Majority support birthright Citizenship

[C_Clayton_Jones]

53% of poll respondents oppose the idea, with only 28% in favor.

That this is even an ‘issue’ is madness.

Trump’s desire to eliminate birthright citizenship is motivated by racism, bigotry, and hate.

 

[Meathead]

Seems like, once again, the tail is trying to wag the dog:

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/15/g-s1-66693/majority-of-americans-oppose-ending-birthright-citizenship-npr-ipsos-poll-finds

As the Supreme Court takes up President Trump's push to end birthright citizenship today, a new NPR/Ipsos poll finds that less than a third of all Americans want to drop the longstanding principle that any child born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen, even as other parts of the White House's immigration crackdown draw wider support.
Public opinion on Trump's proposal to end birthright citizenship, which the vast majority of legal scholars believe is enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, has shifted very little since he announced the plan in an executive order in January. 53% of poll respondents oppose the idea, with only 28% in favor. That's virtually unchanged since an NPR/Ipsos poll in February, when 31% supported the idea of ending birthright citizenship and 54% opposed it.

NPR? Oh Puhleeze.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

NPR? Oh Puhleeze.

Meathead? Oh Puhleeze.

 

[TNHarley]

Of course, if we look at the debates of this, one would know birthright citizenship for tourists is bullshit.

 

[Meathead]

Meathead? Oh Puhleeze.

Meathead doesn't produce skewered polls.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

President Trump did not amend the Constitution.

And no Supreme Court case has ever stated the child of an illegal alien woman is automatically a citizen.

Imagine an Asian nation, where ~3 billion live, builds a flotilla of modern cruise ships, puts several thousand pregnant women on board each vessel, with medical staff, and just steers those ships into the United States territorial waters, and all those babies born are automatically a U.S. citizen.

If SCOTUS ever does rule that someone stealing into America and giving birth and that child is an automatic citizen, Katy Bar the Door.

What, you gonna go to war over that or roll over and play dead?

China has been doing that for decades. California closed several birth tourist hotels. Now the Chinese have an additional way of getting Chinese born in America. They are using surrogates. Pay women thousands to be implanted with a Chinese baby. Then the child goes back to China with an American birth certificate.

 

[dudmuck]

It wasn't written for tourists and illegals.

 

[talksalot]

He didn't benefit from birthright citizenship if he was born in Canada.

Someone screwed up.....lol

 

[80zephyr]

Well..I believe your stats are correct..and I don't care.

If one wishes to change the amendment..then go for it--but we all know that there is not enough public support for that to happen.
I get what the Govt. wants to do..I just believe that it's illegal to do so by XO.

I'm confident that the SCOTUS will see it that way also..especially after listening to the oral arguments today. Most of the Justices..including some the Cons, spoke and acted as though the Birthright question was already decided, joking about how the Govt. had lost every case.
They constantly complained that the actual case was not already in front of them..to be decided on the merits.

Several Justices commented that the Govt. had made no effort to seek Cert.
Justice Kagan joked that if she were in the SG's shoes she'd keep the case as far from the SCOTUS as possible.

I'd not invest too much hope in the court overturning 127 years of precedent.

Why not? Until the 1960's, it was legal to pray in public schools. Then the SCOTUS "discovered" that it should not
be happening.

 

[talksalot]

Why not? Until the 1960's, it was legal to pray in public schools. Then the SCOTUS "discovered" that it should not
be happening.

Just like SCOTUS discovered that killing a human in the womb wasn't murder it was "privacy issue."

 

[Mac-7]

Seems like, once again, the tail is trying to wag the dog:

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/15/g-s1-66693/majority-of-americans-oppose-ending-birthright-citizenship-npr-ipsos-poll-finds

As the Supreme Court takes up President Trump's push to end birthright citizenship today, a new NPR/Ipsos poll finds that less than a third of all Americans want to drop the longstanding principle that any child born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen, even as other parts of the White House's immigration crackdown draw wider support.
Public opinion on Trump's proposal to end birthright citizenship, which the vast majority of legal scholars believe is enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, has shifted very little since he announced the plan in an executive order in January. 53% of poll respondents oppose the idea, with only 28% in favor. That's virtually unchanged since an NPR/Ipsos poll in February, when 31% supported the idea of ending birthright citizenship and 54% opposed it.

If you study the poll results more Americans support Trump immigration policies

The exception in this poll is birthright citizenship where anchor babies have the public opinion advantage

Which could influence future legislation by congress

But it is immaterial as far as the Supreme Court is concerned

 

[Unkotare]

...

The exception in this poll is birthright citizenship where anchor babies have the public opinion advantage
...

There is no such thing as "anchor babies."

 

[MisterBeale]

There is no such thing as "anchor babies."

Why are you in denial of this?

Of course birth tourism is a thing.
Maybe you should write Oxford and tell them they are delusional?

anchor baby: definition of anchor baby in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)

Definition of anchor baby in British and World English in Oxford dictionary. Meaning, pronunciation and example sentences. English to English reference content.

web.archive.org

 

[Unkotare]

Why are you in denial of this?

....

Not in denial, just setting the record straight.

 

[MisterBeale]

Not in denial, just setting the record straight.

So you believe your reality is more authoritative than the definitions in the OED?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Not in denial, just setting the record straight.

Indeed. USMB members who introduce the term anchor baby are simply being "offensive." They regularly punch-down "to attack or criticize someone who is in a worse or less powerful position" because each is fundamentally an asshole, i.e. "an unpleasant or stupid person."

 

[Unkotare]

So you believe your reality is more authoritative than the definitions in the OED?

...

There is only one reality. Read your own link more carefully.

 

[MisterBeale]

There is only one reality. Read your own link more carefully.

 

[Kondor3]

Seems like, once again, the tail is trying to wag the dog:

Nahhhh... enough with the friggin' Anchor Babies... with any luck, SCOTUS will find a way to re-interpret the 14th, to end that...

 

[Unkotare]

Nahhhh... enough with the friggin' Anchor Babies... with any luck, SCOTUS will find a way to re-interpret the 14th, to end that...

There is no such thing as an "anchor baby."