Majority support birthright Citizenship

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Seems like, once again, the tail is trying to wag the dog:

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/15/g-s1-66693/majority-of-americans-oppose-ending-birthright-citizenship-npr-ipsos-poll-finds

As the Supreme Court takes up President Trump's push to end birthright citizenship today, a new NPR/Ipsos poll finds that less than a third of all Americans want to drop the longstanding principle that any child born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen, even as other parts of the White House's immigration crackdown draw wider support.
Public opinion on Trump's proposal to end birthright citizenship, which the vast majority of legal scholars believe is enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, has shifted very little since he announced the plan in an executive order in January. 53% of poll respondents oppose the idea, with only 28% in favor. That's virtually unchanged since an NPR/Ipsos poll in February, when 31% supported the idea of ending birthright citizenship and 54% opposed it.

 

[Grumblenuts]

birthright citizenship, which the vast majority of legal scholars believe is enshrined in the 14th Amendment

Oh hell, what do "legal scholars" know about the law?

 

[JGalt]

Seems like, once again, the tail is trying to wag the dog:

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/15/g-s1-66693/majority-of-americans-oppose-ending-birthright-citizenship-npr-ipsos-poll-finds

As the Supreme Court takes up President Trump's push to end birthright citizenship today, a new NPR/Ipsos poll finds that less than a third of all Americans want to drop the longstanding principle that any child born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen, even as other parts of the White House's immigration crackdown draw wider support.
Public opinion on Trump's proposal to end birthright citizenship, which the vast majority of legal scholars believe is enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, has shifted very little since he announced the plan in an executive order in January. 53% of poll respondents oppose the idea, with only 28% in favor. That's virtually unchanged since an NPR/Ipsos poll in February, when 31% supported the idea of ending birthright citizenship and 54% opposed it.

Ok.

 

[Crepitus]

Seems like, once again, the tail is trying to wag the dog:

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/15/g-s1-66693/majority-of-americans-oppose-ending-birthright-citizenship-npr-ipsos-poll-finds

As the Supreme Court takes up President Trump's push to end birthright citizenship today, a new NPR/Ipsos poll finds that less than a third of all Americans want to drop the longstanding principle that any child born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen, even as other parts of the White House's immigration crackdown draw wider support.
Public opinion on Trump's proposal to end birthright citizenship, which the vast majority of legal scholars believe is enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, has shifted very little since he announced the plan in an executive order in January. 53% of poll respondents oppose the idea, with only 28% in favor. That's virtually unchanged since an NPR/Ipsos poll in February, when 31% supported the idea of ending birthright citizenship and 54% opposed it.

the RWNJ whack-a-doos are always crying about "80/20 issues", they just get confused about which side og the ratio they are on.

 

[1srelluc]

NPR never called me and I'm just 60 miles away.

I suspect in my AO 87% would be fine with ending it.....They must have polled some Barrio.

 

[0311]

Seems like, once again, the tail is trying to wag the dog:

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/15/g-s1-66693/majority-of-americans-oppose-ending-birthright-citizenship-npr-ipsos-poll-finds

As the Supreme Court takes up President Trump's push to end birthright citizenship today, a new NPR/Ipsos poll finds that less than a third of all Americans want to drop the longstanding principle that any child born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen, even as other parts of the White House's immigration crackdown draw wider support.
Public opinion on Trump's proposal to end birthright citizenship, which the vast majority of legal scholars believe is enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, has shifted very little since he announced the plan in an executive order in January. 53% of poll respondents oppose the idea, with only 28% in favor. That's virtually unchanged since an NPR/Ipsos poll in February, when 31% supported the idea of ending birthright citizenship and 54% opposed it.

Nowhere in the Constitution does give a president the power to amend the Constitution. There is a process and that process must be observed.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

No President can amend the Constitution.

 

[excalibur]

Nowhere in the Constitution does give a president the power to amend the Constitution. There is a process and that process must be observed.

President Trump did not amend the Constitution.

And no Supreme Court case has ever stated the child of an illegal alien woman is automatically a citizen.

Imagine an Asian nation, where ~3 billion live, builds a flotilla of modern cruise ships, puts several thousand pregnant women on board each vessel, with medical staff, and just steers those ships into the United States territorial waters, and all those babies born are automatically a U.S. citizen.

If SCOTUS ever does rule that someone stealing into America and giving birth and that child is an automatic citizen, Katy Bar the Door.

What, you gonna go to war over that or roll over and play dead?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Get ready to bar the door or roll over and play dead.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

President Trump did not amend the Constitution.

Nope..instead he proffered an alternative interpretation--and made new law--which is not his job..nor in his purview.

As the SCOTUS is getting ready to drive home to him~

 

[MisterBeale]

This case will more than likely turn on the phrase;

"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If births by foreign diplomats and their spouses which happen to occur here aren't automatically U.S. citizens, then why should those of "birth tourists?"

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

This case will more than likely turn on the phrase;

"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If births by foreign diplomats and their spouses which happen to occur here aren't automatically U.S. citizens, then why should those of "birth tourists?"

Well..because those diplomats are specifically excluded---and illegal aliens are not.

I somehow doubt that there are many 'birth tourists' out there. It is my belief that that's one of those apocryphal Right-wing things.

I note with some amusement that the part of the 14th that relates to due process is not quoted nearly as much by the Right--especially in immigration deportation proceedings...wonder why?

Oh yeah..I forgot....enemy combatants--those babies are~

 

[MisterBeale]

Well..because those diplomats are specifically excluded---and illegal aliens are not.

I somehow doubt that there are many 'birth tourists' out there. It is my belief that that's one of those apocryphal Right-wing things.

I note with some amusement that the part of the 14th that relates to due process is not quoted nearly as much by the Right--especially in immigration deportation proceedings...wonder why?

Oh yeah..I forgot....enemy combatants--those babies are~

. . .and that is precisely what this case is about. The current government wants to apply the same standards to illegals as it does diplomats and foreign students who are legally allowed to be here.

This isn't that difficult, it really isn't.

And the question of magnitude of the harms is not even up for debate. If something is wrong, it is wrong, it matters very little how often it happens.

"These births are in addition to the nearly 300,000 births each year to illegal immigrants."

New Estimate: 72,000 Births Annually to Tourists, Foreign Students and Other Visitors

New analyses estimate that there are 39k births a year to foreign students, guest workers and others on long-term temporary visa, plus an additional 33k births annually to tourists – 72k in total.

cis.org

U.S. Records Nearly 400,000 Anchor Baby Births in 2024 – [your]NEWS

An estimated 400,000 children born to non-citizen parents in the U.S. during 2024 reignite discussions on ending birthright citizenship.

yournews.com

 

[hjmick]

Marco Rubio is a fan...

 

[MisterBeale]

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/imo/media/doc/2022.12.20-%20Final_Birth%20Tourism%20Report.pdf

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

. . .and that is precisely what this case is about. The current government wants to apply the same standards to illegals as it does diplomats and foreign students who are legally allowed to be here.

This isn't that difficult, it really isn't.

And the question of magnitude of the harms is not even up for debate. If something is wrong, it is wrong, it matters very little how often it happens.

"These births are in addition to the nearly 300,000 births each year to illegal immigrants."

New Estimate: 72,000 Births Annually to Tourists, Foreign Students and Other Visitors

New analyses estimate that there are 39k births a year to foreign students, guest workers and others on long-term temporary visa, plus an additional 33k births annually to tourists – 72k in total.

cis.org

U.S. Records Nearly 400,000 Anchor Baby Births in 2024 – [your]NEWS

An estimated 400,000 children born to non-citizen parents in the U.S. during 2024 reignite discussions on ending birthright citizenship.

yournews.com

Well..I believe your stats are correct..and I don't care.

If one wishes to change the amendment..then go for it--but we all know that there is not enough public support for that to happen.
I get what the Govt. wants to do..I just believe that it's illegal to do so by XO.

I'm confident that the SCOTUS will see it that way also..especially after listening to the oral arguments today. Most of the Justices..including some the Cons, spoke and acted as though the Birthright question was already decided, joking about how the Govt. had lost every case.
They constantly complained that the actual case was not already in front of them..to be decided on the merits.

Several Justices commented that the Govt. had made no effort to seek Cert.
Justice Kagan joked that if she were in the SG's shoes she'd keep the case as far from the SCOTUS as possible.

I'd not invest too much hope in the court overturning 127 years of precedent.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

View attachment 1111789

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/imo/media/doc/2022.12.20-%20Final_Birth%20Tourism%20Report.pdf

From your link:

During a call with Committee staff, the State Department said it does not
comprehensively track birth tourism.212 This includes the Department’s Consular
Consolidated Database (“CCD”) which is “a data warehouse that holds current and
archived data from the Bureau of Consular Affairs domestic and post databases.”213
CCD was created to provide “a near real-time aggregate of the consular transaction
activity collected domestically and at post databases worldwide.”214
According to the Department, it has no business interest in tracking birth
tourism information, and it would require a legal justification to do so.215 Officials
did point out, however, that there is a question on visa applications that asks for
the general purpose of the travel.216 But, State said there is currently no way to
disaggregate birth tourism from the larger medical travel subset.21


However, I'll concede it's a thing..just not a large thing--and I maintain that it's grossly inflated in order to create the impression that it's a much larger thing then it really is.

I also note that this is aimed at rich folks..definitely NOT your typical illegal border crosser.

 

[toobfreak]

Majority support birthright Citizenship​

less than a third of all Americans want to drop the longstanding principle that any child born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen

Don't bullshit us with another lie. There is no long-standing principle, it is all based on a leftist lie that some Asian born in this country was deemed a citizen because of being born here when his parents were really already citizens. A child born of aliens are still subject to the jurisdiction of whatever the government is of the child's parent's belonging to, just as with any American born outside this county to US citizens--- he is still a US citizen wherever he is born.

And most Americans support that. Birthright citizenship will be overturned and fixed.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

. . .and that is precisely what this case is about. The current government wants to apply the same standards to illegals as it does diplomats and foreign students who are legally allowed to be here.

This isn't that difficult, it really isn't.

And the question of magnitude of the harms is not even up for debate. If something is wrong, it is wrong, it matters very little how often it happens.

"These births are in addition to the nearly 300,000 births each year to illegal immigrants."

New Estimate: 72,000 Births Annually to Tourists, Foreign Students and Other Visitors

New analyses estimate that there are 39k births a year to foreign students, guest workers and others on long-term temporary visa, plus an additional 33k births annually to tourists – 72k in total.

cis.org

U.S. Records Nearly 400,000 Anchor Baby Births in 2024 – [your]NEWS

An estimated 400,000 children born to non-citizen parents in the U.S. during 2024 reignite discussions on ending birthright citizenship.

yournews.com

I don't think you will get one on the Court to adopt your interpretation.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I don't think you will get one on the Court to adopt your interpretation.

And I agree with Evil Eye that it is a "thing" but not an important one.