn many rights and get paid for lot of things even if they don't live in France and even if the parents are not French. there are already a lot of abuse and social aids given to people not even living or working in France. The State is providing to people abusing the system.

That's maybe the issue with America? Maybe there are too many abuse of travel birth, or border birth, done on purpose just to get a future for your kids in a good country?


----------



## Song of storms (Nov 1, 2018)

Good!


----------



## Clydefrosch (Nov 1, 2018)

Cyan said:


> That's maybe the issue with America? Maybe there are too many abuse of travel birth, or border birth, done on purpose just to get a future for your kids in a good country?



that's really not the issue.
that's the shallow justification they'll use in a court setting, but it's really not the actual reason. if finances mattered to the current administration or people in general, they wouldn't look towards this, but towards military spending and crazy tax cuts that save the average joe 50 bucks a year, while someone who could finance 10 lifetimes for Joe with their yearly income, saves hundreds of thousands.


also, you guys, this seriously isn't even donalds actual aim. birthright citizenship is a test run. something that he certainly loves to change, but likely wouldn't care if it didn't work out.
the point of this is to see if he can take out a constitutional amendment and if he can, to move on to more important ones, like that pesky first one the right hates so much.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Nov 1, 2018)

Clydefrosch said:


> that's really not the issue.
> that's the shallow justification they'll use in a court setting, but it's really not the actual reason. if finances mattered to the current administration or people in general, they wouldn't look towards this, but towards military spending and crazy tax cuts that save the average joe 50 bucks a year, while someone who could finance 10 lifetimes for Joe with their yearly income, saves hundreds of thousands.
> 
> 
> ...




How high were you when you wrote this? Military spending accounts for about 17% of our budget while shit like welfare and SS (so more welfare) takes up over 50% of our budget. It is about saving money. I still think it is a stupid idea but that is their plan.

The right hates free speech? Since when? Look at the left and how they try to de-platform everyone they disagree with.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 1, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Out of curiosity, what's your views in immigration?
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


It isn't about underestimation  but about experience. He has spouted controversial ideas almost on a daily basis. Yet despite holding a majority in senate, hardly any of his ideas take off. Hillary is not behind bars, the Wall with Mexico isn't being built, he has no alternative to Obama care, North Korea isn't disarming, and so on.

In a cynical way I agree with what you say : his long term goal consists of "not being impeached". He's good at that,  absolutely. But these "plans" go just on the pile of "things to get people worked up over".


----------



## Pluupy (Nov 2, 2018)

Captain_N said:


> Since when is not learning the history of the country you want to live in not important? You think just because it happens in the past does not make it important? Perhaps we should forget about how the Nazis killed 6 million Jews and almost took over the world, Because you know it happens in the past to its not important....


The european holocost has nothing to do with US history.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Nov 2, 2018)

He might try to argue that illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". If that happens a good question would be; How can they be charged of crimes if they're not under US jurisdiction?


----------



## x65943 (Nov 2, 2018)

Pluupy said:


> The european holocost has nothing to do with US history.


Not entirely. The allies had reports of what was going on but we didn't use resources to bomb prisoner transit routes.

Also we turned away Jewish refugees many of whom died in the holocaust


invaderyoyo said:


> He might try to argue that illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". If that happens a good question would be; How can they be charged of crimes if they're not under US jurisdiction?


They can't. And in that case the proper solution is deportation and trial in their native land.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Nov 2, 2018)

x65943 said:


> Not entirely. The allies had reports of what was going on but we didn't use resources to bomb prisoner transit routes.
> 
> Also we turned away Jewish refugees many of whom died in the holocaust
> 
> They can't. And in that case the proper solution is deportation and trial in their native land.


Can they even be apprehended if they're not under US jurisdiction? Also, crimes are usually adjudicated in the country they're committed. Why would Mexico hold a trial for a robbery that was committed in the US?


----------



## Viri (Nov 2, 2018)

Cyan said:


> For birth citizenship, France changed it in 1850 to be "double jus solis", you need 2 generations of birth to get it. If you are born in France, from one of your parent born in France too, then you get citizenship.


I like the 2 generation idea. Also, France is surrounded by EU members, who can freely travel anywhere they want in the EU. We have a country to the south of us, with people sneaking in, and some giving birth purposely in the US to have citizenship. It's to the point where we even have nicknames for them(anchor babies). Can't deport the mommy, if the baby is now a US citizen, because she was born in Texas.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 2, 2018)

Viri said:


> I like the 2 generation idea. Also, France is surrounded by EU members, who can freely travel anywhere they want in the EU. We have a country to the south of us, with people sneaking in, and some giving birth purposely in the US to have citizenship. It's to the point where we even have nicknames for them(anchor babies). Can't deport the mommy, if the baby is now a US citizen, because she was born in Texas.



Don't you just love our broken BS system?


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 2, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> How high were you when you wrote this? Military spending accounts for about 17% of our budget while shit like welfare and SS (so more welfare) takes up over 50% of our budget. It is about saving money. I still think it is a stupid idea but that is their plan.
> 
> The right hates free speech? Since when? Look at the left and how they try to de-platform everyone they disagree with.


News flash : not everyone will you disagree with is stupid, drunk or high  Or wrong, for that matter. US military isn't just the highest in the world but also more than the next seven runners - up combined. Compared to the cost of immigration, immigration is next to zero. Or even negative, if you consider that immigrants become subjective to paying taxes. 

I find it rather funny that you don't even see the irony in your post : you start out with a personal attack to undermine an idea and end with not understanding that the right doesn't like free speech. Good going on that, dude. I initially wasn't agreeing with @Clydefrosch on trump 's intentions, but it's kind of hard to keep that up when you unintentionally illustrate his very point.


----------



## Glyptofane (Nov 2, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> I haven't been feeling all that well this week (long story, but I've cried a couple times this week), and as a result, my logic went to shit. Still wanted to apologize.  Political discussions bring out the worst in me and I haven't figured out why I get caught up in them. No hard feelings.


Hope you're feeling better, but that's rough. I'm not sure if it's due to long term alcoholism, but my tears are like toxic acid, leaving my eyes swollen and irritated for days after crying. Is this natural?


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 2, 2018)

Glyptofane said:


> Hope you're feeling better, but that's rough. I'm not sure if it's due to long term alcoholism, but my tears are like toxic acid, leaving my eyes swollen and irritated for days after crying. Is this natural?



Don't know. There's been so much shit I've been dealing with lately, trying to get my life back in order, I can't even formulate a proper political opinion, probably for the best


----------



## CallmeBerto (Nov 2, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> News flash : not everyone will you disagree with is stupid, drunk or high  Or wrong, for that matter. US military isn't just the highest in the world but also more than the next seven runners - up combined. Compared to the cost of immigration, immigration is next to zero. Or even negative, if you consider that immigrants become subjective to paying taxes.
> 
> I find it rather funny that you don't even see the irony in your post : you start out with a personal attack to undermine an idea and end with not understanding that the right doesn't like free speech. Good going on that, dude. I initially wasn't agreeing with @Clydefrosch on trump 's intentions, but it's kind of hard to keep that up when you unintentionally illustrate his very point.



Holy shit dude relax it was a silly jab at him, no need to get your panties in a bunch. The US military spending is stupid high. The reason I compared it to welfare is that NOBODY wants to talk about cutting those programs even though objectively they are the problem by a mile. Hell you on about the right no liking free speech?


----------



## Megadriver94 (Nov 2, 2018)

Hugopugo said:


> love it how trump is an immigrant himself and he dislikes this... we are living an era where people think its ok to exclude others or diminish them because of their race/beliefs/ideas... immigration is good, its what keeps the economy moving... but because people believe that immigration takes jobs, increases in crime, loss of nationality and identity people dismiss it.
> 
> Brazil is following in the steps of America, bringing a person that is in not qualified to run a country into power. with stupid idealist ideas. This is how Hitler and the nazi party gained popularity after the wwI... its sad to see this hapening.
> 
> ...


LOL you misspelled a few word in your BS rant. Also, Immigration isn't always a good thing, and its not the only thing that keeps the economy running! Some people who come to this country are actual criminals trafficking drugs and child slaves and other things. Plus, illegal immigration is a fucking crime, PERIOD! 



kuwanger said:


> I raise the obvious question, but if Trump were to redefine birthright citizenship and it were applied retroactively*, would Trump be a US citizen?  Would most US citizens?  The fact is that before the 14th Amendment people understood that natural born citizenship** was a thing.  That it extended to "all persons" meant slaves was precisely because of the racism that excluded blacks as persons.  Then a later court case extended it to Asian-Americans who also had been historically deprived citizenship.
> 
> Really, the discussion that was brought up is true, that at the time of the 14th Amendment there wasn't an "illegal alien" problem.  Why?  Because heavily the US had an open border policy.  But the racism took hold and the West Coast fought to keep out the Chinese and the East Coast tried to keep out the Catholics/Irish.  It's little wonder there's a massive influx of racism now and how all the "changing demographic" will upset the purity of the United States--ie, utter hogwash given how impure the United States is and really deplorable how many people fight against the real melting pot the US is.
> 
> ...


>all Europeans that came to America are genocidal assholes
Nice condensed cherry-picking of history, fool. No doubt the Native Americans had fights with the White settlers from time to time over land and other resources. However, most of the Amerindians that die end up up dead because of diseases like Smallpox and the Bubonic Plague instead of combat or foul play. Also,
>Melting Pot
A myth and FUCKING LIE invented and coined by arch Zionist parasite by the name of Israel Zangwill. CITIZENS FIRST, you Mooks!
Pic related for both of you soy guzzlers.


----------



## kuwanger (Nov 2, 2018)

Megadriver94 said:


> Nice condensed cherry-picking of history, fool. No doubt the Native Americans had fights with the White settlers from time to time over land and other resources. However, most of the Amerindians that die end up up dead because of diseases like Smallpox and the Bubonic Plague instead of combat or foul play. Also,



So, what you're saying is, Europeans weren't genocidal conquerors because if given the chance Native Americans would have done the same to Europeans.  And besides, it was mostly an accident anyways?  So, what part of that refutes my point?  The least you could do is own the genocidal conqueror moniker.  That's precisely my point, actually.



Megadriver94 said:


> A myth and FUCKING LIE invented and coined by arch Zionist parasite by the name of Israel Zangwill. CITIZENS FIRST, you Mooks!



Yep, a total lie.  That's why I'm surrounded by tons of European descendants (plus who knows what)  who were often mortal enemies in "the old country", and now I don't even know who and how much of where they came from.  Hell, I don't even know my lineage, and I don't honestly give a fuck.

Btw, there's plenty of other places in the world that have been melting pots.  Really, any place with sufficient amounts of trade or immigration and a lax enough policy of information exchange tends to not only be a melting pot of people but also a melting pot of ideas.  To deride the idea is humorous (and sad) because almost always those two things are what make for a powerful nation.  Strength in diversity, really.


----------



## Megadriver94 (Nov 2, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> So, what you're saying is, Europeans weren't genocidal conquerors because if given the chance Native Americans would have done the same to Europeans.  And besides, it was mostly an accident anyways?  So, what part of that refutes my point?  The least you could do is own the genocidal conqueror moniker.  That's precisely my point, actually.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


>genocidal conquerors
I admit there is truth to this, but you and other soylets like to say it was almost always only whites that did this sort of thing. How about the Armenian Genocide by the Young Turks during the final years of the Ottoman Empire, Rape of Nanking by the Japanese to the Chinese, or the relatively recent Rwandan Genocide In Rwanda and Burundi? Does that ring any bells?
>strength in diversity
Diversity is not always a bad thing, true. Like Diversity of skills and ideas. But the thing is, high amounts of racial and ethnic diversity in a country don't make for a strength. Take a good look at Brazil and Honduras, for example. Very diverse on ethnic grounds, but both are known to have quite high murder rates on average(one Brazilian city in particular, Rio De Janerio, has more murders than ALL OF EUROPE COMBINED!) On the other hand, countries like Iceland, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Norway have less ethnic diversity overall, yet they still tend to be successful countries both economically and in terms of their overall annual crime rates. Multiculturalism is a FUCKING LOAD OF BS!


----------



## kuwanger (Nov 2, 2018)

Megadriver94 said:


> I admit there is truth to this, but you and other soylets like to say it was almost always only whites that did this sort of thing.



Thanks for the classic whataboutism.  Yes, the Armenian Genocide is precisely where the term genocide originates even though the action is obviously a lot older.  So, if you talk Turkey, you talk Armenian Genocide.  If you talk WWII China, you talk about the Rape of Nanking.  And if you talk about the US and America in general, you talk about the European genocidal conquerors.  Funny how when talking about the US, one tends to talk about US-related things.



Megadriver94 said:


> Take a good look at Brazil and Honduras, for example. Very diverse on ethnic grounds, but both are known to have quite high murder rates on average(one Brazilian city in particular, Rio De Janerio, has more murders than ALL OF EUROPE COMBINED!)



Uh, yea, Brazil is a great example of a place that has a ton of political problems that are definitely ethnic based in part, but if there is any root in that it is precisely in how ethnicity has been used as a basis of hatred against others and a complete rejection of multiculturalism.  I mean, you could make the same argument about South Africa which has a similar history and set of obstacles.



Megadriver94 said:


> On the other hand, countries like Iceland, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Norway have less ethnic diversity overall, yet they still tend to be successful countries both economically and in terms of their overall annual crime rates.



Look at China.  Look at India.  Now try spinning it all again with the last two bits in some simply, coherent argument that's based on a lack of diversity.



Megadriver94 said:


> Multiculturalism is a FUCKING LOAD OF BS!



Taken to the extreme, encoding in law, yes.  Taken for what it means in the US, to simply allow people to live their own lives within the framework of law, to shape that law through elections, and to amalgamate practices not from one set of practices but a wide variety, and you have what is a melting pot.  There's a difference between a stew and a melting pot.

Edit - Speaking specifically of Japan, Japan has had a very long period of being very monocultural.  Yet they also had plenty of instability and civil war throughout its history, where murder was the norm.  Taking a snapshot of a country at a given time without a framework of appreciating that country gives you an obviously warped history.  Norway was similar--a long history of trade and also Viking.  Taiwan and Iceland are the story of an island having whatever local inhabitants (if any) displaced with one new government and then having a long period of stability.  The defining characteristic isn't having one ethnicity per se.


----------



## Megadriver94 (Nov 2, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> How high were you when you wrote this? Military spending accounts for about 17% of our budget while shit like welfare and SS (so more welfare) takes up over 50% of our budget. It is about saving money. I still think it is a stupid idea but that is their plan.
> 
> The right hates free speech? Since when? Look at the left and how they try to de-platform everyone they disagree with.


Both the left and the right have their lunatics and extremists. For the left, there's Femicommies and antifa goons, while on the Right there's ISIS, Al-Quadea, the (((Lord's))) Resistance Army, Boko Haram and the Orange Volunteers. Both live in their own shitty ideological bubbles.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Nov 2, 2018)

Megadriver94 said:


> Both the left and the right have their lunatics and extremists. For the left, there's Femicommies and antifa goons, while on the Right there's ISIS, Al-Quadea, the (((Lord's))) Resistance Army, Boko Haram and the Orange Volunteers. Both live in their own shitty ideological bubbles.



Yeah, I can agree with all that. However, I was more speaking to the comment he made in regards to which party is against free speech.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Nov 3, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> Yeah, I can agree with all that. However, I was more speaking to the comment he made in regards to which party is against free speech.


uhh... from people getting triggered over football players taking a knee to protestors getting punched at Rally's. easily triggered babies are bad on both sides.

also yes, this whole debacle is looking more like a political stunt for votes. *sigh*


----------

