Can someone who down voted this comment please explain why? Is this because you do not agree with his general stance or because it simplifies and doesn't contribute to the debate?

I would not consider a radical change to how US citizenship has worked for at least a century and a half to be “non-extreme.”

Not sure who downvoted, but simply ending jus solis because authoritarians want to make people's lives miserable is an extreme position with an awful BATNA.

I think birthright citizenship is one of the few examples of America doing something strictly better than most other countries.

Why? Why should someone be a citizen because they were born in a specific country? With jus sanguinis things are much clearer: one of your parents is a citizen, you're a citizen. Your kids are citizens. In perpetuity.

Jus solis is a bit like right of way at American intersections: the person that's been there the longest goes first. Whaaaaaa? What if two cars arrive at the same time? What if 4 arrive at roughly at the same time? What is people can't agree who arrived first? A lot of the rest of the world gives way to the car coming from the right. Which is obvious and basically non-negotiable.

Similar idea here.

“End Jus Soli” would require a constitutional amendment and would be universally opposed by at least one party. So, it is bringing the conversation in the direction of ridiculous out-there topics.

And it can cause headaches with people being stateless because neither the country of their parents nor the country of their birth recognizes them. And that's something that's normally prohibited by treaty: you can't take an action that will render someone stateless.

Is that really so? It seems odd because not every country has soil-based birthright citizenship. So, there must be some combinations that will result in a stateless person (although I would expect that this is an exceptional case that is just handled as an exception).

And it causes problems.

Where? I haven't really heard of many cases like this. Usually the most abuse that happens is someone "forgetting" their citizenship and trying to gain asylum, because they know they can't get citizenship otherwise, anyway.

Because it recommends the government should just ignore the constitution.

No, I'm saying that the US government should be able to change the constitution, if its citizens want it. Apparently about 50% of the US population is rabidly anti-immigration.

All this status quo is doing is creating all sort of gray area cruelty. Just be open about it, become anti-immigration, but make it fair. The US is basically the only developed Western country that I know of where you don't even have fixed time frame to become a citizen. In the EU + CANZUK if you live lawfully in a country you become a citizen in N years. The N is well known ahead of time.

Birthright citizenship is explicitly included in the 14’th amendment of the US constitution. Technically the constitution could be amended again. But if we include wildly controversial constitutional amendments that one of our parties would be completely opposed in the list of possibilities, the conversation will quickly get silly.

Foreign citizenship is being subject to a foreign power.

I don’t see any connection here.

Birthright citizenship doesn't apply to children born to parents subject to a foreign power. That's what the text of the ammendment says.

That isn’t what it says.

> 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.

All people in the US are subject to the jurisdiction of the US (other than some very unusual situation like diplomats and, in the past, some Native American tribes).

No. What the law says is that birthright citizenship does not apply to those *not* subject to US law. Foreign diplomats with diplomatic immunity. It's not the foreign power that matters, it's the lack of the US power.

> But if we include wildly controversial constitutional amendments that one of our parties would be completely opposed in the list of possibilities, the conversation will quickly get silly.

You're this <> close from becoming a dictatorship, things could become very silly regardless.

If anything, I'd say Trump is just a silly Sulla. Sulla was somewhat benevolent, he retired. But he paved the way for Caesar and Augustus (people who really meant business, especially Augustus).

I mean, I’m worried about the trajectory of the country generally. But, we need to be able to talk about the actual laws and process (this assumes we still have laws and processes).

If the country turns into a dictatorship, then it is just rule by dictatorial fiat. But in that case this whole conversation is sort of pointless because we wouldn’t have democracy and our opinions about how things should be run wouldn’t matter anymore.