C-SPAN Poll.....

[Boca]

How Americans Feel About Birthright Citizenship Might Shock You

Link....

While recently polling on the issue is sparse, C-SPAN's Washington Journal, which is not exactly a right-wing outlet, put out a Twitter poll on Wednesday.

"Should U.S. End Birthright Citizenship?" asked the straightforward poll. Over 9,000 Twitter users responded.

The final results showed resounding agreement with the president that birthright citizenship should end. A total of 6,683 participants, or 72%, answered "yes"; and 2,6000 participants, or 28%, responded "no."​

Why would that shock anyone?

 

[georgephillip]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States#Original_meaning

"During the original debate over the 14th Amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the sponsor of the Amendment, though the Citizenship Clause was written by Senator Wadw—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes American Indians who maintain their tribal ties and 'persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.'[56]

"Others also agreed that the children of ambassadors and foreign ministers were to be excluded.[57][58]

"Concerning the children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats), three senators, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull, the author of the Civil Rights Act, as well as President Andrew Johnson, agreed, asserting that both the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment would confer citizenship on them at birth, and no senator offered a contrary opinion.[59][60][6"

It seems likely (to me, at least) our current SCOTUS majority would rule children of parents who are in this country illegally would not qualify for citizenship.

Should that come to pass, how would such a ruling affect the millions of current US citizens who were born in this country of undocumented parents decades ago?

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States#Original_meaning

"During the original debate over the 14th Amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the sponsor of the Amendment, though the Citizenship Clause was written by Senator Wadw—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes American Indians who maintain their tribal ties and 'persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.'[56]

"Others also agreed that the children of ambassadors and foreign ministers were to be excluded.[57][58]

"Concerning the children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats), three senators, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull, the author of the Civil Rights Act, as well as President Andrew Johnson, agreed, asserting that both the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment would confer citizenship on them at birth, and no senator offered a contrary opinion.[59][60][6"

It seems likely (to me, at least) our current SCOTUS majority would rule children of parents who are in this country illegally would not qualify for citizenship.

Should that come to pass, how would such a ruling affect the millions of current US citizens who were born in this country of undocumented parents decades ago?

tHE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS CREATED TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF FORMER SLAVES NOT FOR ILLEGALS WHO ENTERED THE COUNTRY ILLEGALLY AND PUNCHED OUT A BABY

 

[Days]

The trend among advanced nations has been to revoke birthright citizenship. It made sense two centuries ago, but no more today. Canada and USA are the only two rich nations on earth still granting birthright citizenship. Both will likely revoke it in the near future.

 

[georgephillip]

tHE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS CREATED TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF FORMER SLAVES NOT FOR ILLEGALS WHO ENTERED THE COUNTRY ILLEGALLY AND PUNCHED OUT A BABY

Wong Kim Ark and millions of others have no direct ties to slavery, yet the 14th Amendment has had obvious implications to their citizenship status.

Isn't your big problem The Browning of America?

"United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898),[1] is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled 6–2 that a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese nationality who at the time had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and were carrying on business there but not as employees of the Chinese government, automatically became a U.S. citizen.[2] This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

 

[Days]

Wong Kim Ark and millions of others have no direct ties to slavery, yet the 14th Amendment has had obvious implications to their citizenship status.

Isn't your big problem The Browning of America?

"United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898),[1] is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled 6–2 that a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese nationality who at the time had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and were carrying on business there but not as employees of the Chinese government, automatically became a U.S. citizen.[2] This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

If a child is born to a permanent resident of the US, then I think that child should automatically become a citizen. but anchor babies... No.

 

[georgephillip]

If a child is born to a permanent resident of the US, then I think that child should automatically become a citizen. but anchor babies... No.

You're saying if the parents are here illegally their children should not qualify for US citizenship?

 

[NinaS]

How Americans Feel About Birthright Citizenship Might Shock You

Link....

While recently polling on the issue is sparse, C-SPAN's Washington Journal, which is not exactly a right-wing outlet, put out a Twitter poll on Wednesday.

"Should U.S. End Birthright Citizenship?" asked the straightforward poll. Over 9,000 Twitter users responded.

The final results showed resounding agreement with the president that birthright citizenship should end. A total of 6,683 participants, or 72%, answered "yes"; and 2,6000 participants, or 28%, responded "no."​

Why would that shock anyone?

Twitter? LOL
Why not ask Facebook idiots?
I'm shocked.

 

[Days]

You're saying if the parents are here illegally their children should not qualify for US citizenship?

I wasn't basing it upon legally or non-legally, I was saying if the parents are permanent residents... you have to live in one place longer than 6 months to become a resident... I think it should go further back than that, I would say the parents needed to move here before the new baby was conceived, for at least 10 months... if a baby is born to a permanent resident, then the baby should become a citizen. Anchor babies and small children should not become citizens if their parents came here illegally. If someone was brought here, illegally, as a child and has lived here for 10 years, then they should be given a path to citizenship. Actually, anyone who has lived here continually for 10 years should be given a path to citizenship.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

If a child is born to a permanent resident of the US, then I think that child should automatically become a citizen. but anchor babies... No.

Yes, the problem is that the very people who are advocating for birthright citizenship, the Democrats, are at the same time lamblasting the splitting of families.

Yet, not coming here legally and having a child guarantees that, if caught, the parents would be deported, and thus, separated from their child.

So, which is it? Because it's an impasse.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

How Americans Feel About Birthright Citizenship Might Shock You

Link....

While recently polling on the issue is sparse, C-SPAN's Washington Journal, which is not exactly a right-wing outlet, put out a Twitter poll on Wednesday.

"Should U.S. End Birthright Citizenship?" asked the straightforward poll. Over 9,000 Twitter users responded.

The final results showed resounding agreement with the president that birthright citizenship should end. A total of 6,683 participants, or 72%, answered "yes"; and 2,6000 participants, or 28%, responded "no."​

Why would that shock anyone?

It probably just shocks the leftist "journalist" who wrote the piece, trying to sway public opinion by using such extreme terminology.

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

You're saying if the parents are here illegally their children should not qualify for US citizenship?

exactly no citizenship to illegal children.

 

[Days]

Yes, the problem is that the very people who are advocating for birthright citizenship, the Democrats, are at the same time lamblasting the splitting of families.

Yet, not coming here legally and having a child guarantees that, if caught, the parents would be deported, and thus, separated from their child.

So, which is it? Because it's an impasse.

The president is dead right about this issue, no more anchor babies, it has to stop. The plight to achieve an anchor baby has killed or inflicted painful suffering on all who went about it illegally, and should never have been awarded to visa births.

 

[Boca]

. Canada and USA are the only two rich nations on earth still granting birthright citizenship. Both will likely revoke it in the near future.

If they want to survive in this globalist movement where borders and sovereignty are outdated, evil, and unfair.

 

[Boca]

You're saying if the parents are here illegally their children should not qualify for US citizenship?

Damn f'kn right ya little ass****....that's what 72% of Americans say they want. Where the hell are you from, what shit-hole is it?

 

[ObamacareForever]

If the constitution by popularity contest the 2nd amendment would have been thrown by the wayside a long time ago.

 

[georgephillip]

Anchor babies and small children should not become citizens if their parents came here illegally. If someone was brought here, illegally, as a child and has lived here for 10 years, then they should be given a path to citizenship. Actually, anyone who has lived here continually for 10 years should be given a path to citizenship.

That sounds about right, to me.
I don't think there's any doubt how our current SCOTUS would rule on this issue.
What about "anchor babies" who have lived here for decades?
Should they be evicted??

 

[RickWA]

If the constitution by popularity contest the 2nd amendment would have been thrown by the wayside a long time ago.

Your English has once again departed from you, Komrade.

 

[georgephillip]

Damn f'kn right ya little ass****....that's what 72% of Americans say they want. Where the hell are you from, what shit-hole is it?

How about you, Cracker?

 

[Days]

That sounds about right, to me.
I don't think there's any doubt how our current SCOTUS would rule on this issue.
What about "anchor babies" who have lived here for decades?
Should they be evicted??

A baby born here to illegal immigrants, "that has lived here for decades" has been granted birthright citizenship. But that has to stop.