What are your thoughts on birthright citizenship?
Should anyone being born on the territory of a particular country gain citizenship of that country? What are the pros and cons of this approach?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/30/u...tizenship.html
Citizenship by birth
What are your thoughts on birthright citizenship?
Should anyone being born on the territory of a particular country gain citizenship of that country? What are the pros and cons of this approach?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/30/u...tizenship.html
The pros of this approach are that it operates on Republican racial fears a few days before the election without being something that can actually be implemented.
Pure Trump: instill racist fears, do no work, deny responsibility for failing to deliver.
Next up: Let’s discuss the pros and cons of another tax cut, this one for the Middle Class. I promise that’s who will get it this time. For sure.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 10-30-2018 at 06:02 PM.
I doubt it's up to "Republican pre-election racial fears" when one of the most liberal news media outlets did a piece on this - https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/n...th-tourism-309Originally Posted by Adam Strange
It would be interesting to hear some more discourse on this idea than the usual American Rep vs Dem thing, as this is a problem that other countries also face.
Sorry, @silke. My hatred of Trump runs deep. Your question is a valid one. I apologize.
But I’m sure you know that the news media runs on sensationalism. Trump threw them a bone and they ran for it. If they’d stop reporting on his every flatulent tweet, we might have some intelligent conversations.
No worries. I added a disclaimer into the original post and then erased it, hoping that ppl would see that this issue runs deeper and that it's not just about Trump and the next daily headline.
But it was never an issue before Trump and the barking dogs made it one. How is this not about racial fears and the election?
How was this "never an issue" when it concerns a constitutional amendment of the country you were born in - the 14th?
I think we just uncovered Ti-ignoring ;p
This was not a major news story six months ago. It will not be a news story again three days after the elections.
My grandparents didn't come to this country just to see it overrun by immigrants.
https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/...ch-study-trump
Immigrants wanting their children to be born in your country, so they will have the benefits of being a citizen there is a good thing. It means the country is probably a better country to live in, in some respects. The parents could fill in the lower paying, unskilled jobs, giving them more opportunities and taking jobs other natives don't or won't take. Those jobs being filled will help strengthen the economy.The family will consume, adding to the economy. Education and healthcare costs will pay off down the road. There is little to fear from immigrants.
The 14th amendment in the wake of the Civil War established the citizenship pathway for former slaves.
Prior to that, obviously the US was a nation of immigrants. For information on how immigrants easily became naturalized citizens, here is a good source:
https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.ed...early-history/
And then their children were born here and were citizens. That’s ultimately why I’m a citizen, and if you are a U.S. citizen, you or someone in your past in most cases went through some similar process.
It should be a non-issue, but as the intent is to damage the nation, this is the garbage we get.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
While, I understand the need to control immigration is necessary in order to prevent the country from having undesirables (illegal immigrants) as opposed to desirables (legal immigrants). I don't think this is the way of going about it at all. If birth doesn't determine citizenship anymore then it's a slippery slope that can lead to negative outcomes.
A baby being deported because his or her parents were illegal immigrants is a clear cut case, but grey areas where anyone can lose their citizenship because their parents were legal immigrants, but one parent is illegal and the other is not or one parent or both parents did X thing to get citizenship revoked leading to child's citizenship becoming invalid is a very scary world to live in.
Last edited by Raver; 10-30-2018 at 11:04 PM.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
I live in an area with a very large number of immigrant Muslims. They are far from violent, they’re ordinary people and because their religion calls for not drinking they are better behaved than the local Judeo-Christian population, who are often brawling in bars. There are things I don’t like about Muslim culture/s, but as a class of people they are not apparently more violent than the one producing all these “white” guys with AR-15s.
When I drop my daughter off in the morning, I’m not worrying much that a Muslim terrorist will attack her school and kill her. But each day I kiss her head and know her life is precious and that a violent right-wing zealot or a discontented white young man with a terrible combination of entitlement, violence, and access to high-order assault weapons is a real threat I’m being forced to accept.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
I do happen to believe that borders should be enforced, for many reasons. Most of my reasons are economic and have to do with maintaining a relatively high quality of life for the US citizens over the short term, but one big reason for objecting to immigration is the fact that simply taking a human being from some third world country and moving them to the States instantly multiples that human's contribution to world-wide pollution many fold.
On the other hand, humans are incredibly productive resources if given the right circumstances, and if the US actually treated people like the valuable resources they are instead of as disposable slave labor, then immigrants would be a net plus to everyone in the country. Up to the point where actual physical resources were strained by them, that is.
I think you should have the same status as your parents.
As it relates to the U.S.
Pros of birthright citizenship:
-Enables birthright citizens currently contributing to the economy and culture to do so legally
-Enables the U.S. to avoid the complications associated with relocation (such as expenditures and PR problems)
-Birthright citizens don't have to face complications associated with relocation (such as being deported to a country they have no preparation for)
Cons:
-Adds to trends toward general overpopulation (which creates scarcity of local resources)
-Can potentially introduce cultural elements that conflict with the cultural elements that bind the U.S. together, creating instability (however, not by definition)
The trouble with the "cons" side of the analysis is that most if not all of the criticisms we could bring against birthright citizens could also be brought against other citizens. Keeping with the theme, so long as we avoid double standards, the conversation should expand to include criteria for anyone and everyone who should be allowed in the country. Ie. should we be deporting people, including 3rd, 4th, or 5th generation citizens, for contributing to overpopulation or contradicting cultural norms? Trying to mitigate these cons in a general sense comes with its own set of cons as well. For example, the U.S. would have to restrict freedom of information that includes unusual, "destabilizing" cultural elements, which would infringe on 1st Amendment freedoms. Additionally, a few studies have suggested that areas with lower (undocumented) immigrant populations have higher crime rates than areas with higher (undocumented) immigrant populations. So, it doesn't seem like the presence of new arrivals creates an uptick in crime in a way that surpasses crime in areas with historically established populations.
https://www.cato.org/publications/im...egal-immigrant
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...745-9125.12175
Anyway, 30 countries offer birthright citizenship. It's not just the U.S.
It does seem like this is supposed to be red meat for his base. If he tries to go through courts to overstep the 14th in some way, his base will likely just see him as a victim, which is red meat in it's own way. The circus continues.
Anyway, carry on.
You WANT to go to China?? LOL
Get a visa mate, not difficult.
The people I’ve known who have had dual citizenship have always kept it under the table. If you don’t tell, they don’t ask. @silke
@Grendel Chinese who want to become Canadians need to revoke their Chinese citizenship. I’m not sure what you are thinking currently. And I believe the same applies for the US and other countries.
If you want to move to another country you need to put time money and effort into learning their language and practices and take a lot of risks to survive. Have you ever thought about that, or are you trapped in your neo-defeatist ex-colonialist POV? It’s not exactly something that’s done on a whim.
If you want to go to China and try it out on the flip side yourself, I’ll teach you Chinese for free hahaha.
Its been a issue brewing for a number of decades ie: the mexico border.
This is why Trump's election victory eluded many, but I knew it was inevitable.
See how would this work, you can't give a individual total autonomy of personhood and also then categorize him/her under the same nation as that of his mother and father. That's just regressive in terms of social progress.
I don't follow you
You are a person, but your destiny belongs to your lineage.
Since when do people have "total autonomy of personhood"?
Good points
For the reasons you mentioned and others it seems to me that Mexican immigrants are making a positive or at least not negative contribution to the US, and letting them in would be good for humanitarian reasons as well (due to the violence of illegal drug cartels which the US drug policy / CIA is largely responsible for creating and promoting).
What I don't understand is why people don't suggest changing immigration law more often instead of just not enforcing it.
Since we stopped categorizing and embodying your situation in the social strata based on blood lines.
*your mom was raped by your father. but good news this rapist was an american, that makes you one.*
Citizenship existing as a concept in the 21st century is odious.
Whatever is better for the National debt.
So, pro-birth place as the metric for citizenship.
Pro Mexican illegal and legal immigration.
Anti Middle Eastern refugees.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
As long as there is something in place to keep people from abusing technicalities like stepping over the border to give birth and grant their children citizenship I think we shouldn't mess with it.
American military critical of deployment to guard against spurious problem of border crossers; appears more worried about right-wing militias stealing their gear.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/y...ocuments-show/
The biological analogy is that a host macro organism should decide whether varied micro organisms may enter and reside within it or not. If the macro organism is maximally porous, it may not be very survivable at all. But under certain circumstances it may even benefit from some exchange and hosting.
At any rate, it is not safe to do this willy nilly and allow citizenship to be the total sovereignty of random micro organisms. That is way too experimental and likely leads to death through excessive parasitism. The host at least needs a valid immune system to allow healthful immigrants and to expel unhealthful immigrants.
Allowing some degree of toxic micro organisms to pass through the outer immune systems can be healthy because this incentivizes your inner immune systems to be more vigilant, as in a controlled vaccinatory exposure that allows the innovation of proper ways to engage with what is foreign and threatening, but from a secure position. But it is plausibly dangerous that if you let in too many foreign entrants at once, it will overload the immune system and the host will fall apart, even if it could have otherwise taken in the entrants in smaller dispersed doses.
Some foreign life that enters the host can be digested and recycled into native DNA cell types or may even be probiotic in their original foreign forms. But some foreign entrants will remain both foreign and pathogenic and may be difficult to expel and may in the worse cases result in an irreversible crippling of the host.
And, of course, some native DNA cell types or cell systems may also be outdated or toxic or may have been induced into a toxic or cancerous state through some series of influences.
It is a matter of a society deciding correctly what it wants or doesn't want in its ecosystem. But staying completely insulated is another unhealthy uncompetitive extreme because you'll be too coddled, and you'll get inbred, and you'll get left behind because of lacking fresh checks and comparisons to keep you striving forward. I think that someone who has studied biological immune systems might have a better deeper guidance on how best to design a national immune system.
Last edited by esq; 11-03-2018 at 05:53 AM.
Giving passports to swans is going too far. But we should be suspicious of the ones that enter suspiciously.
I know that the question of maintaining our borders is uppermost in most people's minds, so I thought I'd check in with Google Trends to see how interest in the Caravan has grown since Trump first brought it up before the election.
Imagine my surprise when I saw this: zAOtQDd.jpg
It's almost as if the question of keeping us racially pure was forgotten after election day. It's been only a week! How did that happen, and why, O Lord, why?
Thanks, and a tip 'o the hat to Kevin Drum
I think the law of citizenship by birth is terrific and should definitely be kept.
It's a unique aspect about the United States that we'll take all the babies you make here, even if you're a loser who should go away. I mean...a nation founded on immigrants. Showing our roots and love of people who wish to be Americans by making it easier to be a citizen.
We can't let everyone in, of course. Never have. But if you're born here and grew up here, you're basically an American anyway. What would be the sense in refusing citizenship? We already have far too many illegal immigrants in this country. And now some people want there to be more? No! Balderdash! Don't make more work for yourselves. They're born here, they're citizens, it's not their fault their parents are criminals. They didn't break any law in coming here because they've always been here.
@Abbie, it is actually not true that we have never had unrestricted immigration.
From Wikipedia:
History of laws concerning immigration and naturalization in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a history of laws concerning immigration and naturalization in the United States. Immigration is distinct from naturalization. For the first century of the United States' history, immigration to the country was unrestricted. Anyone could move into the United States, start a new life, pay taxes, participate in military service and conduct business. However, while the United States had an "open-borders" policy for the first century of its existence, meaning anyone could immigrate into the country without any restrictions, it had very clear naturalization laws from the first years of its existence. Anyone who wanted to vote or hold elective office had to be naturalized. That is, anyone could immigrate in, but only those who went through the naturalization process and became a citizen could vote or hold elective office.
This set of policies, in which open immigration was permitted, but naturalization was tightly controlled, persisted until the 1870s and 1880s, when growing support for eugenics eventually drove the US government to adopt immigration laws. These laws were intended to end the open immigration policy which the Founding Fathers had permitted, in favor of preventing "racial taint" from immigrants who entered from undesirable countries.
Oh. Well, in that case I don't see why we shouldn't go back to the old ways.
Anyone who's played Civ knows that more population means more progress.
(Doesn't mean I support illegal immigration. It has to be made legal first. Which goes back to the original topic: it's already legal, so I see no reason to make more people criminals.
For what reasons do you think this would be the case? IMO it’s not likely many people would be motivated to go to another country and just drop their kid off there like leaving a baby in a reed basket in the river, in hopes the government will care for them.
I have worked dealing with this kind of topic and it seems a lot more problematic when people are just sitting around in a country but don’t have the same rights as ordinary citizens. It can cause significant social unrest.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
