upvote
Birthright citizenship is a constitutional right in the US same as freedom of speech, religion, the press, and the right to sue the government.

The change would require 2/3 of all states to approve a constitutional amendment. It won't ever pass. Most of us are only citizens because someone up the chain was born under this rule.

My family came here in the early 1700s and fought in the revolution. It would be a disgrace for me to do anything other than support immigrants.

reply
> Birthright citizenship is a constitutional right in the US same as freedom of speech, religion, the press, and the right to sue the government.

And we can amend constitutional rights. It most definitely will happen in our lifetimes.

> Most of us are only citizens because someone up the chain was born under this rule.

And?

You think the world in 2026 is exactly the same as in 1776?

What about slavery? Good idea in 1776 therefore good idea in 2026?

reply
Serious question - would your ancestors from the 1700s agree that you should support the immigrants you are supporting? Or have you been taught that your ancestors were wrong and evil and that you should honor them by doing the opposite of what they believed?
reply
This doesn't stop our politicians from completely ignoring the 2nd amendment so whats the difference
reply
The administration has never justified immigration policy on economic terms, only keeping out criminals.

If it were really part of a coherent anti-inflation, pro-housing strategy, then, well, a lot of other policies would be different... (Including signing the ROAD act, not starting trade wars, or driving up the price of oil)

reply
FWIW the Road ACT became law anyway without his signature, but yeah if he wanted to demonstrate he cared about such things he would have signed it promptly and proudly.
reply
Our birthrate has been below replacement for several years now. We need immigrants to mitigate that.
reply
I don't get this argument. We skip over fixing the birthrate and instead rely on immigration. There's a whole bunch of reasons people give for why we can't fix it like costs, jobs, housing, etc. Ok, so then first wouldn't immigrants also have the same problem once they get here or do they have a way of bypassing our low birthrate somehow but then we were told we can't bypass it, it exists because of the costs, jobs. etc.

So the immigrants end up with the same birth rate and then we have to bring in more immigrants. So there would have to be a constant source of excess people somewhere else for this to be sustainable. So it gets to a point where I wonder if this is really the plan.

reply
> We skip over fixing the birthrate

You're assuming the birthrate can be "fixed". Japan has an even worse demographic problem. They've tried "fixing" it and nothing much works. Similar for South Korea. Japan would certainly benefit from opening up to more immigration. Countries that can attract more immigration are going to benefit economically as the birthrates continue to decline globally. Why not be attractive to immigrants instead of wanting to repel them?

reply
Or, crazy idea, we make life livable for the locals and then we incentivize them to have kids of their own? And before you say it, I'm an immigrant from the 3rd world myself. I'm not anti-immigratiom, but the birth rate talking point is a very poor one.

Not to mention how unsustainable it is anyways, what happens a few years down the line when the immigrants stop having kids? There isn't an infinite ocean of people you can import on a whim, and definitely not forever.

reply
Just how many people are being born through birth tourism and end up claiming more in welfare than they pay in taxes?
reply
Estimates vary from 40-80%. Not just birth tourism, but all sorts of government handouts (your tax dollars). Especially under Mayorkas.
reply
I think birth tourism is an overblown fear, but I suppose their answer is that poor welfare sponges and rich-ish passport collectors are both threats, for different reasons.
reply
Minimal. In the hundreds vs H1b with the tens of thousands.
reply
Many don't bother coming back but the ones the do are almost always very expensive.
reply
How many, how expensive, and how much is this offset by others who come back and pay taxes?

I have seen a lot of freakouts about birth tourism since the recent SCOTUS ruling and I haven’t seen anyone give even the most cursory overview of the actual scale of the supposed problem. It’s purely an emotional reaction.

reply
Usually birth tourism is done by wealthier foreigners but that foreign wealth is not visible to the government so they end up qualifying for welfare.
reply
What kind of welfare? Do you have stats or stories? I'm skeptical someone wealthy would slum it for the peanuts they could get from welfare fraud.

Or if they do, surely there are ways wealthy "real Americans" could hide their money just as easily and defraud welfare, so this isn't really a problem specific to birth tourism.

reply
Hard for Americans to hide their assets in america. Land ownership is usually public.
reply
They can do whatever you presume the rich birth tourist does, like deposit in foreign banks, not own US land, obfuscate land ownership through trusts or straw owners.
reply
That doesn’t answer my questions at all.
reply
straight up lying and doomer boomer mentality, sad and gross.

very consistent correlations between migrants being net positive economic providers, more law abiding then native citizens, and just straight up regurgitating racist myths

mass deportations won’t solve anything economic when it’s the same admin hamstringing prices and rates with tariffs, war, and defacto support of the oligopoly

i really wish basement dwellers like you though of something original now and then

reply