scrubbedexpat099

Agree, just shows they do not have any answers Those committed are not budging so it is the ones in the middle that matter and I doubt many of them favour open borders..

scrubbedexpat099

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...l-requirement/

Well worth reading if you are interested in the subject.

BritInParis

An interesting read that appears to be well researched.

On the broader problem it’s rather much easier to issue, or threaten to issue, an executive order to strike down birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants than it is to deal with the millions already living in the country. Creating new legalisation is a lot cheaper and easier than trying to enforce the laws you already have.

That being said the fines for hiring illegal workers are pitiful and there are a lot of technical solutions you could deploy to identify illegal immigrants at a federal level to get around sanctuary cities/states.

scrubbedexpat099

You can pf course discuss his conclusions but unusually he puts it all out there and says why he things it will need a Constitutional Amendment.

And of course with new legislation you get your name on it, nothing for enforcing current legislation

Reminds me of the local School, they got all these grants to build a fancy new building, operating expenses, well of course not.

Anian

Announcing something you can't achieve, and therefore won't be held to if it fails, that plays well with your voters just before an election, seems like a smart thing to do. Which is why someone else told Trump that he could do it with an executive action and it wasn't even his idea.

BritInParis

Bingo. “I was told” can very easily be turned into “They got it wrong” after Tuesday. And again he is dictating the agenda whilst the Democrats scrabble around trying to respond.

BritInParis

Politicians tend to prefer “le grand projet”. Witness the billions being wasted in the UK on HS2 when the same money could be spent upgrading the existing rail network for the whole country.

Rete

Do you know who is the person that told President Trump to do this. Has he/she made their self known to the general public. Of course, most ideas are floated about the conference, dinner, breakfast or luncheon table and merits and demerits discussed and argued about until one idea starts shining a little brighter than the others. No president has ever made a decision without having intake from a multitude of people, most of whom have a finger on the pulse of the general public and what will garner the most support from the little people who have little voice in the working of their government. Like many countries, the US elects their representatives based on platform promises and if possible, past performances. There were no way to judge performance of either President Obama or President Trump before their elections as both were virtually unknown commodities in the political arena.

As for not being something you can achieve, the idea has merit and is appealing to the much of the American public and is an issue that has reared its head for decades since I've cast my first vote at age 18; 52 years ago. You place the idea out there and then run with it. It gathers steam and in some not to distant future, the idea becomes law. Even idea has to start somewhere and usually starts small and seems unachievable until it happens.

toluani

My view is there are 3 ways for this, congress pass an ammendment, 2/3 of the states propose or by the Supreme Court interpreting the 14th ammendment. Guess what congress have always refused to act playing politics same as when Trump gave the opportunity for congress to give DACA kids a path to citizenship. This has been an issue for a long time and has not been resolved.

By signing an executive order what Trump is doing is forcing the issue to the supreme Court to interprete the 14th ammendment and confirm once and for all if it applies to noncitizens and LPRs. His view which to be honest I agree with is a baby should only get US citizenship if one of the parents is a citizen or legal permanent resident.
If you research the history of the 14th ammebdment you can see it was not passed for people to take advantage off and support an industry of birth tourism.

Even the Canadian conservatives have proposed changing the Canadian birth laws.

​https://globalnews.ca/news/4411137/birth-tourism-canada/

​​​​​​Most countries changed their laws for similar reasons as well:


[[i]To discourage birth tourism, Australia, France, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United Kingdom have modified their citizenship laws at different times, granting citizenship by birth only if at least one parent is a citizen of the country or a legal permanent resident who has lived in the country for several years.


OTE=mrken30;12585483]Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought there was a whole debate about letting Dreamers stay in the US. Allowing USCs to bring in family members to the US. I thought a large part of Trump's remit was anti-immigration and anti-foreigner.[/QUOTE]

Novocastrian

Please don't drag Canada into your Trumpesque nightmare (although Andrew Scheer is Trump-lite). As mentioned in your link, 300 children of "tourists" were born in Canada in 2016: Canada's immigration target is 450,000 per year.

toluani

My point is the changes Trump is proposing to birth laws are reasonable and have been done by many or proposed by some like Canada albeit the conservative party. You seem to be reacting to the fact it's from Trump rather than the substance of the proposal.

I am a British citizen and even in the UK one of the parents must be a citizen or permanent resident for the child to be a citizen.

This is not about immigration targets. This is about stopping birth tourism where people come to a country simply to secure citizenship for their child. As you say there were only 300 in Canada, well theres way more in the US and it's a bigger issue which needs to be tackled. It's a loophole which has been abused a lot and this is a recurring issue that needs to be sorted . Trump is not the first to bring it up.
​​​​​​

Rete

It is not a Trump nightmare. It is a nightmare that has been happening for decades and the simple fact is that tourist birthing is used solely for the benefit of having a USC child who will eventually be able to petition for family when they reach the age of 21 and also to allow them to attend school as a USC rather than as a foreign student. That this proposal occurred during his tenure does not negate the issue nor should it. Regardless of your regard for the President of the US, the issue is what is being discussed and not the person who brought it to the forefront.

I happen to be married to a Canadian who prefers President Trump over Canada's Head of State and US politics over Canadian. He likes the fact that if he left the US to reside elsewhere in the world, he would still have the right to vote in a US presidential election whereas he is denied any voting rights in Canada because he lives outside of the country. Both countries have politicians who are favored or disliked and policies that are accepted and unacceptable. No one was comparing Canada to the US even though you chose to see it in that light.

Anian

Welcome to the Trump presidency, you seem to be new here.

Trump does what Trump wants to do, he doesn't wait for approval from his gaggle of lackeys before blabbing it out to the world. After two years his staff have worked out his foibles enough to steer the wildebeest in the direction they want by convincing him that he wants to do it and why. We'll be seeing a few more of these smart moves in the next couple of years as they continue to hone their talents, but Trump is the mouthpiece not the decision maker.

scrubbedexpat099

Not that different in principle to some EU companies that offer Citizenship for Sale schemes, Malta comes to mind, from the Maltese perspective it makes perfect sense, easy source of funds and investment and not as if they will intend living there, Investor gets a EU passport, win win.

toluani

It is very different because the US also has EB visa which requires an investment of at least $500k in low gowth areas and min $1m in a business that creates at least 10 jobs before you are granted a green card.

people who take advantage of birth tourism definitely do not spend that much and are not investing in the US but simply securing citizenship for their kids.

You mention Malta as an example. Well guess what Malta does not allow citizenship unless one of the parents is a citizen of Malta and the investor program you mention requires a min 650k euro payment not investment. Do you really think the central and south Americans crossing the borders can pay that? So again Trump is simply aligning to countries like Malta which you have suggested is a good model to follow. I still do not see the reason for the outrage. You have some media going as far as claiming it will result in deportation of people already here when it will not.

https://integration.gov.mt/en/ResidenceAndVisas/Pages/Acquisition-of-Maltese-citizenship-automatically-by-Birth.aspx

A person born in Malta as from 1st August 1989 only acquires Maltese citizenship at birth if one of his parents is a citizen of Malta at the time of his birth. This is not the case if the person is born out of wedlock and only the father is a citizen of Malta

Closing this loophole also removes one of the major incentives for illegal immigration and is one step towards more sensible immigration laws and border enforcement .