₦airaland Forum

ednut1:
nigeria does not have birth right citizenship. Since its good why doesn’t Nigeria have it 😂

Correct yourself. Nigeria DOES HAVE birthright citizenship. If you born in Nigeria AND your parents are citizens. You are a citizen by BIRTH.

morpheus24:
➜Correct yourself. Nigeria DOES HAVE birthright citizenship. If you born in Nigeria AND your parents are citizens. You are a citizen by BIRTH.

Nigeria DOES NOT have birthright citizenship aka jus soli. It is literally spelled out in the Nigerian Constitution that citizenship can only be obtained through parents or grandparents of Nigerian nationality or through naturalization.

ednut1:
nigeria does not have birth right citizenship. Since its good why doesn’t Nigeria have it 😂

Nigeria already has over 200 million people competing for traffic space in Lagos. If they gave out passports just for landing at the airport, the traffic would literally back up into the Atlantic Ocean.

morpheus24:
Correct yourself. Nigeria DOES HAVE birthright citizenship. If you born in Nigeria AND your parents are citizens. You are a citizen by BIRTH.

in America if your parents are illegals or visitor and you were born there you get citizenship. Thats birthright

Kobojunkie:
Amendment 14 was not the Founding Fathers. As a matter of fact, it is said to have been pushed in illegally by Congress since it did not follow the principles outlined in the Constitution in doing so. 🥱

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLxgJv8xD4U?si=WAjyX2bkt5e9L6i1

Therefore, changing the Fourteenth Amendment does no damage to the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

okay

ednut1:
in America if your parents are illegals or visitor and you were born there you get citizenship. Thats birthright

Ashleigh Plumptree is a Nigerian citizen by Descent.

Seun Anikulapo Kuti is a Nigerian by Birth.

The two qualify based on Jus Saguinus.

What is hard to comprehend here?

DeepSight:
Ol boy, enjoy yasef.
No where in the world is the spelling for jurists "George" as opposed to "Judge".

And this is not a matter of syntax.

see person wey study Islamic religious studies for school dey argew with me wey study English up to PhD level. Abeg shift jo.

enemyofprogress:
see person wey study Islamic religious studies for school dey argew with me wey study English up to PhD level. Abeg shift jo.

I am trying to help you. PhD in English? Oh my. Please dont allow pride to stop you from learning and improving yourself. You actually have very poor English and there is huge room for you to do better.

Since you will not take my word for it, please see:

Gemini -

Question -

Is the word "Judge" spelt "George" in American English?

Answer -

No, the word "judge" is not spelled "George" in American English (or any other variety of English).

Judge is a noun or verb referring to a public official who decides cases in a court of law.

George is a proper noun, typically used as a given name for a person.

These two words are entirely distinct in meaning and spelling.

The internet and AI Apps are there. Check it out yourself and learn instead of beating your chest over your errors.

enemyofprogress:
7it is you that is not current with the use of English and spellings. You are too fool of yourself and you believe you know English more than anyone on nairaland, including me a PhD older. I'm done discussing this issue with you.

Mynd44 how far now? What's up?

Sigh. I tried.

Deepthoughts:
O Let's be sincere, would other countries accept what they demand of the US?

For your information, Canada, Brazil and some other countries are still doing citizenship by birthright till today and they haven't stop it or been to court about it.

Cmeo:
➜For your information, Canada, Brazil and some other countries are still doing citizenship by birthright till today and they haven't stop it or been to court about it.

Only 33 countries in the world actually have birthright citizenship. Why should the US have something that has more than proven to be harmful than good?

Even your country, Nigeria, does not have birthright citizenship. Dem no born anyone papa well to think say im fit claim Nigerian citizenship simply by plopping a baby down on Nigerian soil.

Cmeo:
For your information, Canada, Brazil and some other countries are still doing citizenship by birthright till today and they haven't stop it or been to court about it.

Why don't you ask countries like Saudi Arabia,Iran,Russia,China to accept citizenship by birth n sent your their to give birth so that your son can become their citizen,why insisting on the western countries,if the USA now wishes to change any of their homeland law that they now found to be counter productive to their interests what exactly is the problem with that?, it's up to every country to make their country condusive for themselves simple.

Deepthoughts:
Why don't you ask countries like Saudi Arabia,Iran,Russia,China to accept citizenship by birth n sent your their to give birth so that your son can become their citizen,why insisting on the western countries,if the USA now wishes to change any of their homeland law that they now found to be counter productive to their interests what exactly is the problem with that?, it's up to every country to make their country condusive for themselves simple.

And now that they have no such law and their highest court (US Supreme court) says no one dare deny such birthed child a citizen, what then can you and I do untill their law says otherwise?? The response is "Nothing!"

Cmeo:
➜And now that they have no such law and their highest court (US Supreme court) says no one dare deny such birthed child a citizen, what then can you and I do untill their law says otherwise?? The response is "Nothing!"

Nothing? The next step is to have Congress, the ones who created the amendment around 1965, to reamend it. In the meantime, the Executive can use its current powers to fish out and remove as many of those looking to enter by dropping babies on American soil so they can jump to the front of the naturalization line. That is how things work!

Kobojunkie:
Only 33 countries in the world actually have birthright citizenship. Why should the US have something that has more than proven to be harmful than good?

Even your country, Nigeria, does not have birthright citizenship. Dem no born anyone papa well to think say im fit claim Nigerian citizenship simply by plopping a baby down on Nigerian soil.

33 countries out 198 are not just. That is over 30% of the countries on earth.

Moreso you can do it in Nigeria because they don't have a birthright citizenship as part of the Constitution. And now that US have such law and their highest court (US Supreme court) confirms it that no one dare deny such birthed child a citizen, what then can you and I do untill their law says otherwise?? The response is "Nothing we can do!"

Cmeo:
➜33 countries out 198 are not just. That is over 30% of the countries on earth.
➜ Moreso you can do it in Nigeria because they don't have a birthright citizenship as part of the Constitution.
➜ And now that US have such law and their highest court (US Supreme court) confirms it that no one dare deny such birthed child a citizen, what then can you and I do untill their law says otherwise??
➜ The response is "Nothing we can do!"

1. E be like say you fail math in primary school. 33 out of 198 is not over 30% of the countries on earth.

2. Nigeria does not allow it because the framers of the Nigerian Constitution understand well that allowing any such would leave Nigeria vulnerable to outside forces.

3. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution. That is all! And it has done its job. One of the judges even wrote a 91-page dissent explaining why their decision may not have been in America's best interests.

4. That is not what the President said. Instead, if you paid attention, you would note that the government has since made clear that while it works to push back on the problem using the limited power it has at this time, educating the American people on the importance of why the status quo can not and should not continue, the work now falls on Congress to work on an amendment to the 14th Amendment to resolve what is clearly proven to be a dangerous issue facing the country's present and future.

Kobojunkie:
Nothing? The next step is to have Congress, the ones who created the amendment around 1965, to reamend it. In the meantime, the Executive can use its current powers to fish out and remove as many of those looking to enter by dropping babies on American soil so they can jump to the front of the naturalization line. That is how things work!

I wish Congress the very best in their quest to amend the law and wish the Executive a good luck to fish out and remove as many of such people that you mentioned.

However no one jump to the front of the naturalization line, against your insinuation. The prices paid are just different accordingly most times, an unwritten general principle of the world we live in, and the world has not criminalize paying premium prices the last time I checked.

Cmeo:
➜I wish Congress the very best in their quest to amend the law and wish the Executive a good luck to fish out and remove as many of such people that you mentioned.
However no one jump to the front of the naturalization line, against your insinuation. The prices paid are just different accordingly most times, an unwritten general principle of the world we live in, and the world has not criminalize paying premium prices the last time I checked.

Well, you see, you are wrong about this!

Getting a green card through your child takes approximately 12 to 18 months. That is literally the front of the line, since getting a green card without a child or prior connection(employment, highly sought-after skill, verifiable asylum need, money for investment, etc.) takes approximately 10 years in most cases(many are even denied it due to their history).

Kobojunkie:
1. E be like say you fail math in primary school. 33 out of 198 is not over 30% of the countries on earth.

2. Nigeria does not allow it because the framers of the Nigerian Constitution understand well that allowing any such would leave Nigeria vulnerable to outside forces.

3. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution. That is all! And it has done its job. One of the judges even wrote a 91-page dissent explaining why their decision may not have been in America's best interests.

4. That is not what the President said. Instead, if you paid attention, you would note that the government has since made clear that while it works to push back on the problem using the limited power it has at this time, educating the American people on the importance of why the status quo can not and should not continue, the work now falls on Congress to work on an amendment to the 14th Amendment to resolve what is clearly proven to be a dangerous issue facing the country's present and future.

Sorry, I was wrong with 33% calculation but the rightful calculation of about ~17% (though in minority) is not just, that's a double digit percentage mehnn.

In any way, I sincerely wish the Executive good luck in their quest and wish the Congress the very best in their resolves.

Kobojunkie:
Well, you see, you are wrong about this!

Getting a green card through your child takes approximately 12 to 18 months. That is literally the front of the line, since getting a green card without a child or prior connection(employment, highly sought-after skill, verifiable asylum need, money for investment, etc.) takes approximately 10 years in most cases(many are even denied it due to their history).

I am not wrong mehnn!
Having and raising a child could be the premium here. Raising a child and waiting for atleast 20 years before the child can file for a green card application for parents too is not a joke and not a small price to pay too.

Cmeo:
➜Having and raising a child could be the premium here.
➜ Raising a child and waiting for atleast 20 years before the child can file for a green card application for parents too is not a joke and not a small price to pay too.

Don't change the subject, please. Focus on the issue, which is that you are wrong in insisting that plopping a child down on American soil, either as an illegal immigrant or a temporary visitor, does not propel one to the front of the line when it comes to naturalization.

2. Some people are still waiting, even 30 years after submitting their first application, to become naturalized in America. I personally know at least 4 such people who would give anything to be accepted into America. And even if they were to be accepted today, they would need to wait another 5 years after that to obtain citizenship and access benefits available to citizens.

However, a temporary visitor or illegal immigrant in the United States who plops a baby down on American soil can go raise that child in whatever backwater/cheap/shithole place he/she wants to in Africa or wherever else(since many such folks don't really care that the child be raised as an American with American standards), all while having direct access to child benefits for that child to take advantage of in raising said child, only to then return 20 years later to claim American citizen because of that same child within, at most, a year and a half, and then access all benefits every American can without needing to pay a single dime in taxes even then. That is still front-of-the-line access.

If you do not see how that is front-of-the-line access compared to those who legally attempt to enter the U.S. of their own merit and record, then you are not being honest at all.

Cmeo:
And now that they have no such law and their highest court (US Supreme court) says no one dare deny such birthed child a citizen, what then can you and I do untill their law says otherwise?? The response is "Nothing!"

Ànd if you really thinks that's a carte blanche for you to just stroll into the US n have you kid to later claim citizenship by birth then watch out, there's always another way, getting in will surely become another ball game,I hope the supreme court would open the borders freely for you.

Kobojunkie:
Don't change the subject, please. Focus on the issue, which is that you are wrong in insisting that plopping a child down on American soil, either as an illegal immigrant or a temporary visitor, does not propel one to the front of the line when it comes to naturalization.

2. Some people are still waiting, even 30 years after submitting their first application, to become naturalized in America. I personally know at least 4 such people who would give anything to be accepted into America. And even if they were to be accepted today, they would need to wait another 5 years after that to obtain citizenship and access benefits available to citizens.

However, a temporary visitor or illegal immigrant in the United States who plops a baby down on American soil can go raise that child in whatever backwater/cheap/shithole place he/she wants to in Africa or wherever else(since many such folks don't really care that the child be raised as an American with American standards), all while having direct access to child benefits for that child to take advantage of in raising said child, only to then return 20 years later to claim American citizen because of that same child within, at most, a year and a half, and then access all benefits every American can without needing to pay a single dime in taxes even then. That is still front-of-the-line access.

If you do not see how that is front-of-the-line access compared to those who legally attempt to enter the U.S. of their own merit and record, then you are not being honest at all.

While I still maintain my disagreement with you about them jumping naturalization process line, I also want to express that not all of them take benefits while outside of US before the child aged 21 and/or after the parents are naturalized.

Even at that, they have not broken any known law about that (except if the child and the parents are outside US and claiming benefits that are meant for parents and child residing on US soil only), but if such parents and child get to US and claimed benefits when on green card or after naturalization within the law, they must have paid their dues and no known law is against that which implies they have not broken law, but if you feel that they have broken any such law in US, please you are free to quote it instead of expressing emotions.

Deepthoughts:
Ànd if you really thinks that's a carte blanche for you to just stroll into the US n have you kid to later claim citizenship by birth then watch out, there's always another way, getting in will surely become another ball game,I hope the supreme court would open the borders freely for you.

For now, till then, and thereafter, let everyone enjoy the moment please.

Cmeo:
➜ While I still maintain my disagreement with you about them jumping naturalization process line,
➜ I also want to express that not all of them take benefits while outside of US before the child aged 21 and/or after the parents are naturalized.
➜ Even at that, they have not broken any known law about that (except if the child and the parents are outside US and claiming benefits that are meant for parents and child residing on US soil only),
➜ but if such parents and child get to US and claimed benefits when on green card or after naturalization within the law, they must have paid their dues and no known law is against that which implies they have not broken law,
➜ but if you feel that they have broken any such law in US, please you are free to quote it instead of expressing emotions.

1. I get it! For many of you, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, you maintain your stance for the sake of your egos. That said, the average naturalized immigrant takes advantage of the benefits at one point or another.

2. The numbers show that most of those who came here through their children or through asylum/refugee paths do so overwhelmingly. So, telling us that not all of them take benefits means absolutely nothing. As long as the child is born on American soil, those benefits are available to be taken advantage of. Some of them are federal tax benefits or Social Security dependent payments, and more recently, the Trump Accounts program for babies born between now and sometime in 2028, which goes to all babies born until the age of 18/21.

3. The child born on American soil has access to American benefits, whether or not he/she lives within American shores.

4. Paid what dues? What in the world are you talking about?

5. Interesting ! There is something called "Squatter rights" in the state of Illinois. You can find details of it at the following link. https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/ILCS/Articles?ActID=2201&ChapterID=62

Basically, let's say you have a house in IL, and then you lock up your doors and gates to leave for work or to visit family, for say a period of a month. Right after you left, someone broke into your locked home and decided to make themselves at home. After a month, you come back home to find that the squatter has already moved into your house and even gone as far as to claim that, since he/she has occupied the residence for a period of 30 days straight, because of the squatter rights indicated above, do you suppose that no crime has in fact been committed against you in all?