Almost none of Europe does that.

Yeah just Germany, France, United Kingdom, and Ireland. Just countries accounting for about half of the population of Europe.

Germany: prior to 2000 Germany had its nationality law based entirely on jus sanguinis, but now children born on or after 1 January 2000 to non-ethnic German descent parents acquire German citizenship at birth, if at least one parent has a permanent residence permit (and had this status for at least three years) and the parent was residing in Germany for at least eight years.

France:Children born in France (including overseas territories) to at least one parent who is also born in France automatically acquire French citizenship at birth (double jus soli).

A child born in France to foreign parents may acquire French citizenship:[3]

• at birth, if stateless.
  
  
• at 18, if resident in France with at least 5 years' residence since age 11.
  
  
• between 16 and 18 upon request by the child and if resident in France with at least 5 years' residence since age 11.
  
  
• between 13 and 16 upon request by the child's parents and if resident in France continuously since age 8.
  
  
• if born in France of parents born before independence in a colony/territory in the past under French sovereignty.
  
  • at birth, if born in France before January 1, 1994.
    
  • at age 18, if born in France on or after January 1, 1994.
    
    

United Kingdom: Since 1 January 1983, at least one parent must be a British citizen or be legally "settled" in the country or upon the 10th birthday of the child regardless of their parent's citizenship status 

Ireland: On 1 January 2005, the law was amended to require that at least one of the parents be an Irish citizen; a British citizen; a resident with a permanent right to reside in Ireland or In Northern Ireland; or a legal resident residing three of the last four years in the country (excluding students and asylum seekers) (see Irish nationality law).[39] The amendment was prompted by the case of Man Chen, a Chinese woman living in mainland United Kingdom who travelled to Belfast (Northern Ireland, part of the UK) to give birth in order to benefit from the previous rule whereby anyone born on any part of the island of Ireland was automatically granted Irish citizenship. The Chinese parents used their daughter's Irish (and thereby European Union) citizenship to obtain permanent residence in the UK as parents of a dependent EU citizen. Ireland was the last country in Europe to abolish unrestricted jus soli.


Interestingly enough, not one of those countries you mention allow a foreigner to enter the country illegally, cop a squat and give birth to a brand new, unrestricted free citizen.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

Yeah just Germany, France, United Kingdom, and Ireland. Just countries accounting for about half of the population of Europe.

Germany: prior to 2000 Germany had its nationality law based entirely on jus sanguinis, but now children born on or after 1 January 2000 to non-ethnic German descent parents acquire German citizenship at birth, if at least one parent has a permanent residence permit (and had this status for at least three years) and the parent was residing in Germany for at least eight years.

France:Children born in France (including overseas territories) to at least one parent who is also born in France automatically acquire French citizenship at birth (double jus soli).

A child born in France to foreign parents may acquire French citizenship:[3]

• at birth, if stateless.
  
  
• at 18, if resident in France with at least 5 years' residence since age 11.
  
  
• between 16 and 18 upon request by the child and if resident in France with at least 5 years' residence since age 11.
  
  
• between 13 and 16 upon request by the child's parents and if resident in France continuously since age 8.
  
  
• if born in France of parents born before independence in a colony/territory in the past under French sovereignty.
  
  • at birth, if born in France before January 1, 1994.
    
  • at age 18, if born in France on or after January 1, 1994.
    
    

United Kingdom: Since 1 January 1983, at least one parent must be a British citizen or be legally "settled" in the country or upon the 10th birthday of the child regardless of their parent's citizenship status 

Ireland: On 1 January 2005, the law was amended to require that at least one of the parents be an Irish citizen; a British citizen; a resident with a permanent right to reside in Ireland or In Northern Ireland; or a legal resident residing three of the last four years in the country (excluding students and asylum seekers) (see Irish nationality law).[39] The amendment was prompted by the case of Man Chen, a Chinese woman living in mainland United Kingdom who travelled to Belfast (Northern Ireland, part of the UK) to give birth in order to benefit from the previous rule whereby anyone born on any part of the island of Ireland was automatically granted Irish citizenship. The Chinese parents used their daughter's Irish (and thereby European Union) citizenship to obtain permanent residence in the UK as parents of a dependent EU citizen. Ireland was the last country in Europe to abolish unrestricted jus soli.


Interestingly enough, not one of those countries you mention allow a foreigner to enter the country illegally, cop a squat and give birth to a brand new, unrestricted free citizen.

Yes but they get pretty close.
The Western Hemisphere countries are more like us. Brazil, Mexico, etc.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Germany: prior to 2000 Germany had its nationality law based entirely on jus sanguinis, but now children born on or after 1 January 2000 to non-ethnic German descent parents acquire German citizenship at birth, if at least one parent has a permanent residence permit (and had this status for at least three years) and the parent was residing in Germany for at least eight years.

France:Children born in France (including overseas territories) to at least one parent who is also born in France automatically acquire French citizenship at birth (double jus soli).

A child born in France to foreign parents may acquire French citizenship:[3]

• at birth, if stateless.
  
  
• at 18, if resident in France with at least 5 years' residence since age 11.
  
  
• between 16 and 18 upon request by the child and if resident in France with at least 5 years' residence since age 11.
  
  
• between 13 and 16 upon request by the child's parents and if resident in France continuously since age 8.
  
  
• if born in France of parents born before independence in a colony/territory in the past under French sovereignty.
  
  • at birth, if born in France before January 1, 1994.
    
  • at age 18, if born in France on or after January 1, 1994.
    
    

United Kingdom: Since 1 January 1983, at least one parent must be a British citizen or be legally "settled" in the country or upon the 10th birthday of the child regardless of their parent's citizenship status 

Ireland: On 1 January 2005, the law was amended to require that at least one of the parents be an Irish citizen; a British citizen; a resident with a permanent right to reside in Ireland or In Northern Ireland; or a legal resident residing three of the last four years in the country (excluding students and asylum seekers) (see Irish nationality law).[39] The amendment was prompted by the case of Man Chen, a Chinese woman living in mainland United Kingdom who travelled to Belfast (Northern Ireland, part of the UK) to give birth in order to benefit from the previous rule whereby anyone born on any part of the island of Ireland was automatically granted Irish citizenship. The Chinese parents used their daughter's Irish (and thereby European Union) citizenship to obtain permanent residence in the UK as parents of a dependent EU citizen. Ireland was the last country in Europe to abolish unrestricted jus soli.


Interestingly enough, not one of those countries you mention allow a foreigner to enter the country illegally, cop a squat and give birth to a brand new, unrestricted free citizen.

Yes but they get pretty close.
The Western Hemisphere countries are more like us. Brazil, Mexico, etc.

So, you admit you lied only after being caught flat footed, and then offered excuses.

Typical Leftist.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Illegal immigrants are under US jurisdiction. the only people not under us jurisdiction for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment are diplomats and the Security Services that come with them. See US v Wong Kim Ark, 1898.

US v Wong, Supreme Court established jurisdiction by... "still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco". As previously mentioned, this has not been tested as it should and most definitely time to test and clean up the murky waters of immigration.

US v Wong Kim Ark was a case involving a child born in the US to naturalized parents who returned to China, and then had difficulty getting back into the United States because of questions about his status, correct?  His parents were not illegally in the country when he was born from what I understand.  

The 14th Amendment should be tested, and this is a good opportunity to do so.  I know the left is losing their innards over this because they see the risk of losing potential voters, but the way the Amendment is written, and how it's been reinterpreted over time so that they can get new democrat voters.  It's funny to see the left howling over judicial activism when that's pretty much been their go to move for decades to get things pushed through.  Turn it around on them and suddenly Trump is some dictator.  Odd, they didn't howl in the same manner when Obama changed immigration law using the same process.

If the left is confident enough that they're right on the interpretation of the Amendment, they should welcome a test to support their views.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

US v Wong, Supreme Court established jurisdiction by... "still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco". As previously mentioned, this has not been tested as it should and most definitely time to test and clean up the murky waters of immigration.

US v Wong Kim Ark was a case involving a child born in the US to naturalized parents who returned to China, and then had difficulty getting back into the United States because of questions about his status, correct?  His parents were not illegally in the country when he was born from what I understand.  

The 14th Amendment should be tested, and this is a good opportunity to do so.  I know the left is losing their innards over this because they see the risk of losing potential voters, but the way the Amendment is written, and how it's been reinterpreted over time so that they can get new democrat voters.  It's funny to see the left howling over judicial activism when that's pretty much been their go to move for decades to get things pushed through.  Turn it around on them and suddenly Trump is some dictator.  Odd, they didn't howl in the same manner when Obama changed immigration law using the same process.

If the left is confident enough that they're right on the interpretation of the Amendment, they should welcome a test to support their views.

I'm not on the left, but what I don't like about restricting birthright citizenship is that it could create stateless people. It could create a permanent underclass like we see in Qatar and in the UAE.  I don't trust the compassion or common sense of those who propose this enough.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

US v Wong Kim Ark was a case involving a child born in the US to naturalized parents who returned to China, and then had difficulty getting back into the United States because of questions about his status, correct?  His parents were not illegally in the country when he was born from what I understand.  

The 14th Amendment should be tested, and this is a good opportunity to do so.  I know the left is losing their innards over this because they see the risk of losing potential voters, but the way the Amendment is written, and how it's been reinterpreted over time so that they can get new democrat voters.  It's funny to see the left howling over judicial activism when that's pretty much been their go to move for decades to get things pushed through.  Turn it around on them and suddenly Trump is some dictator.  Odd, they didn't howl in the same manner when Obama changed immigration law using the same process.

If the left is confident enough that they're right on the interpretation of the Amendment, they should welcome a test to support their views.

I'm not on the left, but what I don't like about restricting birthright citizenship is that it could create stateless people. It could create a permanent underclass like we see in Qatar and in the UAE.  I don't trust the compassion or common sense of those who propose this enough.

You're right.  It's much better to sacrifice our national sovereignty and fiscal solvency so we can feel good.  

Tell me how that's a conservative position again?

---

Germany: prior to 2000 Germany had its nationality law based entirely on jus sanguinis, but now children born on or after 1 January 2000 to non-ethnic German descent parents acquire German citizenship at birth, if at least one parent has a permanent residence permit (and had this status for at least three years) and the parent was residing in Germany for at least eight years.

France:Children born in France (including overseas territories) to at least one parent who is also born in France automatically acquire French citizenship at birth (double jus soli).

A child born in France to foreign parents may acquire French citizenship:[3]

• at birth, if stateless.
  
  
• at 18, if resident in France with at least 5 years' residence since age 11.
  
  
• between 16 and 18 upon request by the child and if resident in France with at least 5 years' residence since age 11.
  
  
• between 13 and 16 upon request by the child's parents and if resident in France continuously since age 8.
  
  
• if born in France of parents born before independence in a colony/territory in the past under French sovereignty.
  
  • at birth, if born in France before January 1, 1994.
    
  • at age 18, if born in France on or after January 1, 1994.
    
    

United Kingdom: Since 1 January 1983, at least one parent must be a British citizen or be legally "settled" in the country or upon the 10th birthday of the child regardless of their parent's citizenship status 

Ireland: On 1 January 2005, the law was amended to require that at least one of the parents be an Irish citizen; a British citizen; a resident with a permanent right to reside in Ireland or In Northern Ireland; or a legal resident residing three of the last four years in the country (excluding students and asylum seekers) (see Irish nationality law).[39] The amendment was prompted by the case of Man Chen, a Chinese woman living in mainland United Kingdom who travelled to Belfast (Northern Ireland, part of the UK) to give birth in order to benefit from the previous rule whereby anyone born on any part of the island of Ireland was automatically granted Irish citizenship. The Chinese parents used their daughter's Irish (and thereby European Union) citizenship to obtain permanent residence in the UK as parents of a dependent EU citizen. Ireland was the last country in Europe to abolish unrestricted jus soli.


Interestingly enough, not one of those countries you mention allow a foreigner to enter the country illegally, cop a squat and give birth to a brand new, unrestricted free citizen.

Yes but they get pretty close.
The Western Hemisphere countries are more like us. Brazil, Mexico, etc.

And yet, they still don’t allow outright citizenship by the mere fact of giving birth within their boards like you claimed they did. They have restrictions. Since you used them as examples, I’m curious as to why you think it’s a bad thing for our country to add some to ours.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

Three pages on this proves, yet again, that our Naked Orange Emperor is the master manipulator of the national dialog, on both sides.

We are being invaded! Wake...

...ooh, shiny...

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Yes but they get pretty close.
The Western Hemisphere countries are more like us. Brazil, Mexico, etc.

And yet, they still don’t allow outright citizenship by the mere fact of giving birth within their boards like you claimed they did. They have restrictions. Since you used them as examples, I’m curious as to why you think it’s a bad thing for our country to add some to ours.

It would not be a bad thing, per se, to add some restrictions to ours.
It would be a terrible thing to do it by executive order. The next executive could undo it.
It should be done by an act of Congress.  The act of Congress should come into effect at least a year after it is passed.  It should not affect anyone born before bit goes into effect. It should not take citizenship away from anyone who has it already. And should only affect children whose parents are not legal permanent residents and who, though born on US soil, qualify for citizenship in another country.  We should not be creating stateless people.
I don't trust the people proposing this stuff to have this level of decency.  I think they'd stuff all the brown Spanish speakers in cattle cars tomorrow if they thought they could get away with it.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I don't trust the people proposing this stuff to have this level of decency.  I think they'd stuff all the brown Spanish speakers in cattle cars tomorrow if they thought they could get away with it.

They got here in cattle cars and were happy for the free ride.

Trump should build a giant tent city, provide basic food water and shelter but the only way out of the tent city is back to Mexico or stick around and wait for a judge to hear your asylum case. There's a 700,000 case backlog. I guess most would get tired of beans and water after a while and choose the cattle car back to Mexico.

---

Almost none of Europe does that.

Yeah just Germany, France, United Kingdom, and Ireland. Just countries accounting for about half of the population of Europe.

Yeah except not them.

They have restrictions. We don't have any restrictions. Those are not the same situations despite what you indicated.

---

Hmm sounds like America isn't great again yet. Need to be more like the UK.

---

Hmm sounds like America isn't great again yet. Need to be more like the UK.

Says the immigrant to Australia.

---

Is that meant to be an insult? Pretty sure all white people aren't native to Australia. Hey the head of state is British.

Now If you aren't comfortable anywhere but the little bit of land you were born on that's your issue not mine. Otherwise you can get some education and relevant work experience and come over here and enjoy the superior lifestyle, healthcare, crime rates that Australia provides.

---

Yes but they get pretty close.
The Western Hemisphere countries are more like us. Brazil, Mexico, etc.

And yet, they still don’t allow outright citizenship by the mere fact of giving birth within their boards like you claimed they did. They have restrictions. Since you used them as examples, I’m curious as to why you think it’s a bad thing for our country to add some to ours.

Birthright citizenship went almost entirely unquestioned for over a hundred years, then Donald Trump decided that his supporters needed to remember who they hate.

---

And yet, they still don’t allow outright citizenship by the mere fact of giving birth within their boards like you claimed they did. They have restrictions. Since you used them as examples, I’m curious as to why you think it’s a bad thing for our country to add some to ours.

Birthright citizenship went almost entirely unquestioned for over a hundred years, then Donald Trump decided that his supporters needed to remember who they hate.

Plenty of prominent Dems called for the end of birthright citizenship long before Trump threatened to run for president. 

Of course now it's more important to oppose Trump, even if it means that the problem won't be solved and the US comes out worse. For the Dems, Hate is more important than country.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Birthright citizenship went almost entirely unquestioned for over a hundred years, then Donald Trump decided that his supporters needed to remember who they hate.

Plenty of prominent Dems called for the end of birthright citizenship long before Trump threatened to run for president. 

Of course now it's more important to oppose Trump, even if it means that the problem won't be solved and the US comes out worse. For the Dems, Hate is more important than country.

Some, yes, but not all that many. It's no more accurate for you to say that Democrats put hate above country than it would be for me to say that all Trump supporters are racist trailer-dwellers with four teeth and a first-grade education.

---

Plenty of prominent Dems called for the end of birthright citizenship long before Trump threatened to run for president. 

Of course now it's more important to oppose Trump, even if it means that the problem won't be solved and the US comes out worse. For the Dems, Hate is more important than country.

Some, yes, but not all that many. It's no more accurate for you to say that Democrats put hate above country than it would be for me to say that all Trump supporters are racist trailer-dwellers with four teeth and a first-grade education.

I was talking about prominent Dem Senators and Congressmen. Not a single Dem has called them out on it. That's a bit more important than some trailer-dweller, and every prominent Republican has disavowed the racists.

Most tellingly, the Kavanaugh character assassination had every Dem senator (but one) put Hate above country.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Some, yes, but not all that many. It's no more accurate for you to say that Democrats put hate above country than it would be for me to say that all Trump supporters are racist trailer-dwellers with four teeth and a first-grade education.

I was talking about prominent Dem Senators and Congressmen. Not a single Dem has called them out on it. That's a bit more important than some trailer-dweller, and every prominent Republican has disavowed the racists.

Most tellingly, the Kavanaugh character assassination had every Dem senator (but one) put Hate above country.

You call a party-line vote "hate above country"? I call it politics.

---

Is that meant to be an insult? Pretty sure all white people aren't native to Australia. Hey the head of state is British.

Now If you aren't comfortable anywhere but the little bit of land you were born on that's your issue not mine. Otherwise you can get some education and relevant work experience and come over here and enjoy the superior lifestyle, healthcare, crime rates that Australia provides.

Hmm sounds like the UK isn't great again yet. Need to be more like Australia.

---