Is this news? They have stated they want to and attempted to end birthright citizenship more then once.
this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2026
299 points (99.3% liked)
politics
30506 readers
2315 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Republicans who support this are just racists. No more. No less. Whether these Republicans are insane, incompetent, or evil, they are simply wrong. Stop discriminating against American babies!
Republicans ~~who support this~~ are just racists.
At this point, if you're still hanging around with the fascists, you've become a fascist.
This is a fair criticism. We are deep into a second Trump Presidency so there's no more excuses to being ignorant of the complicit fascism. We live in the information age of the 21st Century. It's past time to be ignorant or ill-informed of softly supporting evil.
Immigration law in the US is and has always has been racist. The first federal immigration law was called the Chinese Exclusion act for fucks sake.
Not sure which way that one goes but in my mind it's a coin toss between "Chinese Exclusion" meaning to exclude Chinese from a general immigration ban (so they can provide cheap labour to railway makers) or to exclude Chinese from immigration (because racism).
load more comments
(5 replies)
John McCain wouldn't have been a citizen if this law had been in place at the time of his birth.
Not that they give a shit.
...both his parents were American?
He was born in Panama
Being born literally within the borders of the US is not the only way to be a birthright citizen.
The Republican party now recognizes that McCain was a loser, because winners don't get caught. If Trump wanted to revoke McCain's citizenship post-mortem, some scumsucker in the House would draft a bill.
Oh look, the fascists are doing racist shit. Must be a day that ends with a “y”.
Okay but anyone born in DC doesn’t get to be a citizen either.
These people are so hateful.
Most people in DC are pretty progressive, actually
I meant kids born to politicians working in DC would not be citizens.
I don’t actually want any of this. I was just making a point.
Politicians are rich. For every rich family, you have like a dozen families supporting their existence.
So the vast majority of the DC population is not rich, and they're mostly progressive.
That isn’t relevant to my point.
This is about politicians causing harm to other families in a way they would be upset about if it happened to them.
My point was that if DC was treated the same they wouldn’t do it. And, if they wouldn’t allow it to happen in DC they should not be doing it to other people either.
They just want to hurt brown people.
Again, I am not actually advocating for people in DC to not be US citizens. I was just pointing out their hypocrisy.
And yet I'm sure these great thinkers don't want to admit any of these territories as states, and they don't want to relinquish their claims over them, so... What? They want to create an underclass of people on US soil who aren't a part of any nation?
Disgusting.
I mean, yes, they want to create an underclass of people in US soil by any metric possible.
That's, like, literally the entire point of conservatism.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Colonies*
Make it retroactive, then kick everyone out back to their country of origin.
Let the natives take back their land and govern in their ancestral way.
Problem solved.
Republicans: Yes, I support this, because I am from America and obviously it means they'll kick out everyone but us.
Let the natives take back their land and govern in their ancestral way.
I propose we do that with just the Dakotas. The whole state can go back to native hands. However, as I'm in a monkey's paw type of mood, there's a catch! Any person of Native American ancestry can live in the new Dakota territories...as long as they're willing to live entirely by the pre-Columbian lifestyle of those who lived in the area. You can have the Dakota, but only if you're willing to live a life hunting buffalo...without horses, firearms, or modern technology of any kind!
What a stupid idea.
Why deprive them of the technology that can help them be better stewards of the land? Why deprive them of any benefit of new technology? Why force them to suffer inadequate housing after how the whole land was destroyed and we are now facing global warming, climate catastrophes and the like? Why now allow them to grow more resilient crops thanks to genetics?
C'mon man.
I just want more whimsy in the world!
In fact, whimsy is pretty high on my priorities list!
So they got shot down in court (by their own hand-picked court, no less!) for trying to do this nationwide, and now they think they can do it in US territories, like that's a special case where the US Constitution doesn't apply?
load more comments
(4 replies)
Not that they care, probably, but doesn't this run against UN conventions because these people would essentially be stateless?
Birthright citizenship is by no means the standard. It's not rare, but most of the world does not use it. Most of them are in the Americas, but that whole thing gets complicated.
Most countries grant citizenship to the children of their citizens. IOW, the child inherits citizenship from its parents. If nothing else, the mother is going to be known by nature of the birth, and the child would have at least her citizenship.
(Exceptions exist, but they exist for Jus Soli as well)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Twofold thoughts on this. First, it's the same thing they do everywhere: if they can't get the big win, they start chipping away at the edges, the fringe cases that let them establish precedents they can use later.
And secondly, it's a defensive move, to further differentiate the territories from the states, so that future efforts to give statehood to these areas will fail. In a really cynical viewpoint, it establishes subservient status for territories, including future "acquisitions" like they keep referring to
Wouldn't that be unconstitutional unless those territories are removed from US jurisdiction?
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›