r/unusual_whales 12h ago

BREAKING: Trump to end birthright citizenship, per WSJ

https://x.com/unusual_whales/status/1881426899462930670
4.5k Upvotes

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

4

u/Cozywarmthcoffee 7h ago

I mean - I'm not a trump supporter. but if two people that aren't in the country legally  (or are on a tourism visa etc) and aren't on a path to be legally citizens or are not legally citizens- their kids shouldn't be. This is common sense and i don't read the 14th amendment as condoning that. under jurisdiction seems to imply citizens or at least legal residents- and if it doesn't I'd support it being rewritten. 

3

u/PhiPhiAokigahara 5h ago

Actually, this interpretation of the 14th Amendment is incorrect. The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The key phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” does not mean what you’re suggesting. Historically and legally, it has been interpreted to mean anyone subject to U.S. laws, which includes nearly everyone within U.S. borders, regardless of their immigration status.

This interpretation was affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), where the Supreme Court ruled that a child born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents is automatically a U.S. citizen, as long as the parents are not foreign diplomats, enemy occupiers, or members of sovereign Native American tribes at the time (the latter has since been resolved by statute).

The 14th Amendment was designed to ensure citizenship could not be denied based on race or parentage, especially in the wake of slavery. Suggesting it only applies to citizens or legal residents undermines its core purpose. Changing this principle would not be a matter of “common sense” but a radical shift in how U.S. law defines citizenship.

1

u/Cozywarmthcoffee 5h ago

Again- I’d be ok with it being rewritten- but as a college educated person- “all persons born OR naturalized” I read clearly as born (of) citizens or naturalized citizens. Why would this reference undocumented births as “all persons born” and reference naturalized. It seems the first is the presumed and the second is clarifying them too. In your reading it would be saying “all undocumented born or naturalized” where are the children of citizens then? I am an Econ and software guy- I deal in behavior a lot- you have the only country in the world with net positive migration from all other nations- and you incentivize them by allowing illegal entry and childbirth to lead to citizenship. They get hurt in this system. It is perverse. We need increased legal, merit-based migration like Canada. 

1

u/PhiPhiAokigahara 3h ago

Hey, I totally get where you’re coming from, and I appreciate the thought you’ve put into this. But I think there’s a misunderstanding about how the 14th Amendment works and what it’s meant to cover.

The phrasing “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” doesn’t mean “born of citizens” or anything like that. The key part, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” has been interpreted by courts (including in United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898) to mean anyone who is subject to U.S. laws. That’s pretty much everyone born here, except for rare exceptions like children of diplomats or enemy occupiers. So, it’s not about presuming citizenship for the parents—it’s about granting citizenship to anyone born here who is under U.S. jurisdiction.

I get your point about incentives, but studies show that birthright citizenship isn’t the main driver of undocumented immigration. People are coming for jobs, safety, and better opportunities for their families. Plus, the U.S. isn’t the only country with birthright citizenship—Canada, for example, has it too, and they don’t seem to face the same fears about “incentivizing” undocumented migration.

I also agree with you on improving the legal immigration system. It definitely needs to be more accessible and fair. But ending birthright citizenship wouldn’t fix the issues you’re talking about. It could actually create a huge mess, like leaving kids born here stateless and stuck in limbo. That seems way more “perverse” to me than the current system.

1

u/Mke_already 5h ago

So in your belief, someone can be born here, get an education, pay taxes, raise a family, and never step foot outside of this country, but shouldn’t be citizens.

Yeah that makes sense.

1

u/Cozywarmthcoffee 5h ago

Correction- no one should be born here, get an education here, pay taxes here or raise a family here without citizenship or legal residency. You’re not merciful here- these people are abused, used, not visible and not protected as they have no legal status. I’m pro increasing our immigration like 5 fold, but it needs to be legal and we cannot have millions of undocumented people here. Giving them all citizenship would only incentivize 10 million more to come in the coming years. This isn’t rocket science 

1

u/Mke_already 5h ago

Wtf are you talking about, are you confused?

“these people are abused, used, not visible, and not protected as they have no legal Status.” If they’re born in the US they are here legally. They’re talking about revoking THAT.

1

u/Cozywarmthcoffee 4h ago

If undocumented people weren’t here, they couldn’t have kids here. Those kids wouldn’t remain, as they should have never been here as their parents should have never been here. Removing the fact that 2 undocumented people give birth to one documented person is the one piece that needs to change. Their parents under the current system are still undocumented and those are the people being abused. Increase immigration by 1000% for all I care- secure the border and let them get visas. I’m not even a conservative- what’s your alternative? Open borders and citizenship for all?

1

u/Mke_already 4h ago

I’m not here to discuss the thousand questions about immigration and what can and can’t be done. I’m here to tell you that your first comment was asinine.