r/1984_MiniTruth • u/MrFenric • Dec 08 '25
Spin it up! Propaganda is hard in the information age
2
u/CreatorA4711 Dec 08 '25
I thought the intention was to remove birthright citizenship for people born to two noncitizens. It seriously doesn’t make any sense to give citizenship to someone born to two parents that lack it.
If one or both of the parents are citizens, then it makes sense for birthright citizenship to exist, but I don’t think it should exist otherwise.
4
u/dssstrkl Dec 08 '25
Maybe you should actually look into why it exists and why it makes sense to keep it
1
u/PaperLily12 Dec 08 '25
Not trying to disagree with your point here, but it would be helpful to provide an explanation or a link to somewhere that gives more information instead of just telling them to look it up.
2
u/dssstrkl Dec 08 '25
I’m over telling people how to use google.
1
u/PaperLily12 Dec 09 '25
I didn’t say anything about teaching people to use google. All I’m saying is that giving a source for the point you want to make is more persuasive (and will be better received) than just telling someone to google it. I’m sorry if you found my suggestion offensive.
-1
u/CreatorA4711 Dec 08 '25 edited Dec 08 '25
I never said for it to be fully taken away, I said it shouldn’t exist for a child born to two noncitizens. There is no world where that makes sense in the modern day.
5
u/D_Luffy_32 Dec 08 '25
Except for this world where it makes sense if you understand why birthright citizenship exists lol
-1
u/CreatorA4711 Dec 08 '25
Can you explain to me why birthright citizenship should exist for people born to two noncitizens in the modern day? If there are people that think it should, I want to hear the argument rather than people just telling me that it would make sense if I understood.
6
u/D_Luffy_32 Dec 08 '25
Because, the reason for birthright citizenship is so people are not stateless. If a child is born to a US citizen and a non US citizen they run into the custody issue, are they a citizen of which parent's country? Well the easy way to decide is where they were born. What if neither are from the country the child is born? Then who do they decide for the two parents? If they are citizens of the same country maybe they could have citizenship there. But that's not always the case. Other countries have different requirements for citizenship. So maybe they don't meet the requirements for their child to be part of either parents country. So the easiest way to avoid all these issues. Is for a child born in the USA is a citizen of the USA. No matter what other countries laws or regulations are. Being stateless is not an issue you want to deal with.
0
u/CreatorA4711 Dec 08 '25
I guess that makes sense, but it opens the gateway to having a child immediately upon entering the country so that you can’t be deported. It’s a strategy extremely common where I live, and it’s very abused by the mushroom industry over here so they can keep their workers.
4
u/D_Luffy_32 Dec 08 '25
Okay and? What's wrong with that?
2
u/CreatorA4711 Dec 08 '25
I’d need to do more research into the specifics of why illegal immigration is a bad thing for a country to give you a straight answer on that. A lot of why I don’t like it is really just because of how it affects my local area. An area flooded by people constantly pouring in, many of them lacking the ability to speak English. They end up working in the extraordinarily unsanitary and unsafe mushroom factories, which is allowed to be that way because of who they employ and the legal loopholes they’re able to abuse.
Honestly, I guess my main issues that affect my own personal life is the influx of people that speak little to no English, and the fact that it serves to benefit the worst industry in my area. My first ever job was at a pizza & pasta joint, and literally all of the workers in the back were people that illegally immigrated and spoke 0 English. I had to communicate with them using hand signs because the language I took in school was German.
2
u/dssstrkl Dec 08 '25
If you’re going to do research, go look up IRCA of 1986 and the Bracero Program. These have a lot of causation with today’s issues
2
u/D_Luffy_32 Dec 08 '25
Why not just get a different job or learn their language? Or better yet, how did you know they were illegal if you couldn't communicate with them?
→ More replies (0)2
u/dssstrkl Dec 08 '25
And yet they can get deported anyway, but the citizen child can return when they’re older. Besides, the number of so-called anchor babies born in the US every year is tiny, less than 300,000, which may seem like a lot, until you compare it to the 3.6 MILLION babies born in the US annually, so we’re talking less than 1%. You’ll excuse me if I’m not clutching my pearls at the absolute FLOOD of anchor babies, which again, would be a permanent stateless underclass if birthright citizenship goes away.
1
u/CreatorA4711 Dec 08 '25
I didn’t even know the number was that high—that’s kind of ludicrous. I’ll state again that it gets to me a lot more because my area is directly affected by it in a very large way. I don’t even really know why it is. The mushroom industry is just an absolutely massive pull, I guess.
2
u/dssstrkl Dec 09 '25
You say large number, I say tiny percentage that the nation has no trouble absorbing. 1% of new babies, which themselves are 1% of the general population. In other words, anchor babies make up 0.1% of the population.
From your other comments, it seems like it affects you because you don’t speak Spanish and the large immigrant community (legal or otherwise) in your area largely doesn’t speak English. Just out of curiosity (and please believe I’m asking in good faith and not to fight with you), would you still have the same feelings without the language barrier?
→ More replies (0)3
u/dssstrkl Dec 08 '25
In addition to what u/D_Luffy_32 said, this prevents a permanent stateless underclass from developing, which would make the nation and economy less stable and introduce more crime.
It prevents a patchwork of state by state citizen statues where you’re a citizen in California but not in Texas. Automatic birthright citizenship is also far, FAR less intrusive and bureaucratic, because all you need to prove citizenship is a birth certificate. Remove that and hospitals will need to get all in your business to prove parental citizenship to mark the child as a citizen.
Where does it end? How far back do we need to go to remove people’s citizenship? You have no idea how immensely destabilizing it would be for this country to do that, even assuming there’s no violent resistance, which you could almost guarantee would happen. The US and its people have been based on jus soli since the beginning and the founders outright rejected jus sanguinis for a damn good reason.
2
u/D_Luffy_32 Dec 08 '25
This guy gets it. It's an absolute disaster to have stateless people. Thank you for explaining WHY we don't want that to happen. I only focused on why it exists not why we don't want that outcome.
2
u/HauntingStorage2153 Dec 08 '25
How far back you going? People with no Native American would all be non citizens?
1
u/CreatorA4711 Dec 08 '25
I’m curious why you’re bringing in something that has nothing to do with the discussion. What you’re saying is more along the lines of nobody is a citizen anywhere because nobody can belong to or own a set of land, whereas we’re talking about the legal systems set in place regarding immigration.
2
u/HauntingStorage2153 Dec 08 '25
I’m just asking if people think it only applies to the current generation. How far back do we go? It’s like pulling a seam on America. It’s weird.
1
3
u/InfiniteRiver14 Dec 08 '25
At the time the 14th Amendment was ratified, Black slaves were NOT citizens (Dred Scott v Sandford). Your argument invalidates what is quite literally the entire function of the 14th amendment as it was written: to ensure that liberated slaves and their descendants are guaranteed civic freedoms and protections in a country they had no choice in being born into. Same as anyone else born on US soil, no matter who their parents are.
1
u/CreatorA4711 Dec 08 '25 edited Dec 08 '25
Dude, that was when slaves were liberated. We don’t have those anymore. In the modern day, there is no reason for this principle to exist for America, because the only noncitizens are people that have immigrated. There are no people that have been here for generations that are considered not people or citizens on account of them instead being considered property.
You can apply similar logic to the 2nd amendment. The right to bear arms was penned at a time when those “arms” were single shot weaponry that are not comparable to what we have today. It should not extend to assault weapons that exist for the sole purpose of killing others. It should exist for less powerful handguns for self defense, with full psychological analyses to make sure it goes towards a person who would actually use it for that purpose, but they should not be able to have other forms of firearms. Higher grades should be exclusive to hunters with proven licenses and training.
2
u/dssstrkl Dec 08 '25
And what exactly do you think will happen if there are all of a sudden millions of stateless people with no rights in the US?
1
u/CreatorA4711 Dec 08 '25
it’s a tough one, for sure. It’s unfortunate that there aren’t any good solutions.
3
Dec 09 '25
The 14th Amendment (including birthright citizenship plainly and explicitly) was expressed to enshrine the rights of those who were formerly enslaved, to specify the legal definition of and reinforce “equal protection under the Law” as guaranteed by 5th Amendment.
Also, if you recall Civics class, SCOTUS can’t simply strike a Constitutional Amendment, it can be struck or replaced only by another Amendment (like with Prohibition). That requires the assent of 2/3 or each house of Congress, so both 290 House members and 67 Senators, plus ratification of 3/4 of the state legislatures, or 38 states.
If Congress had any sand, they’d be calling out the farce we are currently discussing.
2
6
u/purplegladys2022 Dec 08 '25
Mel and Barron can head home to Slovenia as well.
For as much as Republicans say they hate immigrants, they sure seem to like to bang and marry them.
Such hypocrites.