# Trump trying to end birthright citizenship **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 30, 2018, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712 "2018-10-30T11:47:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/61 "2018-10-30T19:46:05Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I was just trying to point out that birthright citizenship can basically be an accident of birth. > > I’m kind of uncomfortable with the idea that citizenship is something you can luck into like that- most European countries, for example, require that you be the child of a citizen to be a citizen. > > Citizenship is something valuable- it’s not something we give away to anyone who shows up, except in this one case. That’s why I said “tighten up” the idea of birthright citizenship, not abolish it. Like for example, maybe restrict it to citizens and green card holders or applicants (petitioners?). You were using an extreme example to dismiss the whole idea. If there _is_ a minimum time in-country that you would find satisfactory, just state it. On the other hand, if you want to entirely eliminate that avenue of citizenship, quit with the extreme examples and just say so. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/62 "2018-10-30T19:48:03Z")
Trump has no actual intention of ending birthright citizenship by executive order. He’s trying to change the narrative from right wing violence to immigration. There’s an election in a week and he’s trying to fire up people who think immigration is a serious problem. To fire up people who believe immigrants come here to pop out some anchor babies. To fire up people who believe those babies are part of a great replacement or white genocide. To fire up people like Robert Bowers. This is Trump specifically trying to appeal to voters like Robert Bowers. It’s pretty disgusting. ---
**Author:** ![Icarus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icarus/32/72_2.png) [@Icarus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icarus)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/63 "2018-10-30T19:49:29Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I was just trying to point out that birthright citizenship can basically be an accident of birth. > > I’m kind of uncomfortable with the idea that citizenship is something you can luck into like that- most European countries, for example, require that you be the child of a citizen to be a citizen. > > Citizenship is something valuable- it’s not something we give away to anyone who shows up, except in this one case. That’s why I said “tighten up” the idea of birthright citizenship, not abolish it. Like for example, maybe restrict it to citizens and green card holders or applicants (petitioners?). I’m going to guess that you yourself are a citizen of the USA, and that you gained that status as an accident of birth? Just checking. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/64 "2018-10-30T19:49:44Z")
Friend **bump** , think about what you are saying. Any status by birth is “an accident of birth;” that’s how the phrase is used. If citizenship is something “valuable,” that means it can be monetized. Why not end the whole practice of being born a citizen, and make it something to be bought? What would we call such a policy? Why, we’d call it “ending birthright citizenship,” which is the exact phrase used by rich guy Mitt Romney and rich guy Donald Trump in the party that caters to super-rich guys. What makes you think you’d still be a citizen under their law? Words mean things, and they’ve had several years to pick better words. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/65 "2018-10-30T19:55:19Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I was just trying to point out that birthright citizenship can basically be an accident of birth. > > I’m kind of uncomfortable with the idea that citizenship is something you can luck into like that- most European countries, for example, require that you be the child of a citizen to be a citizen. > > Citizenship is something valuable- it’s not something we give away to anyone who shows up, except in this one case. That’s why I said “tighten up” the idea of birthright citizenship, not abolish it. Like for example, maybe restrict it to citizens and green card holders or applicants (petitioners?). What do we do with people who are the children of children of undocumented immigrants? They won’t be citizens of anywhere else (just as children of children of American citizens are not American citizens if their parents never lived in the US). Where would you deport a person, an adult, who was born here, grew up here, had never left this country, and is suddenly revealed to be a non-citizen? To his parents’ country of origin? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/66 "2018-10-30T20:00:49Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > What do we do with people who are the children of children of undocumented immigrants? They won’t be citizens of anywhere else (just as children of children of American citizens are not American citizens if their parents never lived in the US). > > Where would you deport a person, an adult, who was born here, grew up here, had never left this country, and is suddenly revealed to be a non-citizen? To his parents’ country of origin? I’m agains the idea of [_jus sanguines_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis) for the US, but that argument isn’t a very good one. How do all the countries in Europe (see the list in that link) handle that situation? We would do the same. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/67 "2018-10-30T20:45:49Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > What do we do with people who are the children of children of undocumented immigrants? They won’t be citizens of anywhere else (just as children of children of American citizens are not American citizens if their parents never lived in the US). > > Where would you deport a person, an adult, who was born here, grew up here, had never left this country, and is suddenly revealed to be a non-citizen? To his parents’ country of origin? I’ll admit I haven’t thought this through entirely, but it does seem to me that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause wasn’t written with immigrants in mind; it was a post Civil War amendment written with the purpose of settling the citizenship status of former slaves. I don’t really think there was a lot of thought put toward the future ramifications of that clause with respect to illegal immigration- at the time there wasn’t really such a concept. Now that there is such a concept, it’s worth considering revising that clause. I’m perfectly fine with granting jus soli citizenship to children born to people on the naturalization track (legal immigrants?). I guess it comes back to whether or not American citizenship is something that confers valuable benefits and should be safeguarded, or if it’s not something worth worrying about. Or even whether it’s advantageous to grant it without many restrictions. But just taking a sentence from an amendment written around 150 years ago concerning former slaves and extrapolating it to modern day immigration isn’t necessarily the most awesome thing either. Here are news articles discussing some unusual situations in the current system: > **[Made in Russia, born in America: birth tourism booming in Miami](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/birth-tourism-brings-russian-baby-boom-miami-n836121)** > > Social media is full of Russian women boasting about coming to America to give birth, sometimes staying at Trump properties. > **['Birth tourism' in Saipan causing headaches for USA](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/09/09/chinese-tourist-births-cnmi/2784797/)** > > U.S. officials are taking steps to block Chinese tourists going to Saipan to give birth What’s the opinion on these practices? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/68 "2018-10-30T21:04:26Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Because it’s a _good_ thing. Whoever replaces him will be much worse than him. Ryan ended up being a disappointment as speaker. He has no spine. But he’s still smarter and more moral than any likely replacement. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/69 "2018-10-30T21:06:05Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > What do you think most Americans know about whether they are citizens? You know, by birth? Are there American citizens who assume they aren’t citizens yet because they never went through naturalization? 😕 I doubt most Americans know that a pregnant tourist can come here and have an American citizen. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/70 "2018-10-30T21:09:39Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I’ll admit I haven’t thought this through entirely, but it does seem to me that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause wasn’t written with immigrants in mind; it was a post Civil War amendment written with the purpose of settling the citizenship status of former slaves. I don’t really think there was a lot of thought put toward the future ramifications of that clause with respect to illegal immigration- at the time there wasn’t really such a concept. > > Now that there is such a concept, it’s worth considering revising that clause. I’m perfectly fine with granting jus soli citizenship to children born to people on the naturalization track (legal immigrants?). > > I guess it comes back to whether or not American citizenship is something that confers valuable benefits and should be safeguarded, or if it’s not something worth worrying about. Or even whether it’s advantageous to grant it without many restrictions. > > But just taking a sentence from an amendment written around 150 years ago concerning former slaves and extrapolating it to modern day immigration isn’t necessarily the most awesome thing either. > Here are news articles discussing some unusual situations in the current system: > > [Birth tourism brings Russian baby boom to Miami](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/birth-tourism-brings-russian-baby-boom-miami-n836121) > > ['Birth tourism' in Saipan causing headaches for USA](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/09/09/chinese-tourist-births-cnmi/2784797/) > > What’s the opinion on these practices? Republican opinion would (should) be textualist. If they wrote the text poorly and it pulls in everyone and their mother to citizenship, even when you didn’t intend it, then tough titties. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/71 "2018-10-30T21:11:01Z")
I happen to be textualist, but “subject to the jurisdiction of” is an area where there is some vagueness. I do actually think that a limited bill ending birth tourism would pass constitutional muster. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/72 "2018-10-30T21:13:13Z")
Of course citizenship is a valuable thing that should be safeguarded. For instance, it should be safeguarded against attacks like the one Trump is making. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/73 "2018-10-30T21:20:30Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I doubt most Americans know that a pregnant tourist can come here and have an American citizen. I thought everyone knew this. If they didn’t know it by '09, then the endless birther bullshit should have reached them. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/74 "2018-10-30T21:20:47Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I COULD see SCOTUS maybe narrowing that clause a little, but I can’t see them ending birthright citizenship to illegal immigrants. I could see them taking it away from children of visitors though, since they are “subject to a foreign power”. But I think even that is unlikely. So are illegal immigrants, and legal immigrants who haven’t become naturalized yet, and legal naturalized immigrants whose original country doesn’t require them to renounce citizenship nor withdraws citizenship from people who don’t perform necessary upkeep… Children of immigrant aliens can be citizens of their parents’ country of origin, depending on this one’s laws, but that’s never been an issue with any country’s concepts of who is a citizen from birth: it either leads to provisions on what to do in cases of double citizenship or gets ignored. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/75 "2018-10-30T21:35:41Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I happen to be textualist, but “subject to the jurisdiction of” is an area where there is some vagueness. I do actually think that a limited bill ending birth tourism would pass constitutional muster. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” If we’re meant to read the “and” as an “or”, then I would say that the text is quite clear: If you were born in the US or anywhere that the US has legal control, then you’re a citizen. If it is in fact meant to be read as an “and”, then the whole subclause makes no sense since it’s redundant with the “in the United States”. Everywhere inside the United States is, by definition, under the jurisdiction of the United States. While a technically accurate reading of the text, it’s clearly not what the text is meant to say, since that’s just stupid. It would be like me saying that “any hair on Sage Rat or on the person thereof”…what possible reason would there be to include the extra, 100% redundant flourish? I believe that the text is just abbreviated and it’s meant to be read as: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and [those territories] subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” It is, after all, the case that at the time the US did have outlying territories under its jurisdiction, and (as noted) it would make no sense for the subclause to exist if not to deal with them: > **[Guano Islands Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano_Islands_Act)** > > The Guano Islands Act (11 Stat. 119, enacted August 18, 1856, codified at 48 U.S.C. ch. 8 §§ 1411-1419) is a United States federal law passed by the Congress that enables citizens of the United States to take possession in the name of the United States of unclaimed islands containing guano deposits. The islands can be located anywhere, so long as they are not occupied by citizens of another country and not within the jurisdiction of another government. It also empowers the president to use the... Can you think of any explanation for the existence of the subclause that wouldn’t necessitate the existence of areas under US jurisdiction that are not part of the US? ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/76 "2018-10-30T21:37:41Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I was just trying to point out that birthright citizenship can basically be an accident of birth. Any citizenship acquired at birth is, yes. So are rights to acquire citizenship by descent, such as the “return laws” of many countries. So? > [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m agains the idea of [_jus sanguines_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis) for the US, but that argument isn’t a very good one. How do all the countries in Europe (see the list in that link) handle that situation? We would do the same. Each of them in a different way, so “doing the same” would be… the usual “varies by state”, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/77 "2018-10-30T21:39:00Z")
I always thought the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was meant to exclude children of diplomats, who have some immunity from local laws (for example, they get to ignore parking tickets). Everyone with multiple brain cells (obviously excluding Donald) knows that the intent was to grant citizenship by birth. Donald says we’re the only country in the world that does this, he’s obviously lying. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/78 "2018-10-30T21:48:53Z")
> **[Oregon Country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Country)** > > Oregon Country was a large region of the Pacific Northwest of North America that was subject to a long dispute between the United Kingdom and the United States in the early 19th century. The area, which had been created by the Treaty of 1818, consisted of the land north of 42°N latitude, south of 54°40′N latitude, and west of the Rocky Mountains down to the Pacific Ocean and east to the Continental Divide. Article III of the 1818 treaty gave joint control to both nations for ten years, allowed la... It looks like maybe it’s more places like this (than the Guano Islands) that necessitated the subclause. > **[Territorial evolution of the United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_the_United_States)** > > The United States of America was created on July 4, 1776, with the U.S. Declaration of Independence of thirteen British colonies in North America. In the Lee Resolution, passed by the Second Continental Congress two days prior, the colonies resolved that they were free and independent states. The union was formalized in the Articles of Confederation, which came into force on March 1, 1781, after being ratified by all 13 states. Their independence was recognized by Great Britain in the Treaty of P... ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/79 "2018-10-30T21:53:11Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I always thought the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was meant to exclude children of diplomats, who have some immunity from local laws (for example, they get to ignore parking tickets). I would expect that someone born inside a US consulate would be citizens, based on the “under the jurisdiction of” clause. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/80 "2018-10-30T22:01:17Z")
Okay nevermind that last, a consulate is not under the jurisdiction of the US, it’s just granted limited immunity by the host country, but still under their jurisdiction. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712.md?page=5)