Asian birth tourism accounts for how many dozens out of 300 million Americans per year? It’s not even a trickle in a bucket - more like a hydrodam. No, we all know who the real targets of Trump’s threat are: children of Mexican illegals, the ones who make up 95%+ of the non-citizen births.
These are the common arguments being made by different left leaning commentators.
Ok so what’s the objection?
I actually didn’t say it was easy. I was saying it can happen.
However…
There are two ways of modifying a constitution. One is the threshold yes… That would be difficult but not necessarily “impossible.”
The other is it could be simply “reinterpreted.” One vague part of the text is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” One could argue practices in other common law countries as case law, old world vs new etc… and with some spin could reinterpret it to mean legal residents or even permanent residents depending on the proceedings. Similar thing happened with gay marriage. - Also Trump has already stacked the courts with his judges…
So here is what is absolutely possible.
Trump just changes the policy and lets people battle it out in court. Yes, it will be challenged but it will be difficult for an average person to do so. Then, it makes it’s way through and Trump could possibly get the ruling he wants.
But anyway… you were saying my arguments were:
So give me an argument. Don’t just say it would be hard to change. Give me an argument to keep birthright citizenship.
Good. I am also for gun control and against birth tourism. We have some common ground. Now tell me how changing the law won’t stop birth tourism.
Yes, but it is something we come across more often being that we are on a Forum that is about an Asian country.
Is it really 95% though? I don’t think that is correct. It’s actually 68%
Does it even matter who the targets are/is? I don’t think that is relevant to the debate.
I did - do not amend the Constitution.
Obviously, amending the Constitution to eliminate citizenship by virtue of merely being born in the US would stop birth tourism.
That is not an argument against it. I also explained my point on the constitution earlier and you said it was a “strawman argument.”
Yes, it does. We are talking about the difference between a few thousand Crazy Rich Asians taking unfair advantage of a loophole, and deporting millions of people who have lived in America all their lives and know no other country. Many don’t even speak Spanish, or only a bastardized creole version of it.
Where are we debating that? You are now changing the debate.
Nowhere did I mention “deporting millions of people.”
Could you please try and make some sense?
I mentioned:
You then went on to say
I then say:
And then you go straight to my first point. (Although slightly reworded)
Now unless you’re saying that the constitution could never be changed (in which case you would be changing the subject of the debate…) Your point would go to my point 1 which you claim is a "strawman argument.”
You didn’t say it, but you know as well as I what sort of “undesirables” Trump is talking about. It is disingenuous of you to turn a blind eye to the logical implications of ending birthright citizenship in the U.S. The U.S. is not Australia and is not Taiwan. The sheer scale of illegal immigration makes the situation less than comparable. Taiwan does not have millions of people born to illegal immigrants living there. The massive scale of deportations Trump wants makes it unfeasible. The only feasible thing to do with such a law would be to selectively enforce it on a case to case basis - that is to say, easily manipulated for political intimidation or corruption. It’s easy to imagine this change of law being abused.
Why? Because those other countries laws that make more sense.
That is not the only feasible thing to do… It can be done as it has in many other countries.
It won’t be “give me $500 and your baby will be a citizen.” It will be something like “are one of you a citizen or legal resident? If not… you need to go to the consulate of your country of citizenship and sort out his/her papers there.” - Happens in many countries. If the baby is stateless due to no parent being listed etc… then US citizenship is the fallback. (I do see possible fraud here, but strict laws on revocation of citizenship if obtained by fraud is the norm for many developed countries and the US is no exception.)
Ending birthright citizenship cuts off a key incentive for future illegal immigration, reducing the burden in the long run.
Besides ending birthright citizenship doesn’t mean “deporting millions of people…” That is blatantly false misinformation.
Your paragraph assumes that those arguing that it is a right under the Constitution do not realize that the Constitution can be amended. It is an incorrect assumption. The point is under the Constitution as it is currently worded, those born in the US are citizens. Of course the Constitution can be amended. I doubt you would find anyone who would disagree with that.
No, because Taiwan and Australia are islands that do not have a porous 2,000 mile border with a developing country. If Taiwan shared a land border with China it would be a different. And it is very easy to keep people from crossing 1,000 miles of uninhabitable desert and sea.
And unless the law is worded so that it is NOT retroactive, yes, it will put millions of current American citizens at risk for deportation.
Yes. Many don’t realize that it can be amended. They argue it is impossible because it’s too difficult. I say it is difficult but not impossible.
So is your argument that they shouldn’t amend the constitution? If that’s the case then you you should start a different thread on why constitutional amendments should be outlawed and all laws stay the same forever.
Plenty of wealthy, non-island countries that share borders with poorer nations don’t suffer from the same issues because they’ve adjusted their policies with the times. Take Germany and France, for example—they border impoverished regions in Eastern Europe and North Africa, yet they don’t grant automatic citizenship. Instead, they require at least one parent to have legal residency or citizenship. Switzerland and Spain face similar pressures and enforce the same laws.
It 100% won’t be retroactive. Stop fear mongering. It will be something along the lines of “births after January 20 2025” or something along those lines. Just the same as it was in other countries that modified their birthright citizenship laws to reflect current realities of easy movement of people.
Any stats for that?
No. Reading comprehension is a lost art these days.
So then you are arguing against my first point?
Make a real point. Don’t just say “don’t change the constitution” and not give a reason why. Unless you are debating that the constitution shouldn’t be changed ever which is an entirely different matter.
My point is that I never stated don’t change the Constitution. I simply responded to you when you asked:
(emphasis added)
And I said:
Really not sure what you’re on about.
So where is your argument?
Birthright citizenship probably made sense at the time it was slotted into the US constitution, makes less sense now 