Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The left opposes anything Trump suggests, even if it makes sense. The UK did away with a similar rule in the early 80s. None of Europe has this. I really don't understand why liberals are defending this.
Because he's a hypocrite and is actually not going to do anything. This is all about firing up his base. Meanwhile, you may want to read about Russian babies and Trump properties.
We know how Trump's EO will play out. The lower courts will immediately enter an injunction against, and then later hold a full hearing where they'll likely strike it down. It will then start percolating up the federal judiciary.
The big question is this: will it get the courts, especially the SCOTUS, to look directly at the interpretation of the 14th Amendment with regard to birthright citizenship as it applies to children of illegal aliens. AFAIK, there's never been a direct SCOTUS precedent on this before. The closest case, Wong Kim Ark, dealt with children of people in the country legally.
Getting rid of birthright citizenship was long overdue
Anchor babies and birth tourism is putting a strain on the welfare resources for America’s underclass now that everyone in that demographic is getting so much fatter. Which means more taxpayer funded trips to the ER.
If America believes it’s a prestigious country (exceptionalism), this is the next logical step.
It will still be overdue when Trump leaves office lacking substantial action, this isn’t it.
We know how Trump's EO will play out. The lower courts will immediately enter an injunction against, and then later hold a full hearing where they'll likely strike it down. It will then start percolating up the federal judiciary.
The big question is this: will it get the courts, especially the SCOTUS, to look directly at the interpretation of the 14th Amendment with regard to birthright citizenship as it applies to children of illegal aliens. AFAIK, there's never been a direct SCOTUS precedent on this before. The closest case, Wong Kim Ark, dealt with children of people in the country legally.
That is an issue; this is not a matter of few individuals cheating the system, this is a systematic abuse by people of illegal immigration status taking advantage of our own laws to leverage the betterment of their family by bypassing what most others had to earn. There are countless of U.S citizens and residents that don't qualify for Medicaid or food stamps because they earn just a little bit too much. However, since undocumented immigrants don't have a social security numbers and don't have verifiable income, they will apply for their kids and they will qualify. Therefore receiving free services.
This simply allows for way to much political spin; racist because most illegals are Hispanic, insensitive to the need of children and pregnant mothers, the " that's not what America is about" argument. My understanding is that healthcare is expensive, and many of these people are getting it for free because of the abuse of this law.
Yes illegal aliens and their anchor babies are essentially breaking in and stealing from Americans, stealing their country even.
Literally NOBODY is harmed if we do away with birthright citizenship. NOBODY. Yet, there is much to be gained in terms of cost savings (30-40% of Medicaid births in New York and California are born to illegals).
It isn't a burden to say that at least one parent has to be a green card holder (Lawfully permanent resident) or a citizen. It would stop a LOT of abuse.
You want to live in the free wheeling open days of the 1800s? Think the statue of liberty is immigration policy? Fine. But then let's do away with the automatic benefits that attach when a baby is born - such as entitlement to WIC, food stamps, Medicaid, housing assistance, etc. etc. which is "for the baby" but end up being used by the entire familia.
I would argue some people would be harmed. Those people expecting to get here, have children would be harmed because they would no longer get free benefits for their children. But as you stated it would stop a lot of abuse and the news would spread to the countries they are coming from and possibly motivate them to find other methods of coming here legally and not bum rushing the border.
Location: Somewhere between the Americas and Western Europe
2,180 posts, read 640,075 times
Reputation: 2092
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthTexasGuy
I would argue some people would be harmed. Those people expecting to get here, have children would be harmed because they would no longer get free benefits for their children. But as you stated it would stop a lot of abuse and the news would spread to the countries they are coming from and possibly motivate them to find other methods of coming here legally and not bum rushing the border.
Yeah, but that's like saying murder laws harm would-be murderers!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
