If it goes away, it won't bother me. If it stays, it won't bother me.

just wondering.

Just as I assume yours is about you and the world you experience.

Based on your other posts of late, I'm going to guess you want it to stick around.

Why do you feel it's so important that we continue to have birthright citizenship? What does it do that can't be done through any other sort of naturalization? Grant the ability to become President, maybe?

instead of this game playing of "i really don't care" because your own status is currently settled.

Both of my parents were citizens, my being a citizen never rested on where I was born.

I'm not going to agitate to get rid of it, I'm not going to agitate to keep it. It's just not even on my radar of things that are important to the country.

or you only care if it happens to you, what happens to other people, that's the thing you don't give a crap about.

wow, what an amoral position.

I haven't suggested that anyone else's citizenship be 'retroactively revoked', even people whose parents came here specifically to give birth so their kids would be American citizens, so I'm not sure why you'd pull that whackjob idea out to throw at me.

1L Con Law.

Adeneye, Ibraheem : Convicted of conspiracy to commit marriage fraud, marriage fraud, naturalization fraud, and making a false statement to a federal agency. Adeneye indicated that he was engaged in brokering sham marriages between Nigerian nationals and U.S. citizens so that the Nigerians could obtain immigration benefits, ultimately leading to U.S. citizenship. In return, the U.S. citizen "spouses" received cash payments to assist the Nigerians in the deception.

Denaturalized 2010.

The rest:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_denaturalized_former_citizens_of_the_United_States

Essentially, when fraud is used to get something, it is never considered legally obtained. Or if an election was stolen, and voided after, no pension would be granted to that "official".

Until the 40s, iirc, part of a criminal sentence could be loss of citizenship. USSC said stop that.

Under the status quo, probably not.

But if ant immigrant forces take power you'll find the chances of them making the rules they want go up quite a bit.

that's assuming we have to divide people into have (citizenship) and have no (citizenship) groups and treat them differently.

I'd rather treat people like people and assume that all people have the same rights.

Special rules about who gets to be in the club seems elitist to me.

to say that birthright citizenship should be retained and/or expanded.

the idea is that the first question was to see who did not want to restrict citizenship in any way from the present.

Grant citizenship to anyone born within a dozen miles of any US territory? Grant it automatically to all siblings and parents of a child born in the US?

Making citizenship an archaic concept would be a better start.

moving away from the need for "citizenship." We're all citizens of the planet.

I like the planet better than I like political boundaries, I guess.

I have been telling people the same thing and I get the strangest looks.

Nice to know I am not completely alone.

and not have non-citizens treated any differently by the courts for the most part. There are probably some glaring exceptions I'm not thinking about atm, but I don't think we should treat anyone differently for jaywalking, robbery, murder, terrorism, whatever, based on whether or not they're a citizen.

from the Latin word natio (nātĭō ) literally meaning "birth".

Nationality, in the strictest and oldest sense of the word means place of birth.

for every politician who supports eliminating it for others. Fair's fair.

Get back to me after a voting rights and ERA. This is a non issue until those things happen.

As she points out, they're going to have to actually amend the Constitution to do anything about it, which basically means it's not going to happen.

so you don't care if your citizenship, wherever it is held, is taken away retroactively, correct?

it doesn't matter to you at all, correct?

But also, if you look upthread, you'll note that I also say I think all laws should apply equally to citizens and non-citizens. If that were the case, it wouldn't matter if I was a citizen or not.

you don't give a shit.

because that shit is about other people.

not gonna get through to you, because you got yours.

but at least everyone here will see your position for what it is and for how bankrupt it is.

but i think they'll also see your position as basically cowardly.

It only affects hypothetical people, who haven't even been born.

You might as well be proclaiming the need to grant fetuses the right to live, and banning abortions, since you're so insistent about proclaiming that they have the right to citizenship.

Don't bother to respond any more. I'm throwing you on the ignore trashpile, since you just keep throwing insults my way.

And did you notice how after he asks the question, and you answer it, he changes the question, and then applies your first answer to it? And then calls you immoral for taking that position, which you didn't. That's pretty fucked up logic.

Voting Rights Amendment.

Until a few days ago, I assumed it was the norm in western countries. Apparently it isn't.

citizenship to those born in a country.

ETA: I had thought that the UK had the equivalent of birthright citizenship; but on checking, it essentially did till 1983, but now is more hedged about with complicated rules. However, it seems that even with babies who don't get full citizenship, they generally will not need visas for future travel to the UK.

The "birth right" argument is uggly racism.

You can google the list pretty quickly for yourself.

Though the list you provided is the opposite of what was asked for. What was asked for is a list of countries that do not have birthright citizenship. Limited of otherwise.

Seems your Googling skills are weak.

You didn't specify what the antecedent of 'them' was, so I took it to be the closest subject of a sentence, which made it 'countries that do have it', rather than your earlier 'countries that don't have it'.

You were vague in your followup comment, so the ambiguity threw me off.

And no, I didn't put a lot of effort into it. I just knew that if I didn't bother, you'd claim I couldn't, because I've seen enough petulant demands for links or easily obtained on google info on this site from users who can't be bothered to do their own research even on the simplest things to know how these exchanges go.

Most of the world uses the Jus Sanguinis model, where you derive citizenship from your parents. Some, like France and Britain, use a form of birthright citizenship but limit it to people who are legally settled in the country. Australia uses a combination of both models, where you get automatic citizenship if one of your parents is a citizen, but can claim birthright citizenship if you can show that your parent was raised in Australia (even if they weren't citizens). The Australian model was designed to prevent the formation of a non-citizen underclass.

The last time I looked, the only nation outside of the Americas that followed the "If you're born here, you're a citizen" model was Pakistan. India used to have it as well, but they abolished it quite some time ago.

Don't worry. He'll let you know!

2nd class (at best) status and works as a lever to otherize at the highest level and disenfranchise minorities.

for the current interpretation of their amendment to be law. It was about making sure former slaves were recognized as U.S. citizens.

My son & his wife lived in Italy for a long time, and they told me that if a woman gives birth in Italy, the baby automatically gets citizenship along with it's parents. My DIL asked me "How could you do anything else? That would split up families!"

I had to tell her that the US doesn't care about that.

that citizens are still offering bananas to Dr. Cecile Kyenge, decades after she left her tropical birthplace. I'm sure they have much wisdom to teach us about accepting immigrants with open arms.

for the express purpose of securing US citizenship for sons. Stay several months as a visitor, pay cash in full for obstetric care, and fly home with your all-American baby.

Seems slightly shady, but I don't see that it hurts anyone.

I've never been clear on whether that's illegal - ? The women are careful to come in the second trimester - after the ultrasound proving its a boy, but before the pregnancy is super-obvious. They think they'll get in some kind of trouble if their scheme is recognized.

Exposing their worst jackassery.

My God. We have DUers actually arguing against birthright citizenship? It's a toilet 'round here anymore. A fucking toilet.

on DU!

I voted yes, but there are valid reasons for voting no that don't have to do with racism and xenophobia.

Like if a 9 month pregnant woman sneaks in or is on vacation, and has the baby the next day. I think she should be here at least a year first.

Depending on whether or not the authors of the 14th Amendment anticipated at that time potential loopholes or abuses like the "anchor baby" concept. Similar to the 2nd Amendment being written in the time of single-shot muskets incapable of creating multiple victims in an attack on an elementary school or movie theater, I'm not sure it would read the same way if written today in the age of assault rifles and machine guns.

Legal scholars can sort it out.

Send me "back to Japan" despite I was born in America, from Parents who lived three generations in Hawaii? My ancestors came from Miyazaki. Would I be sent to Japan, cause they damn sure will not send me to Hawaii!

Than again, as stupid as they are, they would probably send me to China, cause "All y'all looks a like to me." (Yeah, I got told that once.)

If I am forced to go to Japan, I will have to look for Art_in_Ark, I am sure he would take me in

we already have so many undocumented aliens and that would simply create more. It would create a huge non-citizen population. We don't need that.

I'm not sure how other democracies do it. Are people automatically citizens when their parents are? Presumably that is always true.

To me, it's just simpler to declare that people born here are citizens, full-stop. Also people born elsewhere whose parents (at least one) are citizens are also citizens. The only exception are children of diplomats.

What is the alternative? A permanent underclass of people who can never be citizens because their parents are not citizens? So you grow up some place, pay taxes, go to school, do whatever people do and yet still never are allowed to really be part of the country? That's ridiculous. And undemocratic and elitist.

These racist asshole Republicans think we can make illegal immigrants go away if we ensure their children are not citizens are idiots. That will not happen.

I have never seen another like it. It said if my parents stayed together until I was 18, I would be considered an American citizen. If they divorced, however, I would revert to my mother's citizenship.

I know when I was a kid, a judge actually changed the conditions of my citizenship in order to grant me full rights. Weird, huh?