
Yes that is a bad amendment and shouldn’t have been written like that. Do you know why? Because countries like china have literal birth tourism industries. Does it make sense to you that someone can fly from china have a baby here and immediately leave the country and that child is an American citizen for life? Can you PLEASE explain to me how the amendment was written correctly without any obvious flaws and loopholes?
Look I’m not saying the system is perfect in any way. Just because I think people shouldn’t be put in detention centers and deported without due process doesn’t mean I think everything else is perfect. I think that it’s important, both for immigrants and for citizens, for the government to know who’s in the country, where they live, and what jobs they have. This way we would be able to provide resources to everybody who needs them.
The due process is determining if they are citizens or not. Nobody that is an actual citizen would be held in detention centers unless you’re one of those stupid assholes that think they are above the law and refuse to show id. Citizenship is very easy to prove. Any changes to this system is blocked by Supreme Court justices thinking you have allegiance to a country if you’re subject to its laws. I’d rather overthrow cartels and narco governments than allow millions of people across the border
That’s why we aren’t talking about retroactively revoking citizenship instead of just blocking them from being citizens in the first place through a bad amendment. Obviously I don’t think it’s bad that slaves and natives got citizenship. Also I think it is better for a child to stay with their parents if neither is a citizen instead of staying in the country. I hate when people use the child’s birthright citizenship as a way to say “you can’t deport them because the child won’t have a family”