Legislative Proposal : Children Born Of Illegal Immigrants To Receive Citizenship Of Mother

[Monk-Eye]

" Abating Non Sense Perspectives on Legal Standing Collective Agreements "

* Contemplating An Obvious Lacking Of Consensus Of This Stare Decisis *

Birthright citizenship is one reason why America is exceptional.

A clause for us citizenship by birth for those within its technical jurisdiction is not changing.
The country of origin , for foreign nationals traveling abroad and who are not technically within us jurisdiction , are responsible for issuing a retort and reprise for violations of civil liberties for its citizens .
An endowment of use citizenship , even it is alleged to be a protection , does not apply to children of sojourners who are themselves not technically within us jurisdiction .

Yes it does.
See Wok v Kim.

The case of wok kim ark represents a different schema from that of illegal immigrants because the parents of wok kim ark were legal residents of the the us at the time of his birth .

A pretense of the us versus wok decision is that the parents of wok were in legal compliance with us law - whereas migrants sojourning without us legal jurisdiction are not in legal compliance with us law , hence the court would have ruled in favor of the state to deny citizenship had that been the scenario of wok .

Irrespective for whether legislation could be devise and litigated through courts of contention , the us state department should establish a foreign policy to establish the citizenship status of children born on us soil to parents who are not technically within us jurisdiction and sojourning illegaly , be provided citizenship from the country of origin for the mother .

If a foreign governments already extends citizenship to children born of its citizens sojourning abroad , then us policy should facilitate that process , while withholding an extension for us citizenship , whereby a humanitarian crisis where individuals are without citizenship in some country of origin is mitigated , even as other methods to provide relief for current constitutional compromises ensues .

Legislation should be passed so that this contemporary issue can be challenged .

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898),[1] is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled 6–2 that a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese nationality who at the time had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and were carrying on business there but not as employees of the Chinese government, automatically became a U.S. citizen.[2] This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco in 1873, to Chinese parents who were legally domiciled and resident there at the time and not employed by the Chinese government, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed the circumstances of his birth.

The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to at least some children born of foreigners because they were born on American soil (a concept known as jus soli). The court's dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power—that is, not being claimed as a citizen by another country via jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent)—an interpretation which, in the minority's view, would have excluded "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country".[3]

In the words of a 2007 legal analysis of events following the Wong Kim Ark decision, "The parameters of the jus soli principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts."[4] A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that the Wong Kim Ark decision held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship "applies to children of foreigners present on American soil" and states that the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language".[5] Since the 1990s, however, controversy has arisen over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and legal scholars disagree over whether the Wong Kim Ark precedent applies when alien parents are in the country illegally.[6][7] Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress to restrict birthright citizenship, either via statutory redefinition of the term jurisdiction, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through an amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has been enacted.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Side Stepped Over Drawn Circumstances "

* Addressing Long Term Compromises *

With your stipulation you put the hospital in a position where they need to verify legal status in order to receive funds for services. So if sick people show up and are not citizens, what do you think the hospital should do? Turn them away? Or treat them and eat the costs?
Furthermore, you probably understand that the stipulation further complicates this issue because now the hospitals need to verify citizenship prior to treating all patients. The scenario we are talking about before required them to verify citizenship just to issue a birth certificate it. A much bigger logistical nightmare with the stipulation

This issue does not apply to all emergencies , rather it applies to emergencies that are for the delivery of a child and it should apply for all agencies which issue birth certificates that includes home deliveries .

It is being suggested that during a 24 hour medical stay at a hospital to deliver a child that it would not be possible to verify legal status of a patient mother ?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

" Legislative Proposal : Children Born Of Illegal Immigrants To Receive Citizenship Of Mother "

* Legislative Proposal Artifacts *

A first principle of self defense is that when a citizen travels abroad , its state of origin remains responsible for issuing a retort and for reprising any violations of its civil liberties , and such is a purpose for travel agreements .

A key element defining jurisdiction of us state , as it applies to citizenship , is identified in the second article of Section 1 of US 14th Amendment and evident from the phrase " .. nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction .. " , which correlates with the phrase " within its jurisdiction " in the first article of Section 1 of US 14th Amendment .

Together the first principle of self defense and the two articles of within its " jurisdiction " of Section 1 of US 14th Amendment delineate a technical legal predicate that us constitution does not guarantee equal protection to foreign nationals without legal immigrant status ; and , consequently , children of illegal immigrants are not entitled to us citizenship .

** Legislative Proposal Conclusions **

One thing true of a collective state is that its citizens determine policies for accepting additional members as citizens of its collective state .

Children of individuals who are not legal immigrants are not within us jurisdiction and should be given citizenship to the country of origin for their mother .

This treatise does not digress as to whether citizenship is a protection or an endowment .


** References **

*** Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


* Ivory Tower Mundane City Libertarian Oligarchs Closet Key Hole Out Lets *

The oh ba ma administration maintained a public comment line for suggestions , while captain strump appears to maintain an autocratic regard that political perceptions for meritocracy from plebeians be resigned to a realm irrelevance .

Another example of limited us jurisdiction is foreign envoys who seek agreements with foreign government not to be arrested for any crime while visiting .

More ignorant nonsense.

Persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States, regardless the citizenship of the parents, regardless the immigration status of the parents, or a lack thereof.

That can’t be changed through legislative action.

And amending the Constitution to ‘repeal’ the 14th Amendment is moronic idiocy.

The thread premise is just another example of the ignorance, bigotry, racism, and hate far too many have concerning immigrants, and an unwarranted fear of immigration.

Our inalienable rights manifest as a consequence of being human; those rights can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man – and those rights and citizenship are recognized the moment one is born in the United States.

 

[Toro]

" Abating Non Sense Perspectives on Legal Standing Collective Agreements "

* Contemplating An Obvious Lacking Of Consensus Of This Stare Decisis *

Birthright citizenship is one reason why America is exceptional.

A clause for us citizenship by birth for those within its technical jurisdiction is not changing.
The country of origin , for foreign nationals traveling abroad and who are not technically within us jurisdiction , are responsible for issuing a retort and reprise for violations of civil liberties for its citizens .
An endowment of use citizenship , even it is alleged to be a protection , does not apply to children of sojourners who are themselves not technically within us jurisdiction .

Yes it does.
See Wok v Kim.

The case of wok kim ark represents a different schema from that of illegal immigrants because the parents of wok kim ark were legal residents of the the us at the time of his birth .

A pretense of the us versus wok decision is that the parents of wok were in legal compliance with us law - whereas migrants sojourning without us legal jurisdiction are not in legal compliance with us law , hence the court would have ruled in favor of the state to deny citizenship had that been the scenario of wok .

Irrespective for whether legislation could be devise and litigated through courts of contention , the us state department should establish a foreign policy to establish the citizenship status of children born on us soil to parents who are not technically within us jurisdiction and sojourning illegaly , be provided citizenship from the country of origin for the mother .

If a foreign governments already extends citizenship to children born of its citizens sojourning abroad , then us policy should facilitate that process , while withholding an extension for us citizenship , whereby a humanitarian crisis where individuals are without citizenship in some country of origin is mitigated , even as other methods to provide relief for current constitutional compromises ensues .

Legislation should be passed so that this contemporary issue can be challenged .

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898),[1] is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled 6–2 that a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese nationality who at the time had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and were carrying on business there but not as employees of the Chinese government, automatically became a U.S. citizen.[2] This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco in 1873, to Chinese parents who were legally domiciled and resident there at the time and not employed by the Chinese government, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed the circumstances of his birth.

The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to at least some children born of foreigners because they were born on American soil (a concept known as jus soli). The court's dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power—that is, not being claimed as a citizen by another country via jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent)—an interpretation which, in the minority's view, would have excluded "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country".[3]

In the words of a 2007 legal analysis of events following the Wong Kim Ark decision, "The parameters of the jus soli principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts."[4] A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that the Wong Kim Ark decision held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship "applies to children of foreigners present on American soil" and states that the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language".[5] Since the 1990s, however, controversy has arisen over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and legal scholars disagree over whether the Wong Kim Ark precedent applies when alien parents are in the country illegally.[6][7] Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress to restrict birthright citizenship, either via statutory redefinition of the term jurisdiction, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through an amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has been enacted.

Wrong.

The court ruled in 1975 that illegals were entitled to equal protection under the 14th amendment.

Plyler v. Doe

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

" Legislative Proposal : Children Born Of Illegal Immigrants To Receive Citizenship Of Mother "

* Legislative Proposal Artifacts *

A first principle of self defense is that when a citizen travels abroad , its state of origin remains responsible for issuing a retort and for reprising any violations of its civil liberties , and such is a purpose for travel agreements .

A key element defining jurisdiction of us state , as it applies to citizenship , is identified in the second article of Section 1 of US 14th Amendment and evident from the phrase " .. nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction .. " , which correlates with the phrase " within its jurisdiction " in the first article of Section 1 of US 14th Amendment .

Together the first principle of self defense and the two articles of within its " jurisdiction " of Section 1 of US 14th Amendment delineate a technical legal predicate that us constitution does not guarantee equal protection to foreign nationals without legal immigrant status ; and , consequently , children of illegal immigrants are not entitled to us citizenship .

** Legislative Proposal Conclusions **

One thing true of a collective state is that its citizens determine policies for accepting additional members as citizens of its collective state .

Children of individuals who are not legal immigrants are not within us jurisdiction and should be given citizenship to the country of origin for their mother .

This treatise does not digress as to whether citizenship is a protection or an endowment .


** References **

*** Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


* Ivory Tower Mundane City Libertarian Oligarchs Closet Key Hole Out Lets *

The oh ba ma administration maintained a public comment line for suggestions , while captain strump appears to maintain an autocratic regard that political perceptions for meritocracy from plebeians be resigned to a realm irrelevance .

Another example of limited us jurisdiction is foreign envoys who seek agreements with foreign government not to be arrested for any crime while visiting .

Children of illegals or even legal immigrants or "visitors" are kind of in a no mans land and it is a terrible spot for them to be in.

On one hand I am whole heartedly against anchor babies or green card vacationing Chinese babies.
I feel like this is just a loop hole foreigners use to get a foothold in the door while bypassing the proper methods.
At the same time the US can not assign Mexican citizenship to a child born here any more than the Mexican government can assign US status to someone born there.
Thereby leaving an innocent baby in perpetual limbo if countries want to play stupid.
In a perfect world your citizenship should be aligned with your parents legal citizenship status at the time of your birth.

Ultimately this is the fault of OUR GOVERNMENT for not controlling our fucking borders as they are COMMANDED to do. AS THEY WERE CREATED TO DO.
Washington DC and the principles behind our founding were not created to provide welfare for everyone. Their FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT role is the safety and SECURITY of the AMERICAN people.

Build the wall. Cut back on green cards and education based visas and FIX OUR FUCKING IMMIGRATION SYSTEM.

Then

Revisit everything on a system based on Americas needs vs the merits of the individual seeking entry.


We are paying people to hose down HUMAN SHIT in California so don't tell me we can't do it.

GET YOUR FUCKING PRIORITIES STRAIGHT.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Court Exceeded In Bandwagon Nonsense "

* Wading Through Red Tape *

Wrong.
The court ruled in 1975 that illegals were entitled to equal protection under the 14th amendment.
Plyler v. Doe

Plyler v. Doe decision stipulates that any individual ( per son - sic ) is entitled to due process such that schools could not have funds withheld from them without the necessary due process for having the illegal migrants removed .

A requirement to extend citizenship is a completely different civil liberty.

 

[WillowTree]

Citizenship is defined by the country at hand. Whether or not a child is a citizen of another country is dependent only on what that country recognizes. America can't legally declare someone a citizen of another country.

If a baby is born in another country and the mother and/or parents are American citizens the child is American. We went through that with Rubio and Cruz during the 2016 primaries. But a Mexican woman can spawn her git in Texas and the baby is an American. Fucked up system.

My son was born in the US so he’s an American citizen. But because my wife and I are Canadian, he is also a Canadian citizen. That’s because both the US and Canada have laws defining citizenship. My son is a Canadian citizen because Canadian law gives him Canadian citizenship. American law is irrelevant to whether or not Canada gives citizenship to my son.

Did you and your wife plan on delivering your child in the US so he could gain citizenship?

No.

But that doesn’t matter.

America is the greatest country in the world. Why wouldn’t a mother want the best for her child?

She should, as long as she does it legally! Sneaking across our borders just to give a child American citizenship is just wrong and we need to change that!

 

[rightwinger]

Requires a cOnstitutional ammendment

 

[Coyote]

Citizenship is defined by the country at hand. Whether or not a child is a citizen of another country is dependent only on what that country recognizes. America can't legally declare someone a citizen of another country.

If a baby is born in another country and the mother and/or parents are American citizens the child is American. We went through that with Rubio and Cruz during the 2016 primaries. But a Mexican woman can spawn her git in Texas and the baby is an American. Fucked up system.

And an American woman can spawn her git in Mexico, and the baby will have Mexican citizenship. In fact, up until my brother reached his age of majority - he had dual citizenship with the US and India because he was born in India.

It's kind of interesting - it's called Jus soli....and most New World countries, including US and Canada have it. Jus soli - Wikipedia

 

[Coyote]

I don't think we need to change it.

 

[ColonelAngus]

This is a misandrous proposal. #metoo

 

[Hossfly]

I don't think we need to change it.

I think it should be changed to deny illegals birthrights. I'm sure the founders never considered the problem. In their day people did things legally.

 

[Coyote]

I don't think we need to change it.

I think it should be changed to deny illegals birthrights. I'm sure the founders never considered the problem. In their day people did things legally.

There was no legal or illegal immigration then....

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Discouraging Defeatist Perspectives "

* Take Advantage Of A Clear Path To Move Ahead *

I don't think we need to change it.

I think it should be changed to deny illegals birthrights. I'm sure the founders never considered the problem. In their day people did things legally.

The constitution does not need to be changed .

The policy needs to be passed as legislation and forced into a court challenge to establish it within the legislative body of law .

It was clearly established in post #41 and post #46 of this thread that challenges before SCOTUS have thus far been insufficient to dismiss a constitutional premise that children of illegal immigrants are not entitled to an endowment of citizenship by us 14th amendment , irrespective of whether they are entitled to a protection of due process by us 5th amendment .

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Citizenship is defined by the country at hand. Whether or not a child is a citizen of another country is dependent only on what that country recognizes. America can't legally declare someone a citizen of another country.

If a baby is born in another country and the mother and/or parents are American citizens the child is American. We went through that with Rubio and Cruz during the 2016 primaries. But a Mexican woman can spawn her git in Texas and the baby is an American. Fucked up system.

My son was born in the US so he’s an American citizen. But because my wife and I are Canadian, he is also a Canadian citizen. That’s because both the US and Canada have laws defining citizenship. My son is a Canadian citizen because Canadian law gives him Canadian citizenship. American law is irrelevant to whether or not Canada gives citizenship to my son.

I can understand that. My son was born in Germany and he has dual citizenship. You were legal as was my son but I can't understand why an illegal can have a baby and he is automatically a US citizen and his extended family can live like kings on free shit. That's why the amendment needs to be changed

Do you think your son deserves his German citizenship?

Absolutely. I was in the Army in Washington and my wife was not an American citizen at that time. She went to her hometown in Germany for his birth. Because of his mother he was born as a German but because of me he was also a US citizen. After he was born they came back to Washington.

No disrespect is intended. However, since you likely have no DNA test, by what right is your son an American? You may not be the actual father.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I don't think we need to change it.

I think it should be changed to deny illegals birthrights. I'm sure the founders never considered the problem. In their day people did things legally.

There was no legal or illegal immigration then....

Also, the 14th Amendment was not a product of the Founding Fathers.

 

[Correll]

Show me a country that would not consider the child of one of their female citizens, to be one of their citizens.

Irrelevant.

American law cannot deem the citizenship of other countries.

THe fact that nations give citizenship to the children their female citizens give birth to, is relevant because it is the standard and normal way that citizenship is given.


Pretending that a baby conceived in Mexico, to a Mexican Father and a Mexican Mother, and gestated in Mexico for 9 months, is an American, because the mother darted across the border just before the baby dropped,


is absurd.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Birthright citizenship was key to that because America was an ideal to the founders. We wouldn’t be defined by our bloodlines, as they were in Europe.

That is a romantic theory, but it doesn't align with history very well. You are suggesting that a division between citizen and noncitizen was a de facto caste system when in fact the predominant expressions of European castes were fully encompassed by citizenship for most of history. The legacy of our founders was to reinvent the concept of citizenship in ways that allowed it to effectively become weaponized to stratify the general public, and to be the first to establish rules and requirements for citizenship based on bloodlines.

In the classical world citizenship was more about obligations than rights. Aristotle once said that only gods and animals were outside of the purview of citizenship obligations. While this created a quasi-aristocracy function for citizenship by Roman times, there was little actual hereditary privilege involved in citizenship. Sparta had been exceptional, not normal, in its strict hereditary obligations for citizenship, and their example ultimately proved a failure. By the fall of the western Roman empire, the prevailing theory of citizenship was primarily a socio-economic model. Human status was defined by the ability to own possessions and to engage in commerce. A citizen was free while a slave was owned.

In the middle ages citizenship became largely a feature of geographic location, premised on a reciprocity of loyalty and protection between a subject and a city's prince. Much of the Classical social stratifications became either useless or were supplanted by emerging feudalism. Thus, aristocracy proper emerged by stratifying citizens based on material possession, but re-enforcing membership in the state with membership of the community. The result was that many of the privilege based associations with citizenship were once again restricted among the general population (reserving them to the noble aristocracy) while the responsibilities of general citizenship were simplified to monetary form, i.e. being subject to taxation by the prince. Essentially, it was the beginning of second class citizenship. But citizenship so stratified would not prove stable over the long term. The middle ages were defined by continual fluctuations in the privileges of divergent classes of citizens, and that fluctuation would continue through the enlightenment era of our founders.

While those fluctuations have trended toward a more homogeneous single class citizenry, substantial stratification was clearly evident in colonial, Revolutionary era, and post-Revolutionary America. The persistence of slavery is the clearest example. The framers even enshrined divergent classes of citizenry in our constitution, mandating natural born citizenry as a requirement for the Presidency. But our founders went a step further, adopting new theories of citizenship by applying old ones.

Keeping with Aristotle's idea of animals, citizens (humans), and gods, our nation's first ever statute addressing citizenship established blanket racial restrictions for naturalization, allowing only white European descendants to become citizens. Non-European savages were as good as animals, and therefore were not suitable for citizenship in any way that the white man was obliged to respect. Free blacks might own land or other possessions, but were not inherently entitled to citizenship. A white European, regardless of wealth or possession, who lived in the US for two years could petition his local court for American citizenship and the court was obliged to grant him citizenship upon determining that the petitioner was of good moral character. Furthermore, foreign born children of American citizens were declared by the law to be natural born citizens of the US (though with stipulations that required US residency at some point during the parent's life).

While material possession remained important in the stratification of citizenship's privileges, citizenship itself was shifted from material possession to indeterminate moral possession and hereditary considerations. The vision of citizenship by our founders was closer to the extraordinary example of Sparta. There were slaves, there were free noncitizens who could never achieve it citizenship but were permitted to engage in commerce, and then there the exclusive citizenry who reaped the rewards of the others and whose citizenship was generally passed by blood.

When the infamous Dred Scott case went before the Supreme Court, Justice Taney noted that American concepts of citizenship had always been defined by bloodlines, and therefore the blacks could never be inherently endowed with any rights to citizenship under the existing laws of the time. It wasn't until the 14th amendment that we finally disposed of that tragic injustice.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Social Retrograde Promoting Emotional Gluts "

* Oh Shut The Flock Up *

Non-European savages were as good as animals, and therefore were not suitable for citizenship in any way that the white man was obliged to respect.

Considering the homogeneous non " pale leo " populations globally , given historical contention for survival and imperialism , perhaps explain where " whitey " should pander to an inane accusation that it is some sort of devil of supremacy for concerning itself with its own well being and self determination .

In fact , go start you own thread rather than attempting to derail this one with a post that contributes nothing by way of addressing the topic of this thread , that illegal immigrants are not entitled to citizenship by birth according to us 14th amendment .

* Long Term Memory Loss For Ridiculous Revisionism Of History *

Europe had to contend with these fictional ishmaelism ass clowns - Ottoman Empire - Wikipedia
Europe had to contend with these fictional ishmaelism ass clowns - Umayyad conquest of Hispania - Wikipedia
Africa population - 1.2922 billion - Population of Africa (2018) - Worldometers
Asia population - 4.550 billion - Population of Asia (2018) - Worldometers
Europe population - 0.7427 billion - Population of Europe (2018) - Worldometers
North America Population - 0.4362 billion - Population of Northern America (2018) - Worldometers
Latin America population - 0.6529 billion Population of Latin America and the Caribbean (2018) - Worldometers
Oceania Population - 0.04133 billion - Population of Oceania (2018) - Worldometers

 

[BrokeLoser]

But we can declare them not a citizen of ours!

Birthright citizenship is one reason why America is exceptional.

Fuck yeah....a birthright citizenship nation with kick-ass welfare offerings...Hmm, but I’m sure thirdworlders look right past that...they just want to pick oranges.