Birthright Citizenship in the US

[the_gastropod]

Well, there we go. Looks like this malarkey was (at least temporarily) slapped down by a Reagan-appointed federal judge:

“Frankly, I have difficulty understanding how a member of the Bar could state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order,” the judge said of Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order.

“It just boggles my mind.”

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-blocked-b2685329.html

[sonofsven]

Is this going to be retroactive? My people have only been here 4-5 generations.
Will I be put on a reservation or just put on a plane for Scandinavia (99.2% white northern European, aka Viking, lol)?

[sixwings]

I actually think that some form of ending birthright citizenship is something that could work across the political spectrum. However, instead of building consensus and doing the hard work to get something like that done, Trump is doing it in the laziest dumbest way possible by issuing a blatently unconstitutional EO and then probably blaming woke judges for stopping it.

[Villanelle]

Congress can't make an unconstitutional policy, which this currently would be.  We need an amendment to change an amendment and given how divided is our nation, that chances of that happening anytime soon are pretty much nil.

Not true at all.

It only requires a reinterpretation of the constitution by the Supreme Court.  Remember before the '90s when everyone who was remotely reasonable read the 2nd amendment and saw that it clearly stated that owning a firearm was inextricably linked to the need to be able to form a militia?  Changing the interpretation of that rule to ignore all that inconvenient stuff about militias completely changed the meaning of the amendment to it's current form of 'GUNS FOR ALL, ALL THE TIME'.  No need for an amendment - so it's certainly not a matter of changing the constitution.  We know that Trump's Supreme Court will bow to whatever he wants to pass . . . so the question is only 'How will they completely change the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to get what they want?'.

My guess - The 14th amendment has always had a war exception for the children of invaders born on US soil.  In Texas, Greg Abbott has put forward the argument that his state is under invasion by illegal immigrants, and therefore at war with them.  That would allow denial of citizenship to all children of illegal immigrants and seems like a slam dunk and easy to push reinterpretation given the current makeup of the SC.

No need to change an amendment when you can just do a complete end run around it.  Very neat.

It's certainly true that Congress can't make an unconstitutional amendment.  Sure, SCOTUS could get wonky with deciding what is unconstitutional even in the face of pretty clear wording and established precedent--it wouldn't be the first time--but I'm talking about how things should work when our democracy is functioning properly.

I don't buy it at all.  People like to think of the constitution as being set in stone and decreeing The Way That Things Shall Be . . . but interpretation of it changes all the time, and all the folks in charge of that interpretation have indicated that they're incredibly partisan right now.  It's not safe to assume that US democracy is functioning properly any more.

I agree, which is why I included that qualifier specifically.  I guess that wasn't clear. 

[Telecaster]

If a court WERE looking to use this clause however to exclude of the products of birth tourism, it might conclude that the child’s allegiance is not necessarily to the US, using similar logic it originally did for the Indians, who had stronger tribal ties. In those days—from what I can tell—Indians COULD be convicted and sentenced for crime that involved a non-Indian victim or took place outside tribal territory. So there does seem to be a relationship here that could be used by a court looking to do so.

While your answer is correct, it may not be sufficient.

It is sufficient.  These questions were asked and answered a long, long time ago.   

[Just Joe]

Is this going to be retroactive? My people have only been here 4-5 generations.
Will I be put on a reservation or just put on a plane for Scandinavia (99.2% white northern European, aka Viking, lol)?

Damn - what will happen to my family? We are from all over? With they divide us up and send one of us to each of our origin countries or ???

[Ron Scott]

The 14th Amendment states in part that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

What is the meaning of the clause in bold above, and why is it additive (“and subject to…) the subject clause “all persons born or naturalized in the US”?

The purpose is to exclude children born to foreign diplomats who have diplomatic immunity and therefore are not subject to the laws  of the United States.

Yes, I think you’re right…and others have included enemy combatants and, at the time of its passage, American Indians.

If a court WERE looking to use this clause however to exclude of the products of birth tourism, it might conclude that the child’s allegiance is not necessarily to the US, using similar logic it originally did for the Indians, who had stronger tribal ties. In those days—from what I can tell—Indians COULD be convicted and sentenced for crime that involved a non-Indian victim or took place outside tribal territory. So there does seem to be a relationship here that could be used by a court looking to do so.

While your answer is correct, it may not be sufficient.

Not according to legal precedent:

In a majority opinion delivered by Justice Gray, the Court first noted that there is no statutory definition of a citizen, except the inclusionary clause in the Fourteenth Amendment stating that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. The Court therefore relied on common law to interpret this and other clauses concerning citizenship. The main principle that the Court chose to draw was from Calvin’s Case , a 17th century English common law case that held a person born within the territory of a King owes him allegiance, and is therefore the King’s subject. The Court then referenced a series of commentaries and cases in both English and U.S. common law that showed subsequent decisions since Calvin’s Case have been consistent with this principle. Persons born within the United States have always been in general assumed to be British subjects, and later U.S. citizens. In particular, this treatment was applied equally to those born to non-citizen parents, except in cases where a child was born in territory occupied by a foreign invasion or where the parents are foreign diplomats or officials.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/united_states_v._wong_kim_ark

But this current SC doesn't give a flying fuck about legal precedent, so it's all kinda up in the air.

LOL, I’m gonna say given the current crop of Supremes and comparing the circumstances of the Americans Indians to infants born in England in the 1600s, anything can happen.

Gotta say tho—I’m both sympathetic and critical to the general birth tourism approach—people who come here BECAUSE of the law that today seems to present a loophole. Part of me—yeah my heart goes out. But another part really wants us to at least be a little more thoughtful about citizenship and less cavalier than granting it based on where the mother happens to be that day. What is so special about the fact you happened to be in the US when you were born that gives you the right to citizenship over someone who was born the day before she crossed the border? This is not a blood-and-soil kind of country…

[reeshau]

I mean, if you're agonizing all the time about the "crisis" of falling birth rates, you should in theory be all for birthright citizenship since we get more babies in our population.  I'd rather get more babies that way with willing participants than by forcing women to have babies by eliminating their/our choices.  I suppose I can see some arguments for either side, but I tend to view immigration as a net win, I'm not big on completely ignoring precedent, and as someone upthread pointed out, abuses of this through birth tourism are a pretty small percentage of overall births so idk if it's worth the cost and effort to try to get rid of this.

I would love to keep the birth rate discussion in another thread where it belongs.  Eliminating birthright citizenship doesn't have to mean immigration would decrease. There's some sort of conflation problem going on with your statements.

I don't see it as a conflation at all.  Given the bent of being pro-business / pro-economy of the current administration, this policy will have an economic impact: in the short term, negatively affecting industries that rely on immigrant labor, as well as driving up inflation; and in the long term, reducing our population growth to balance an aging population.

You yourself said 6% of births are from illegal immigrants.  This isn't "tourism," in a sense of short-term stays.  But it is a goal of those immigrants to have children who are US citizens.  The difference is a matter of duration, not intent.  And a 6% decline in births would be a devastating drop.

[Ron Scott]

I mean, if you're agonizing all the time about the "crisis" of falling birth rates, you should in theory be all for birthright citizenship since we get more babies in our population.  I'd rather get more babies that way with willing participants than by forcing women to have babies by eliminating their/our choices.  I suppose I can see some arguments for either side, but I tend to view immigration as a net win, I'm not big on completely ignoring precedent, and as someone upthread pointed out, abuses of this through birth tourism are a pretty small percentage of overall births so idk if it's worth the cost and effort to try to get rid of this.

I would love to keep the birth rate discussion in another thread where it belongs.  Eliminating birthright citizenship doesn't have to mean immigration would decrease. There's some sort of conflation problem going on with your statements.

I don't see it as a conflation at all.  Given the bent of being pro-business / pro-economy of the current administration, this policy will have an economic impact: in the short term, negatively affecting industries that rely on immigrant labor, as well as driving up inflation; and in the long term, reducing our population growth to balance an aging population.

You yourself said 6% of births are from illegal immigrants.  This isn't "tourism," in a sense of short-term stays.  But it is a goal of those immigrants to have children who are US citizens.  The difference is a matter of duration, not intent.  And a 6% decline in births would be a devastating drop.

Wouldn’t it be better for the economy if the US had specific criteria in terms of skill sets to help determine eligibility? I mean if the US published its criteria and invited anyone who met them to apply for citizenship I’m guessing we’d get the numbers we wanted. We could do this in a way that handled both short-term and longer-term needs.

[Morning Glory]

I mean, if you're agonizing all the time about the "crisis" of falling birth rates, you should in theory be all for birthright citizenship since we get more babies in our population.  I'd rather get more babies that way with willing participants than by forcing women to have babies by eliminating their/our choices.  I suppose I can see some arguments for either side, but I tend to view immigration as a net win, I'm not big on completely ignoring precedent, and as someone upthread pointed out, abuses of this through birth tourism are a pretty small percentage of overall births so idk if it's worth the cost and effort to try to get rid of this.

I would love to keep the birth rate discussion in another thread where it belongs.  Eliminating birthright citizenship doesn't have to mean immigration would decrease. There's some sort of conflation problem going on with your statements.

I don't see it as a conflation at all.  Given the bent of being pro-business / pro-economy of the current administration, this policy will have an economic impact: in the short term, negatively affecting industries that rely on immigrant labor, as well as driving up inflation; and in the long term, reducing our population growth to balance an aging population.

You yourself said 6% of births are from illegal immigrants.  This isn't "tourism," in a sense of short-term stays.  But it is a goal of those immigrants to have children who are US citizens.  The difference is a matter of duration, not intent.  And a 6% decline in births would be a devastating drop.

Wouldn’t it be better for the economy if the US had specific criteria in terms of skill sets to help determine eligibility? I mean if the US published its criteria and invited anyone who met them to apply for citizenship I’m guessing we’d get the numbers we wanted. We could do this in a way that handled both short-term and longer-term needs.

This is ableist, although  I know of some countries that do it. How would it even work for keeping families together? Say you have 2 kids and one is disabled.  Would just the temporarily abled one get to stay? What if he's in an accident 2 years later and can no longer work? Would he be kicked back to your country of origin where he may not even speak the language or have any living relatives?

[Telecaster]

Wouldn’t it be better for the economy if the US had specific criteria in terms of skill sets to help determine eligibility? I mean if the US published its criteria and invited anyone who met them to apply for citizenship I’m guessing we’d get the numbers we wanted. We could do this in a way that handled both short-term and longer-term needs.

This is ableist, although  I know of some countries that do it.

The US has been doing this since the 1950s.   About a third of immigration visa are set aside for highly skilled/valuable workers. 

[reeshau]

I mean, if you're agonizing all the time about the "crisis" of falling birth rates, you should in theory be all for birthright citizenship since we get more babies in our population.  I'd rather get more babies that way with willing participants than by forcing women to have babies by eliminating their/our choices.  I suppose I can see some arguments for either side, but I tend to view immigration as a net win, I'm not big on completely ignoring precedent, and as someone upthread pointed out, abuses of this through birth tourism are a pretty small percentage of overall births so idk if it's worth the cost and effort to try to get rid of this.

I would love to keep the birth rate discussion in another thread where it belongs.  Eliminating birthright citizenship doesn't have to mean immigration would decrease. There's some sort of conflation problem going on with your statements.

I don't see it as a conflation at all.  Given the bent of being pro-business / pro-economy of the current administration, this policy will have an economic impact: in the short term, negatively affecting industries that rely on immigrant labor, as well as driving up inflation; and in the long term, reducing our population growth to balance an aging population.

You yourself said 6% of births are from illegal immigrants.  This isn't "tourism," in a sense of short-term stays.  But it is a goal of those immigrants to have children who are US citizens.  The difference is a matter of duration, not intent.  And a 6% decline in births would be a devastating drop.

Wouldn’t it be better for the economy if the US had specific criteria in terms of skill sets to help determine eligibility? I mean if the US published its criteria and invited anyone who met them to apply for citizenship I’m guessing we’d get the numbers we wanted. We could do this in a way that handled both short-term and longer-term needs.

How would you characterize the skills criteria for the largest categories of jobs immigrants fill?  Ability to pick crops?  Clean rooms?  Process animals for meat?  General construction labor?  Mow the lawn?

These are entry-level jobs, and no prior training is expected, of anyone applying.  We love PhD's, too, but the threat to the economy is no veg or meat in the grocery stores.  Groceries was what won Trump the election, right?

[spartana]

I have birth right citizenship in the UK where I was born to non-UK citizens (one was American and one a naturalized German-American). So I have dual citizenship US and UK ...Maybe Germany too but not sure. The UK changed this in 1983 and now there must be at least one parent who is a citizen. However they left in place many backdoor loophole ways to become a citizen such as living in the UK until 10 years old,  etc. So other nations did have this but have changed their stance over the years. Now my only concern is being deported back to that hellhole UK where everyone is eating horrible food and  I cant speak the language ;-).

"Children born in the UK before January 1, 1983 were automatically granted British citizenship, regardless of their parents' nationalities. This is known as the British Nationality Act 1981."

[Morning Glory]

I have birth right citizenship in the UK where I was born to non-UK citizens (one was American and one a naturalized German-American). So I have dual citizenship US and UK ...Maybe Germany too but not sure. The UK changed this in 1983 and now there must be at least one parent who is a citizen. However they left in place many backdoor loophole ways to become a citizen such as living in the UK until 10 years old,  etc. So other nations did have this but have changed their stance over the years. Now my only concern is being deported back to that hellhole UK where everyone is eating horrible food and  I cant speak the language ;-).

"Children born in the UK before January 1, 1983 were automatically granted British citizenship, regardless of their parents' nationalities. This is known as the British Nationality Act 1981."

Hey cool. I have the same but one UK parent and one US parent. I looked up the citizenship by descent rules snd it looks like I can claim it for my kids no matter where they are born (and may need to at some point) but my brother who was born in the US cannot unless they are born in the UK.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

You yourself said 6% of births are from illegal immigrants.  This isn't "tourism," in a sense of short-term stays.  But it is a goal of those immigrants to have children who are US citizens.  The difference is a matter of duration, not intent.  And a 6% decline in births would be a devastating drop.

Birth tourism is roughly 1%, according to estimates of U.S. births vs birth tourism.  That reduces the impact slightly, since those citizens don't stay in the U.S. (and likely many renounce citizenship later, when they learn they have to pay U.S. taxes regardless of where they live).

"CIS estimates that birth tourism results in 33,000 births to women on tourist visas annually. We estimate that hundreds of thousands more are born to mothers who are illegal aliens or present on temporary visas."
https://cis.org/CIS/Birth-Tourism-Facts-and-Recommendations

[Poundwise]

Wow, so now ICE is actually detaining Navajos! Where are they going to deport them to?? https://azmirror.com/2025/01/24/reports-of-navajo-people-being-detained-in-immigration-sweeps-sparks-concern-from-tribal-leaders/

For example, the Trump administration openly questioned the U.S. citizenship of Indigenous peoples as part of its defense of Trump’s executive order to suspend birthright citizenship in the U.S.

Trump signed the executive order shortly after he was sworn into office this week. It would end birthright citizenship for babies born to a mother and father who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.

A federal judge in Seattle on Thursday temporarily blocked the executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, calling Trump’s action “blatantly unconstitutional.”

In defending the constitutionality of the executive order, the U.S. Department of Justice erroneously argued in court that Indigenous people didn’t have birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment because they were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, so neither should the children of noncitizen immigrants.

“The United States’ connection with the children of illegal aliens and temporary visitors is weaker than its connection with members of Indian tribes,” DOJ argued in a filing. “If the latter link is insufficient for birthright citizenship, the former certainly is,” the Trump administration argued.”

The DOJ cited an 1884 U.S. Supreme Court case, Elk v. Wilkins, in which the high court decided that “because members of Indian tribes owe ‘immediate allegiance’ to their tribes, they are not ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States and are not constitutionally entitled to Citizenship.”

But the DOJ ignored congressional action, the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, that explicitly gave Indigenous people U.S. birthright citizenship and effectively ended the rejection of citizenship that the Supreme Court had upheld four decades earlier.

[spartana]

I have birth right citizenship in the UK where I was born to non-UK citizens (one was American and one a naturalized German-American). So I have dual citizenship US and UK ...Maybe Germany too but not sure. The UK changed this in 1983 and now there must be at least one parent who is a citizen. However they left in place many backdoor loophole ways to become a citizen such as living in the UK until 10 years old,  etc. So other nations did have this but have changed their stance over the years. Now my only concern is being deported back to that hellhole UK where everyone is eating horrible food and  I cant speak the language ;-).

"Children born in the UK before January 1, 1983 were automatically granted British citizenship, regardless of their parents' nationalities. This is known as the British Nationality Act 1981."

Hey cool. I have the same but one UK parent and one US parent. I looked up the citizenship by descent rules snd it looks like I can claim it for my kids no matter where they are born (and may need to at some point) but my brother who was born in the US cannot unless they are born in the UK.

I have a British and a US passport. You can check online or at a consulate and they'll give you all the info you need. I looked and found out I can't evoke German citizenship since my mom was a naturalized US citizen. I don't think it matters in any case but I do plan to hide my britich passport that says I was born in the UK when the jack booted Proud Boys show up to check "papers".

[uniwelder]

Birth Tourism happens in other places besides the US and is also done by US citizens.

The host of one of the podcasts I listen to is a proponent of it and at least one of his kids was born elsewhere for this purpose. The idea is that having another country of citizenship gives you more options.

Personally, I would have liked my kid to have had the chance to have a second citizenship.

Does the general population of those particular countries welcome it?  There's an amount of elitism involved to have a lifestyle such that someone can afford international travel and vacation for a a few months.

I dont know how the general population feels about it in the various countries that allow it. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

My point is that the US isn't/wasn't the only country that allows citizenship by birth. Most of the western hemisphere does so and a few countries in the eastern hemisphere. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

Yes, having enough wealth to go to another country long enough to have a birth then just fly home isn't common I would guess as just remaining there. So I would hazard a guess that most citizenship by birth means the families/mother are still in the country (as immigrants legal or otherwise) where the child was born.

I've mentioned a couple of times in this thread already that it is mostly the countries of the Americas with birthright citizenship.  That makes 33 out of 193 in the world--- only 17%.  We're very much in the minority.  I don't know when everyone else decided on it, but I would guess it was at a time when international travel was not so common as now.  I feel the law is outdated.  If these countries were to have to make the decision again, whether to give citizenship by birth, I think it's most likely they would not.  The quote below sums up my feelings pretty well.

...another part really wants us to at least be a little more thoughtful about citizenship and less cavalier than granting it based on where the mother happens to be that day.

I mean, if you're agonizing all the time about the "crisis" of falling birth rates, you should in theory be all for birthright citizenship since we get more babies in our population.  I'd rather get more babies that way with willing participants than by forcing women to have babies by eliminating their/our choices.  I suppose I can see some arguments for either side, but I tend to view immigration as a net win, I'm not big on completely ignoring precedent, and as someone upthread pointed out, abuses of this through birth tourism are a pretty small percentage of overall births so idk if it's worth the cost and effort to try to get rid of this.

I would love to keep the birth rate discussion in another thread where it belongs.  Eliminating birthright citizenship doesn't have to mean immigration would decrease. There's some sort of conflation problem going on with your statements.

I don't see it as a conflation at all.  Given the bent of being pro-business / pro-economy of the current administration, this policy will have an economic impact: in the short term, negatively affecting industries that rely on immigrant labor, as well as driving up inflation; and in the long term, reducing our population growth to balance an aging population.

You yourself said 6% of births are from illegal immigrants.  This isn't "tourism," in a sense of short-term stays.  But it is a goal of those immigrants to have children who are US citizens.  The difference is a matter of duration, not intent.  And a 6% decline in births would be a devastating drop.

I've really been trying to separate the Trump administration's views from myself.  I am in no way supporting any of his policies.  I only think birthright citizenship is an issue that should be changed, by congress, at a time in the future (I realize this is just a fantasy) when lawmakers can speak rationally with each other.  I believe it can feasibly be part of a broader immigration reform.  This reform would include a path to citizenship, many more visas and green cards, refugees, and asylum seekers.  In my fantasy world, the number of immigrants to this country would be greater than they are now and they would happily have kids here, knowing they don't have to fear deportation.  Even though their kids wouldn't be citizens, they would have some other legal status--- a green card or visa, until such time as they can apply for citizenship.

[Telecaster]

I've mentioned a couple of times in this thread already that it is mostly the countries of the Americas with birthright citizenship.  That makes 33 out of 193 in the world--- only 17%.  We're very much in the minority.  I don't know when everyone else decided on it, but I would guess it was at a time when international travel was not so common as now.  I feel the law is outdated.  If these countries were to have to make the decision again, whether to give citizenship by birth, I think it's most likely they would not.  The quote below sums up my feelings pretty well.

I think it is fair, reasonable, and prudent to revisit the birthright citizenship issue and see if it still makes sense in today's world.  Indeed it is fair, reasonable, and prudent to revisit all of our laws and see if they still make sense.

I've never heard--literally never--what actual problem birthright citizenship causes.  In other words, if we ended it, what problem gets fixed?  When proponents are asked, they give hand waving answers that don't address the question. 

Since there doesn't seem to be a real problem as far as I can tell, this seems to be related to xenophobia and racism. 

[GuitarStv]

Wow, so now ICE is actually detaining Navajos! Where are they going to deport them to?? https://azmirror.com/2025/01/24/reports-of-navajo-people-being-detained-in-immigration-sweeps-sparks-concern-from-tribal-leaders/

For example, the Trump administration openly questioned the U.S. citizenship of Indigenous peoples as part of its defense of Trump’s executive order to suspend birthright citizenship in the U.S.

Trump signed the executive order shortly after he was sworn into office this week. It would end birthright citizenship for babies born to a mother and father who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.

A federal judge in Seattle on Thursday temporarily blocked the executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, calling Trump’s action “blatantly unconstitutional.”

In defending the constitutionality of the executive order, the U.S. Department of Justice erroneously argued in court that Indigenous people didn’t have birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment because they were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, so neither should the children of noncitizen immigrants.

“The United States’ connection with the children of illegal aliens and temporary visitors is weaker than its connection with members of Indian tribes,” DOJ argued in a filing. “If the latter link is insufficient for birthright citizenship, the former certainly is,” the Trump administration argued.”

The DOJ cited an 1884 U.S. Supreme Court case, Elk v. Wilkins, in which the high court decided that “because members of Indian tribes owe ‘immediate allegiance’ to their tribes, they are not ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States and are not constitutionally entitled to Citizenship.”

But the DOJ ignored congressional action, the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, that explicitly gave Indigenous people U.S. birthright citizenship and effectively ended the rejection of citizenship that the Supreme Court had upheld four decades earlier.

Send those Indians back to India!  :S

[waltworks]

Most 19th century immigrants were never officially naturalized, so the vast majority of us aren't citizens if we decide that birthright citizenship isn't a thing anymore.

-W

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I've mentioned a couple of times in this thread already that it is mostly the countries of the Americas with birthright citizenship.  That makes 33 out of 193 in the world--- only 17%.  We're very much in the minority.  I don't know when everyone else decided on it, but I would guess it was at a time when international travel was not so common as now.  I feel the law is outdated.  If these countries were to have to make the decision again, whether to give citizenship by birth, I think it's most likely they would not.  The quote below sums up my feelings pretty well.

I think it is fair, reasonable, and prudent to revisit the birthright citizenship issue and see if it still makes sense in today's world.  Indeed it is fair, reasonable, and prudent to revisit all of our laws and see if they still make sense.

I've never heard--literally never--what actual problem birthright citizenship causes.  In other words, if we ended it, what problem gets fixed?  When proponents are asked, they give hand waving answers that don't address the question. 

Since there doesn't seem to be a real problem as far as I can tell, this seems to be related to xenophobia and racism.

Birth tourism is where women visit the U.S. while pregnant, overstay if needed, and give birth to an American citizen.  It was discussed earlier in this thread.

You yourself said 6% of births are from illegal immigrants.  This isn't "tourism," in a sense of short-term stays.  But it is a goal of those immigrants to have children who are US citizens.  The difference is a matter of duration, not intent.  And a 6% decline in births would be a devastating drop.

Birth tourism is roughly 1%, according to estimates of U.S. births vs birth tourism.  That reduces the impact slightly, since those citizens don't stay in the U.S. (and likely many renounce citizenship later, when they learn they have to pay U.S. taxes regardless of where they live).

"CIS estimates that birth tourism results in 33,000 births to women on tourist visas annually. We estimate that hundreds of thousands more are born to mothers who are illegal aliens or present on temporary visas."
https://cis.org/CIS/Birth-Tourism-Facts-and-Recommendations

[NotJen]

Birth tourism is where women visit the U.S. while pregnant, overstay if needed, and give birth to an American citizen.  It was discussed earlier in this thread.

Yes, but what's the problem with this?

[RetiredAt63]

Birth tourism is where women visit the U.S. while pregnant, overstay if needed, and give birth to an American citizen.  It was discussed earlier in this thread.

Yes, but what's the problem with this?

Given the way the US taxes a citizen no matter where they live or where they earn their income, it is as much a negative as a positive.  Even if the actual tax paid doesn't change, the paperwork is not fun.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Birth tourism is where women visit the U.S. while pregnant, overstay if needed, and give birth to an American citizen.  It was discussed earlier in this thread.

Yes, but what's the problem with this?

It's illegal.  Ending birth citizenship would remove the incentive.  But again, none of this matters because Congress won't create an amendment to the constitution over it.

"A California woman was sentenced Monday to more than three years in prison in a long-running case over a business that helped pregnant Chinese women travel to the United States to deliver babies who automatically became American citizens."
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/27/us/woman-sentenced-chinese-birth-tourism-intl-hnk/index.html

[NotJen]

Birth tourism is where women visit the U.S. while pregnant, overstay if needed, and give birth to an American citizen.  It was discussed earlier in this thread.

Yes, but what's the problem with this?

It's illegal.

I thought we were talking about tourists here legally, giving birth while they were here.  Sorry for the confusion.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Birth tourism is where women visit the U.S. while pregnant, overstay if needed, and give birth to an American citizen.  It was discussed earlier in this thread.

Yes, but what's the problem with this?

It's illegal.

I thought we were talking about tourists here legally, giving birth while they were here.  Sorry for the confusion.

"Tourists here legally" who lie on their visa application?

"Birth tourism (travel for the primary purpose of giving birth in the United States to obtain U.S. citizenship for their child) is not permissible on a visitor visa."
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/tourism-visit/visitor.html/visa

[dividendman]

I think the better way to go about things is that nobody born in the US gets citizenship, regardless of the parental status. You earn citizenship through 2 years of military service or an equivalent non-combat government program that is of societal benefit.

[dcheesi]

I think the better way to go about things is that nobody born in the US gets citizenship, regardless of the parental status. You earn citizenship through 2 years of military service or an equivalent non-combat government program that is of societal benefit.

I can think of all sorts of ways this could be abused (e.g., to deny citizenship to "undesirable" classes of people), and/or lead to terrible outcomes.

[PeteD01]

I think the better way to go about things is that nobody born in the US gets citizenship, regardless of the parental status. You earn citizenship through 2 years of military service or an equivalent non-combat government program that is of societal benefit.

I can think of all sorts of ways this could be abused (e.g., to deny citizenship to "undesirable" classes of people), and/or lead to terrible outcomes.

The ideas seems to come from Starship Troopers (a satirical movie about fascism):

Starship Troopers

In the future, Earth is governed by the United Citizen Federation, a stratocratic regime founded generations earlier by "veterans" after democracy and social scientists brought civilization to the brink of ruin. Citizenship is exclusively earned through federal service, which grants rights—like voting and procreation—that are withheld from ordinary civilians. Humans, who are now capable of interstellar travel, conduct colonization missions throughout the galaxy, bringing them into conflict with a race of highly evolved insectoid creatures dubbed "Arachnids" or, derisively, "bugs".


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers_(film)

[GuitarStv]

I think the better way to go about things is that nobody born in the US gets citizenship, regardless of the parental status. You earn citizenship through 2 years of military service or an equivalent non-combat government program that is of societal benefit.

I can think of all sorts of ways this could be abused (e.g., to deny citizenship to "undesirable" classes of people), and/or lead to terrible outcomes.

The ideas seems to come from Starship Troopers (a satirical movie about fascism):

Starship Troopers

In the future, Earth is governed by the United Citizen Federation, a stratocratic regime founded generations earlier by "veterans" after democracy and social scientists brought civilization to the brink of ruin. Citizenship is exclusively earned through federal service, which grants rights—like voting and procreation—that are withheld from ordinary civilians. Humans, who are now capable of interstellar travel, conduct colonization missions throughout the galaxy, bringing them into conflict with a race of highly evolved insectoid creatures dubbed "Arachnids" or, derisively, "bugs".


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers_(film)

It originally came from Starship Troopers the book, where it was presented as a non-satirical idea and part of Heinlein's philosophical musings at the time.  (I'd also argue that fascism in the original book is not Heinlein's intent at all, quite different from the movie where it was overtly and explicitly part of the plot.)

[dcheesi]

I think the better way to go about things is that nobody born in the US gets citizenship, regardless of the parental status. You earn citizenship through 2 years of military service or an equivalent non-combat government program that is of societal benefit.

I can think of all sorts of ways this could be abused (e.g., to deny citizenship to "undesirable" classes of people), and/or lead to terrible outcomes.

The ideas seems to come from Starship Troopers (a satirical movie about fascism):

Starship Troopers

In the future, Earth is governed by the United Citizen Federation, a stratocratic regime founded generations earlier by "veterans" after democracy and social scientists brought civilization to the brink of ruin. Citizenship is exclusively earned through federal service, which grants rights—like voting and procreation—that are withheld from ordinary civilians. Humans, who are now capable of interstellar travel, conduct colonization missions throughout the galaxy, bringing them into conflict with a race of highly evolved insectoid creatures dubbed "Arachnids" or, derisively, "bugs".


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers_(film)

Yep. And I've always worried that that film strays too close to Poe's Law territory, especially given the original (US) marketing (which depicted it as a straight-up action film, with no hint of irony or subtext)

[RetiredAt63]

I think the better way to go about things is that nobody born in the US gets citizenship, regardless of the parental status. You earn citizenship through 2 years of military service or an equivalent non-combat government program that is of societal benefit.

I can think of all sorts of ways this could be abused (e.g., to deny citizenship to "undesirable" classes of people), and/or lead to terrible outcomes.

The ideas seems to come from Starship Troopers (a satirical movie about fascism):

Starship Troopers

In the future, Earth is governed by the United Citizen Federation, a stratocratic regime founded generations earlier by "veterans" after democracy and social scientists brought civilization to the brink of ruin. Citizenship is exclusively earned through federal service, which grants rights—like voting and procreation—that are withheld from ordinary civilians. Humans, who are now capable of interstellar travel, conduct colonization missions throughout the galaxy, bringing them into conflict with a race of highly evolved insectoid creatures dubbed "Arachnids" or, derisively, "bugs".


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers_(film)

It originally came from Starship Troopers the book, where it was presented as a non-satirical idea and part of Heinlein's philosophical musings at the time.  (I'd also argue that fascism in the original book is not Heinlein's intent at all, quite different from the movie where it was overtly and explicitly part of the plot.)

Yes. Any civil service.  So teachers.  All the civil service people Trump and Muskrat hate.

Really the book has to be read to see how this franchise developed.

He tossed out all sorts of franchise ideas in various  places.  One, only women, because men have messed up on their own for so long.  Two, enough brains to solve a simple quadratic equation.  Bright 10 year old girl votes, stupid adult man doesn’t (his example).

[rantk81]

Requiring someone to "volunteer" or work a job they otherwise would not want to do, pretty much amounts to slavery.

[PeteD01]

I think the better way to go about things is that nobody born in the US gets citizenship, regardless of the parental status. You earn citizenship through 2 years of military service or an equivalent non-combat government program that is of societal benefit.

I can think of all sorts of ways this could be abused (e.g., to deny citizenship to "undesirable" classes of people), and/or lead to terrible outcomes.

The ideas seems to come from Starship Troopers (a satirical movie about fascism):

Starship Troopers

In the future, Earth is governed by the United Citizen Federation, a stratocratic regime founded generations earlier by "veterans" after democracy and social scientists brought civilization to the brink of ruin. Citizenship is exclusively earned through federal service, which grants rights—like voting and procreation—that are withheld from ordinary civilians. Humans, who are now capable of interstellar travel, conduct colonization missions throughout the galaxy, bringing them into conflict with a race of highly evolved insectoid creatures dubbed "Arachnids" or, derisively, "bugs".


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers_(film)

Yep. And I've always worried that that film strays too close to Poe's Law territory, especially given the original (US) marketing (which depicted it as a straight-up action film, with no hint of irony or subtext)

I think it's quite possible that Elon Musk didn't get it and named his flying coffin "Starship" after the movie.

[Just Joe]

Requiring someone to "volunteer" or work a job they otherwise would not want to do, pretty much amounts to slavery.

I kind of felt the same way when at age 18 I signed up for the draft b/c I was obligated to. Went on to volunteer for the military (6 yrs total).

No, I've come believe a draft might do our youth some good - even if given a choice to do a few years in the military or a CCC-like alternative.

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

In reality it would likely devolve into something undesirable once politics or religion or business got involved. I works well theoretically anyhow.

[Telecaster]

Yep. And I've always worried that that film strays too close to Poe's Law territory, especially given the original (US) marketing (which depicted it as a straight-up action film, with no hint of irony or subtext)

Upon release, the film was completely misunderstood by critics, audiences in general and especially by fans of the book, most of whom thought it was a brainless shoot 'em up that lightly glorified fascism.

In reality (IMO) it was a brilliant satire that stands the test of time.   Part of brilliance is the characters themselves don't realize there is anything wrong with their society, which is why fascism can exist in the first place.   

[classicrando]

Requiring someone to "volunteer" or work a job they otherwise would not want to do, pretty much amounts to slavery.

I kind of felt the same way when at age 18 I signed up for the draft b/c I was obligated to. Went on to volunteer for the military (6 yrs total).

No, I've come believe a draft might do our youth some good - even if given a choice to do a few years in the military or a CCC-like alternative.

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

In reality it would likely devolve into something undesirable once politics or religion or business got involved. I works well theoretically anyhow.

My dad surprised me a few years back with a hot take on why we should bring back the draft in the U.S., and it's not because it would be good for the youth.  In his opinion, America was more reigned in when there was a notable percentage of people in the military that absolutely did not want to be there.  These were the people that would more readily question/refuse illegal orders, be general obstructions to cohesion, and keep any wars or military actions more present in the minds of a broader cross-section of the population.  Going to an all-volunteer force has clamped down too much on willingness to call out bad actions as "well, you signed up for this."  Plus, having a draft eliminates some of the incentive to make society overall shittier in order to prey on the poor for jobs/education access.

[dcheesi]

Requiring someone to "volunteer" or work a job they otherwise would not want to do, pretty much amounts to slavery.

I kind of felt the same way when at age 18 I signed up for the draft b/c I was obligated to. Went on to volunteer for the military (6 yrs total).

No, I've come believe a draft might do our youth some good - even if given a choice to do a few years in the military or a CCC-like alternative.

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

In reality it would likely devolve into something undesirable once politics or religion or business got involved. I works well theoretically anyhow.

It also depends on what you're being asked to do as part of that "character building" government service. Without getting too political, I fear for the long-term mental health and wellbeing of a generation of kids doing their mandatory service in the IDF right now.

[GuitarStv]

Requiring someone to "volunteer" or work a job they otherwise would not want to do, pretty much amounts to slavery.

I kind of felt the same way when at age 18 I signed up for the draft b/c I was obligated to. Went on to volunteer for the military (6 yrs total).

No, I've come believe a draft might do our youth some good - even if given a choice to do a few years in the military or a CCC-like alternative.

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

In reality it would likely devolve into something undesirable once politics or religion or business got involved. I works well theoretically anyhow.

My dad surprised me a few years back with a hot take on why we should bring back the draft in the U.S., and it's not because it would be good for the youth.  In his opinion, America was more reigned in when there was a notable percentage of people in the military that absolutely did not want to be there.  These were the people that would more readily question/refuse illegal orders, be general obstructions to cohesion, and keep any wars or military actions more present in the minds of a broader cross-section of the population.  Going to an all-volunteer force has clamped down too much on willingness to call out bad actions as "well, you signed up for this."  Plus, having a draft eliminates some of the incentive to make society overall shittier in order to prey on the poor for jobs/education access.

His overall point is not wrong.  An all volunteer force also means that a pretty large chunk is made up of poor people who enter the military because of lack of alternatives.  This insulates the rich who tend to make political decisions in the country from having anything to lose when there's a war.

[dcheesi]

Requiring someone to "volunteer" or work a job they otherwise would not want to do, pretty much amounts to slavery.

I kind of felt the same way when at age 18 I signed up for the draft b/c I was obligated to. Went on to volunteer for the military (6 yrs total).

No, I've come believe a draft might do our youth some good - even if given a choice to do a few years in the military or a CCC-like alternative.

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

In reality it would likely devolve into something undesirable once politics or religion or business got involved. I works well theoretically anyhow.

My dad surprised me a few years back with a hot take on why we should bring back the draft in the U.S., and it's not because it would be good for the youth.  In his opinion, America was more reigned in when there was a notable percentage of people in the military that absolutely did not want to be there.  These were the people that would more readily question/refuse illegal orders, be general obstructions to cohesion, and keep any wars or military actions more present in the minds of a broader cross-section of the population.  Going to an all-volunteer force has clamped down too much on willingness to call out bad actions as "well, you signed up for this."  Plus, having a draft eliminates some of the incentive to make society overall shittier in order to prey on the poor for jobs/education access.

His overall point is not wrong.  An all volunteer force also means that a pretty large chunk is made up of poor people who enter the military because of lack of alternatives.  This insulates the rich who tend to make political decisions in the country from having anything to lose when there's a war.

You have a point there. Not that the wealthy and connected ever had much trouble dodging the draft, though (*cough*bone spurs*cough*)

[Villanelle]

Requiring someone to "volunteer" or work a job they otherwise would not want to do, pretty much amounts to slavery.

I kind of felt the same way when at age 18 I signed up for the draft b/c I was obligated to. Went on to volunteer for the military (6 yrs total).

No, I've come believe a draft might do our youth some good - even if given a choice to do a few years in the military or a CCC-like alternative.

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

In reality it would likely devolve into something undesirable once politics or religion or business got involved. I works well theoretically anyhow.

My dad surprised me a few years back with a hot take on why we should bring back the draft in the U.S., and it's not because it would be good for the youth.  In his opinion, America was more reigned in when there was a notable percentage of people in the military that absolutely did not want to be there.  These were the people that would more readily question/refuse illegal orders, be general obstructions to cohesion, and keep any wars or military actions more present in the minds of a broader cross-section of the population.  Going to an all-volunteer force has clamped down too much on willingness to call out bad actions as "well, you signed up for this."  Plus, having a draft eliminates some of the incentive to make society overall shittier in order to prey on the poor for jobs/education access.

His overall point is not wrong.  An all volunteer force also means that a pretty large chunk is made up of poor people who enter the military because of lack of alternatives.  This insulates the rich who tend to make political decisions in the country from having anything to lose when there's a war.

You have a point there. Not that the wealthy and connected ever had much trouble dodging the draft, though (*cough*bone spurs*cough*)

I don't necessarily support bringing back the draft, but if it happened, this is part of why I think it would be critical to include non-military service.  Bone spurs mean you can't serve in the military?  Okay, here's the list of Peace Corps jobs and non-specialty healthcare and teaching roles in underserved communities.  Which would you prefer?  (And perhaps these non-military roles, which would be more desirable for most, would require an addition year of service.)

Only those who qualify for Medicaid or SS Disability (or some similar high bar) would be exempt from serving in some way. 

[Psychstache]

Requiring someone to "volunteer" or work a job they otherwise would not want to do, pretty much amounts to slavery.

I kind of felt the same way when at age 18 I signed up for the draft b/c I was obligated to. Went on to volunteer for the military (6 yrs total).

No, I've come believe a draft might do our youth some good - even if given a choice to do a few years in the military or a CCC-like alternative.

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

In reality it would likely devolve into something undesirable once politics or religion or business got involved. I works well theoretically anyhow.

My dad surprised me a few years back with a hot take on why we should bring back the draft in the U.S., and it's not because it would be good for the youth.  In his opinion, America was more reigned in when there was a notable percentage of people in the military that absolutely did not want to be there.  These were the people that would more readily question/refuse illegal orders, be general obstructions to cohesion, and keep any wars or military actions more present in the minds of a broader cross-section of the population.  Going to an all-volunteer force has clamped down too much on willingness to call out bad actions as "well, you signed up for this."  Plus, having a draft eliminates some of the incentive to make society overall shittier in order to prey on the poor for jobs/education access.

His overall point is not wrong.  An all volunteer force also means that a pretty large chunk is made up of poor people who enter the military because of lack of alternatives.  This insulates the rich who tend to make political decisions in the country from having anything to lose when there's a war.

It's similar to the argument for mandating public schools. If the rich cannot flee to private/home schools, there's an incentive to work within the system and make improvements*.

*Theoretically. In reality, typically ways are just found to build systems that insulate and segregate specific public school systems and still hoard resources and advantages.