I have to say, I really don’t understand the liberals’ arguments for keeping birthright citizenship.
Argument 1: “It is enshrined in the constitution.”
Well… so is the “right to bear arms,” yet that’s something they’re always willing to argue for changing. Constitutions aren’t untouchable. They were designed to adapt to changing times, which is why we have amendments. How many amendments are there again? Just because something is in the constitution doesn’t mean it can’t be reconsidered. If liberals can advocate for changing the second amendment, then the same principle applies here.
Argument 2: “Every developed country gives out birthright citizenship.”
This is simply false. Only two standout (or should actually say “holdout”) developed countries still grant unrestricted birthright citizenship: the United States and Canada. Every other developed nation has implemented reasonable restrictions. Most require at least one parent to have legal residency, with others—like Germany and Australia—going further by requiring permanent residency. Some countries, like Taiwan, are stricter still, granting citizenship only to children born to at least one citizen parent.
In my opinion, children born to parents with any form of legal residency—even temporary—should qualify for citizenship. I can also understand the argument for limiting it to permanent residency. I also disagree with requiring a parent to have citizenship. But that’s beside the point. Trump’s policy focuses on legal residency, which is entirely reasonable and aligns with global norms.
Argument 3: “Ending birthright citizenship is racist or xenophobic.”
This is nothing more than a moral smear designed to shut down debate. Many countries that restrict birthright citizenship—like Germany, Japan, and Australia—have adjusted their policies to reflect the realities of the modern world. Times have changed. In the past, borders were harder to cross, and international travel was rare. Today, people can fly across borders within hours, making it easier to exploit birthright citizenship for “birth tourism” or to bypass immigration systems.
It’s not “racist” to say that citizenship should reflect a real, legal connection to a country—such as a parent’s residency status—rather than being granted by accident of location. Policies need to evolve to keep pace with the modern era, where unrestricted birthright citizenship no longer makes practical sense.
Argument 4: “It’s unfair to deny citizenship to children who had no choice where they were born.”
Citizenship is not just a right—it’s a privilege that comes with obligations, rights, and responsibilities. While children may not choose where they are born, their parents have a responsibility to ensure they have a legal connection to the country where they give birth.
Furthermore, ending birthright citizenship does not mean children will be left stateless. In most cases, children inherit their parents’ citizenship, ensuring they have legal status. International norms and laws also provide protections for genuinely stateless children, ensuring they can acquire citizenship in their country of birth when no other options exist. - EVEN TAIWAN ALLOWS FOR THIS!!!
This isn’t about punishing children—it’s about ensuring fairness and protecting the value of citizenship. Granting automatic citizenship based solely on birthplace creates an unfair loophole that undermines the systems and legal processes citizens and legal residents abide by.
. There was no way I could get an American to work in a 110 degree heat behind a grill all day for $9/hr.
I would save up and do the same. It doesn’t matter if I get bankrupted in the US etc… because my baby would be a citizen, that is the goal.
