Should we retain birthright citizenship as is or change it?

OK this is NOT about Trump, this is NOT about an EO or whatever process it would take. This is not about a debate and which states would or would not ratify something, this is about should we keep birthright citizenship of change it by whatever manner it would take to do so.

My vote is change it and eliminate it for all except for legal permanent residents.

Again this is not an anti-Trump or anti-left. This is what should we do accepting the fact it could be a long process.

 

Eliminate the "Illegal Immigrant" and you eliminate the problem entirely. That is where the focus must be.

No freakin' wall will deal with it unless it is armed and hard decisions made....no one wants to make these choices.

 

This isn't about walls or eliminating any immigration legal or otherwise. Please focus on the subject here.

What should be done if anything about birthright citizenship as it exist today?

 

Nothing can or will be done....I'm being realistic, try it.

 

There are exclusions to the birthright citizenship. We ought to simply classify all migrants and their children as remaining citizens of where they came from. End the debate.

 

Where is the option in the poll to scrap it altogether?

 

Well that would be the top option. Once a person becomes a legal permanent resident why shouldn't any children at that point be born as citizens of this country? And haven't heard anyone object to green card holders who are here legally and PERMANENT resident. It takes a LOT to get there, years and years.

 

I thought there might be an argument that it was only for slaves to be made free. Legal permanent resident or not, the whole birthright citizenship thing is just really stupid, don't you think?

 

it takes alot to get where?

 

Well I don't think there are any slaves to be dealt with anymore. It is legal and illegal aliens we are faces with now.

 

From a legal alien on a visa to a permanent resident and then to citizen.

So you are for NO citizenship unless your parents are citizens? Sorry I didn't include that because I didn't imagine anyone would support that.

 

So what is your point?

 

That you don't get that permanent residency simply by crossing the border. It takes years of living here LEGALLY and being a productive citizen before you are granted that status. So I make the distinction between granting citizenship to the child of permanent resident and that of an alien temporarily in this this country legally or illegally.

 

"Those here legally" includes tourists, we don't need citizenship tourism to continue.

I chose to eliminate except for legal permanent residents.

Another thing that needs changing is the census including illegal aliens in the calculation for allocating the electors.

 

Agreed but fear that will take an Amendment too because the Constitution says all persons, not all citizens.

 

I agree, and my point goes further than that - that legal permanent resident or not, the whole birthright citizenship thing is just really stupid. A baby born to legal permanent resident parents should only be a legal permanent resident just like their parents.

 

Sure, but the 13th Amendment still exists doesn't it? Why, if slavery has been abolished?

Can you rephrase?

 

Personally, I'd give the child the same legal status as the parent with the highest status. If the parents only have green cards, I don't see the point of giving the child more status than them.

 

It didn't take my wife long, she came to the US on a K-1 visa in March of 2013 and was a permanent resident in October 2013. Could've done it quicker if we wanted.

Maybe takes longer for entries using other visa programs.

 

She was married to you a US Citizen which is a special case over someone just entering the country.

How about children of a permanent resident for 5 years?

 

We don't put time limits on the Amendments.

 

The interp currently is the correct one.

 

Does that mean that the 13th amendment can be used to get past public accommodation laws, so that someone can't be forced to serve someone that they don't want to serve because they are black or gay?

 

Nope, chris, it does not.

 

Non-sequitur