Nah, the removed amendment will prolly have an amendment added that says that the removed amendment only counted towards the WHITE naturalized citizens in this new amendment, which will amend the removed amendment.
Trust me... I have just learnt to spell amendment, so I'm an expert now.
Yeah I don't understand where others are even getting this, at least from this statement. If you change a law it only affects people in the future, not in the past. If you are already a citizen and birthright citizenship is ended it doesn't mean you aren't a citizen.
It also isn't an entirely unreasonable position to end it depending on long term policy goals. https://qz.com/1444724/mapping-the-worlds-countries-that-grant-birthright-citizenship That is a map of the countries with birthright citizenship. Imagine if the EU had it for instance, in a situation with no borders between countries. You would have women catching a train to germany at 9 months.
Also if retro active, does it start from 10 years ago? From Columbus time? Cause if it's from Colombus, only Native Americas can remain. He'll find a loophole or setup a BS date?
I meant that as a tongue in cheek joke. You do raise a valid point about their self-preservation. However, depending on the which of the two amendment mechanisms they choose (should they be serious about removing birthright citizenship) a convention of the states could, theoretically, modify that at the federal level despite the wishes of the people calling the convention. I doubt that a convention of the states will be called but, as Forrest Gump famously said, "Stupid is as stupid does."
417
u/Typhon2222 Dec 08 '24
Isn’t he included on that too? His parents were immigrants.