Kory Watkins

Very strongly agree

Yes, anyone born on our soil is a citizen, regardless of parental status.

This matches the mainstream constitutional reading of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and aligns with the LP’s general preference for clear, non-discretionary rules that limit government gatekeeping and discrimination. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly agree

Yes

The Libertarian Party generally supports expansive immigration and equal treatment under the law; its platforms have emphasized that peaceful people should be able to move freely and that government should not create second-class statuses—consistent with supporting birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Disagree

Yes, but only if at least one parent is a legal resident.

Conditioning citizenship on a parent’s legal status adds state discretion and creates unequal treatment for children; this is at odds with the LP’s civil-liberties orientation and its tendency to oppose immigration-status-based restrictions. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly disagree

No

A flat rejection of birthright citizenship conflicts with the LP’s typical pro-immigration, pro–individual rights stance and its frequent defense of constitutional birthright citizenship (14th Amendment) against restrictionist proposals. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly disagree

No, automatic citizenship encourages illegal immigration and 'birth tourism'.

The LP typically rejects the ‘anchor baby/birth tourism’ rationale as a basis for restricting rights and favors addressing immigration through freer movement and less state intervention rather than limiting citizenship for U.S.-born children. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Very strongly disagree

No, citizenship must be inherited by blood (jus sanguinis), not geography.

A shift to jus sanguinis would require rejecting/rewriting the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship framework and would expand government control over status—positions generally opposed by the Libertarian Party. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.