7 ms·

It has nothing to do with US Citizens. According to estimates from the Pew Research Center and the Center for Migration Studies, roughly 250,000 to 400,000 chil

by _9za9 2y ago

It has nothing to do with US Citizens. According to estimates from the Pew Research Center and the Center for Migration Studies, roughly 250,000 to 400,000 children are born each year in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants, virtually all of whom receive citizenship at birth under the 14th Amendment. The underlying issue is the exploitation of a legal loophole that currently incentivizes unlawful entry and exploitation. https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2015/09/28/modern-immigration-wave-brings-59-million-to-u-s-driving-population-growth-and-change-through-2065/ https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2015/09/28/mo...

defrost 2y ago
Can you quote the text that supports your claim from the linked 'source'? What I did find there was: This report’s estimates and projections of foreign-born residents in the U.S. comprise both legal and unauthorized immigrants. However, the numbers for each status group are not broken out separately except where stated. As an aside; useful data: Number of births in the United States from 1990 to 2022 https://www.statista.com/statistics/195908/number-of-births-in-the-united-states-since-1990/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/195908/number-of-births-... ( ~ 4 million per annum, now fallen to 3.5 million per annum ) Births were to foreign-born mothers (2000 - 2022) In 2000, 21 percent of births were to foreign-born mothers, according to data from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. This number has fluctuated slightly throughout the years, peaking at 25 percent in 2006. It decreased to 21 percent in 2021 before increasing to 24 percent in 2023. It's important to note that this data does not differentiate between illegal and legal foreign-born mothers and includes mothers from Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. - https://www.newsweek.com/birthright-citizenship-donald-trump-executive-order-2017995 https://www.newsweek.com/birthright-citizenship-donald-trump...
maxerickson 2y ago
It's not a loophole, it's the plain text of a constitutional amendment. More or less all sources that provide context for what they might have meant support the plain reading.
- VOIPThrowaway 2y ago
  The intent of the amendment was to make sure Democrats couldn't say that former slaves weren't citizens.
  - aqueueaqueue 2y ago
    The intent of the Magna Carta was to give more rights to barons.
  - eesmith 2y ago
    Birthright citizenship for whites was already long-established common law (eg, Lynch v. Clarke, 1844). Quoting from US vs. Wong Kim Ark at https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 > Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the civil rights act of 1866 or the adoption of the constitutional amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States. Thus, even without the 14th Amendment at least some of those 250,000 to 400,000 children born each year in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants - the white ones - would still be US citizens, barring a law otherwise. And there has been no law otherwise, because of the 14th. If you want to say the loophole is that non-white US-born children of foreign citizens mistakenly got a right that was only meant to apply to former slaves, then go ahead and say that. But we can read the discussion in Congress at the time and see they were well aware that it applied to more than ex-slaves. From https://web.archive.org/web/20210114215253/https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073%2Fllcg073.db&recNum=11 https://web.archive.org/web/20210114215253/https://memory.lo... and the following page we see Mr. Cowan ask for clarification about the text, as it applies to foreigners: > Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen? If so, what rights have they? ... is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race? Are they to be immigrated out of house and home by Chinese? I should think not. Mr. Conness [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Conness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Conness] replies: > The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. Oh man, he goes on to point out how all the recent talk about Gypsies, when they are so few in number, cannot be but to cause political agitation, then referring to actions of "our "southern brethren", who I will not say invaded California" were there as "road agents" (but actually highway robbers), and California hanged them as California did not recognize the commission of Jefferson Davis within their borders. In any case, the evidence is quite clear that this "loophole" was fully discussed and understood as a goal of the amendment. That is why Mr. Conness, an abolitionist and advocate for Chinese immigration, advocated for its passage. Nope. This "loophole" nonsense is naught but political agitation.
clipsy 2y ago
> It has nothing to do with US Citizens How do you decide who is a US Citizen?
tailefer 2y ago
Both sets of my grandparents came to the U.S. from Europe (France and Belgium) just before WW II. They did not become citizens. My father and mother were born in the U.S. and lived here all their lives. I was born in the U.S. and have also lived here all of my life. Am I a U.S. citizen? If so, what proof can I provide that doesn't rely on the "loophole"?

by _9za9 2y ago

defrost 2y ago

Can you quote the text that supports your claim from the linked 'source'? What I did find there was: This report’s estimates and projections of foreign-born residents in the U.S. comprise both legal and unauthorized immigrants. However, the numbers for each status group are not broken out separately except where stated. As an aside; useful data: Number of births in the United States from 1990 to 2022 https://www.statista.com/statistics/195908/number-of-births-in-the-united-states-since-1990/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/195908/number-of-births-... ( ~ 4 million per annum, now fallen to 3.5 million per annum ) Births were to foreign-born mothers (2000 - 2022) In 2000, 21 percent of births were to foreign-born mothers, according to data from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. This number has fluctuated slightly throughout the years, peaking at 25 percent in 2006. It decreased to 21 percent in 2021 before increasing to 24 percent in 2023. It's important to note that this data does not differentiate between illegal and legal foreign-born mothers and includes mothers from Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. - https://www.newsweek.com/birthright-citizenship-donald-trump-executive-order-2017995 https://www.newsweek.com/birthright-citizenship-donald-trump...

maxerickson 2y ago

It's not a loophole, it's the plain text of a constitutional amendment. More or less all sources that provide context for what they might have meant support the plain reading.

VOIPThrowaway 2y ago
The intent of the amendment was to make sure Democrats couldn't say that former slaves weren't citizens.
- aqueueaqueue 2y ago
  The intent of the Magna Carta was to give more rights to barons.
- eesmith 2y ago
  Birthright citizenship for whites was already long-established common law (eg, Lynch v. Clarke, 1844). Quoting from US vs. Wong Kim Ark at https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 > Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the civil rights act of 1866 or the adoption of the constitutional amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States. Thus, even without the 14th Amendment at least some of those 250,000 to 400,000 children born each year in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants - the white ones - would still be US citizens, barring a law otherwise. And there has been no law otherwise, because of the 14th. If you want to say the loophole is that non-white US-born children of foreign citizens mistakenly got a right that was only meant to apply to former slaves, then go ahead and say that. But we can read the discussion in Congress at the time and see they were well aware that it applied to more than ex-slaves. From https://web.archive.org/web/20210114215253/https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073%2Fllcg073.db&recNum=11 https://web.archive.org/web/20210114215253/https://memory.lo... and the following page we see Mr. Cowan ask for clarification about the text, as it applies to foreigners: > Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen? If so, what rights have they? ... is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race? Are they to be immigrated out of house and home by Chinese? I should think not. Mr. Conness [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Conness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Conness] replies: > The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. Oh man, he goes on to point out how all the recent talk about Gypsies, when they are so few in number, cannot be but to cause political agitation, then referring to actions of "our "southern brethren", who I will not say invaded California" were there as "road agents" (but actually highway robbers), and California hanged them as California did not recognize the commission of Jefferson Davis within their borders. In any case, the evidence is quite clear that this "loophole" was fully discussed and understood as a goal of the amendment. That is why Mr. Conness, an abolitionist and advocate for Chinese immigration, advocated for its passage. Nope. This "loophole" nonsense is naught but political agitation.

clipsy 2y ago

> It has nothing to do with US Citizens How do you decide who is a US Citizen?

tailefer 2y ago

Both sets of my grandparents came to the U.S. from Europe (France and Belgium) just before WW II. They did not become citizens. My father and mother were born in the U.S. and lived here all their lives. I was born in the U.S. and have also lived here all of my life. Am I a U.S. citizen? If so, what proof can I provide that doesn't rely on the "loophole"?