>The reaffirmation of the 14th amendment is not exactly impressive. Quite a low bar you've reached for there.

Can you name a single country in the EU which offers birthright citizenship? Any country in Asia?

Sort of a silly question. Can you name a single country like the US? Have you read your own history?

I said the reaffirmation was not impressive, not the amendment or the nature of said citizenship itself. The fact it had to be reaffirmed is not impressive. The OP I replied to already acknowledged this. Please read more carefully next time. Or if you think the reaffirmation was itself impressive, please just say so.

▲

0xDEAFBEAD 39 minutes ago | parent [-]

>Sort of a silly question. Can you name a single country like the US? Have you read your own history?

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, exactly. The US is not the only country which offers birthright citizenship. But I don't believe there are any other countries like this in Europe or Asia.

>I said the reaffirmation was not impressive, not the amendment or the nature of said citizenship itself. The fact it had to be reaffirmed is not impressive. The OP I replied to already acknowledged this. Learn to read.

The OP brought up the 14th in the context of the country's stance towards immigrants. From this POV, I don't see why you would give undue weight to the reaffirmation compared with the "the amendment or the nature of said citizenship itself".

You can have the last word in this thread. Your incivility to clarity ratio is way too high for me to wish to continue further with you.

	▲	godwinson__4-8 17 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It's not about the last word. Just make a decent argument. There's nothing personal here. I actually hope to be corrected. That would be interesting. I don't hold anything against you. As to your actual question, the reason is because they brought up the reaffirmation. Those were their words. As such, I gave it weight because they did - that was the point I was responding to. As to the first part of your reply, I think it's very interesting actually. Birthright citizenship may not be exclusive to the United States, but it is relatively uncommon. The unique history of the United States plays a big part in this. This also does not automatically mean that the United States is a better place for immigrants today. One counterpoint is how it makes many of the debates around American immigration have a distinctly racial or cultural nature as nativist elements of the population want to find ways to control who can be born here. Of course it's not like those debates don't also happen elsewhere. No place is perfect. I'm just pushing back against the self satisfaction of the OP I was replying to. These things are nuanced. I apologize if in my zeal to pushback I made you upset. Have a good day.