Birthright Citizenship

[theprestige]

Can you clarify? In this context 'the bar' refers to the votes and ratifications all amendments go through, which all amendments to the US constitution have completed.

No. That's not the context of my question at all. Are you even reading this thread?

 

[acbytesla]

I think birthright citizenship was an unintended loophole in the 14th amendment...but is it worth going to the trouble of admending the constitution to get rid of it? I don't think so.....

I don't think they were considering a time where we would be closing the door to immigrants in the 1860s. I really don't think it's a big problem. I'm not afraid of the caravan.

 

[acbytesla]

It's okay. Take as much time as you need to figure out your reasoning.

I just don't know what your point is. Are you suggesting that because the 14th was a Reconstruction Amendment sort of forced upon the Southern States that it isn't legitimate or that the ruling dismissing the rescission of Ohio and New Jersey wasn't proper?

I think we need your help to understand what you meant by saying it 'barely cleared the bar'.

 

[theprestige]

I just don't know what your point is. Are you suggesting that because the 14th was a Reconstruction Amendment sort of forced upon the Southern States that it isn't legitimate or that the ruling dismissing the rescission of Ohio and New Jersey wasn't proper?

I think we need your help to understand what you meant by saying it 'barely cleared the bar'.

I didn't say it barely cleared the bar. And it's obvious you have no idea what to bar we're even talking about.

Are you even reading this thread?

 

[WilliamSeger]

I didn't say it barely cleared the bar. And it's obvious you have no idea what to bar we're even talking about.

Are you even reading this thread?

I still don't know what bar you could be talking about that would be different for passing an amendment and repealing one. If you're talking about the process and necessary votes, it's the same. If it's why you would want to change the Constitution at all, why would it be different?

 

[acbytesla]

I didn't say it barely cleared the bar. And it's obvious you have no idea what to bar we're even talking about.

Are you even reading this thread?

This is what you said

Birthright citizenship was introduced in the 14th Amendment. If the amendment itself didn't bother to clear the bar, why should repealing the amendment have to clear the bar?

Why don't you clear up what you meant as I don't believe anyone other than yourself understands 'if the amendment itself didn't clear the bar'.
To my understanding 3/4ths (28 at that time) of the States are needed to ratify the Amendment. South Carolina became the 28th state to ratify the Amendment on July 9, 1868. Alabama became the 29th State on July 13th and it officially became law on July 21. Georgia ratified the Amendment on the 21st making it 30 States.

So again, what do you mean?

 

[Slings and Arrows]

"If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn't enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No sane country would do that, right? Guess again.

"If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee a full access to all public and social services this society provides. And that's a lot of services.

"Is it any wonder that two-thirds of the babies born at taxpayer expense at country-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?"

-- Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

 

[Horhang]

Hey here's a dumb question.

Has Birthright Citizenship ever been put on someone against their will? Is there a precedence for that?

I mean in a lot of countries being a citizen carries with it substantial military service or the inability to hold duel citizenship.

You're a pregnant woman flying from Timbukto to Walla Walla and your plane makes an emergency stop in the Republic of HereNorThere which has birthright citizenship, you go into early labor and boom 18 years later your kid gets called up in HereNorThere's war or jury duty or taxes or whatever.

Yes citizenship by birth has been applied against people’s will, and with serious consequences. In fact my son may actually have unintended and unwanted dual citizenship. The problem is we won’t know until we go to Korea after he is 18-20 or we spend some time and money to renounce citizenship he may or may not have. Here is the deal as best I have grasped it.
My son was born in USA mom was still a resident alien and so a citizen of Korea. By Korean law he is also a Korean citizen, but only if someone added him to the family registry in Korea, and we have no way of knowing if a relative added him to keep the registry complete and up to date without the knowledge that that would make him a citizen. Here is why it is a problem, if he is a Korean citizen, even without knowing it, and visits Korea during the age where male citizens are required to do 2 years of army service, he can be refused the right to leave the country and drafted into the Korean army for 2 years.

 

[acbytesla]

"If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn't enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No sane country would do that, right? Guess again.

"If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee a full access to all public and social services this society provides. And that's a lot of services.

"Is it any wonder that two-thirds of the babies born at taxpayer expense at country-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?"

-- Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

It's a fair argument Slings. Now write the Amendment and get 287 Congressmen and 67 Senators to nominate the Amendment. And then get 38 States to ratify it and you have your law.

 

[Bob001]

Yes citizenship by birth has been applied against people’s will, and with serious consequences. In fact my son may actually have unintended and unwanted dual citizenship. The problem is we won’t know until we go to Korea after he is 18-20 or we spend some time and money to renounce citizenship he may or may not have. Here is the deal as best I have grasped it.
My son was born in USA mom was still a resident alien and so a citizen of Korea. By Korean law he is also a Korean citizen, but only if someone added him to the family registry in Korea, and we have no way of knowing if a relative added him to keep the registry complete and up to date without the knowledge that that would make him a citizen. Here is why it is a problem, if he is a Korean citizen, even without knowing it, and visits Korea during the age where male citizens are required to do 2 years of army service, he can be refused the right to leave the country and drafted into the Korean army for 2 years.

Surely you can find that out without actually visiting South Korea. Are these registries consolidated at a national or regional level that you could just write to? Could the embassy help you? And are you sure the registry is all that matters? His U.S. passport would show he was born in South Korea. That might attract special scrutiny by itself.

 

[phiwum]

Can one of you please explain to me the line of reasoning that led you to this question?

acbytesla, especially from you I'm hoping there's an independent train of thought, and not just parroting phiwum's idea.

Bonus points if your explanation takes into account Cavemonster's reply to me.

You said the 14th "itself didn't bother to clear the bar". I am not at all sure what you meant, but it seems to me that you meant it was somehow illegitimate.

Feel free to clarify.

 

[Horhang]

Surely you can find that out without actually visiting South Korea. Are these registries consolidated at a national or regional level that you could just write to? Could the embassy help you? And are you sure the registry is all that matters? His U.S. passport would show he was born in South Korea. That might attract special scrutiny by itself.

There are steps we can take through the consulate, though they will incur costs. We have several years before he becomes eligible for the draft in Korea. It is a balance between does he exist in the registry, and what will be the legal fees in renouncing his theoretical citizenship.
Sadly no his US passport would be no protection. American cirizens born in US to Korean national parents have been detained in Korea and forced to serve the national draft, despite having lived their entire lives in the US. This even if the parents later become US citizens; it is citizenship of the parents at the time of birth, and being on the family registry that appear to control it. Korea recognizes dual citizenship and once registered, however it happens there are timelines for renouncing the citizenship. Failure to do so can turn a trip to visit into 2 years of military service.
See for example:
https://narratively.com/how-one-american-citizen-was-forcibly-drafted-into-the-south-korean-army/

https://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/The-accidental-citizen-soldier-1141729.php

Those two appear to be about the same individual. Even us soldiers are not exempt from Korean draft though:

https://www.stripes.com/news/dual-citizen-soldiers-torn-between-u-s-s-korean-armies-1.48707

 

[acbytesla]

You said the 14th "itself didn't bother to clear the bar". I am not at all sure what you meant, but it seems to me that you meant it was somehow illegitimate.

Feel free to clarify.

We're on the same wavelength.

The 14th Amendment was ratified in the usual process with certain specific caveats. That being Southern States (formally Confederate States) would not have representation in the post Civil War Congress until they ratified the Amendment. They sort of had a gun pointed at their head. And two States (New Jersey and Ohio) rescinded their ratification prior to the Amendment becoming law. However 2 additional states ratified the Amendment by the date it became law. Subsequently both Ohio and New Jersey ratified the Amendment again.

Nevertheless, it has been the law of the land for 153 years. And it certainly did not become law by Executive Order. It was nominated by Congress and was ratified by the States. It followed the normal process. So to comparing it to POTUS simply issuing an EO is hardly comparable.

 

[Ferguson]

He's referring to CaveMonster's bar from the beginning of the thread:

"Personally I think there is a bar for just about ANY legislation that it needs to address a serious harm productively or provide a serious tangible good.

When talking about changing the constitution, that bar is raised much higher." - CaveMonster

 

[Norman Alexander]

"If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn't enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No sane country would do that, right? Guess again.

"If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee a full access to all public and social services this society provides. And that's a lot of services.

"Is it any wonder that two-thirds of the babies born at taxpayer expense at country-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?"

-- Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

1993. Anyone fact-checked the good senator?

 

[Bob001]

....
Sadly no his US passport would be no protection.
....

I actually didn't mean it could protect him. I meant it could contribute to his problem. His U.S. passport would show his birthplace as South Korea; that could alert immigration authorities to investigate his citizenship status, even if there wasn't the registry issue.

 

[acbytesla]

He's referring to CaveMonster's bar from the beginning of the thread:

"Personally I think there is a bar for just about ANY legislation that it needs to address a serious harm productively or provide a serious tangible good.

When talking about changing the constitution, that bar is raised much higher." - CaveMonster

Thanks for pointing that out. But even that is ridiculous as there WAS a need at that time to spell out who was to be considered a US Citizen and who wasn't. This was because there were people at that time arguing that slaves brought to the US and their children weren't actually US citizens. The need for the 14th Amendment cleared the bar with ease.

 

[WilliamSeger]

He's referring to CaveMonster's bar from the beginning of the thread:

"Personally I think there is a bar for just about ANY legislation that it needs to address a serious harm productively or provide a serious tangible good.

When talking about changing the constitution, that bar is raised much higher." - CaveMonster

Yes, but the question then was why he thought the 14th hadn't crossed that bar when it was passed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's the thing, all this is about is racism. The alt-right would not care one iota about birthright if it wasn't minority ethnicity that were the non-citizens having these children.

Last year it was the falsified demonization of so called "anchor babies." As if Hispanic families were only having babies in the US so the infant created a toehold for the rest of the family. That's just crap. Hispanics have babies just like everyone else. It might be two Dreamers that met each other and fell in love. It might be seasonal agriculture workers that traveled as families.

That's reality. Fear mongering that the unwashed masses were swarming across the border to have their newborns gain US citizenship was low on the list of reason Hispanics are having babies here. Think about it, they've lived here for decades. Of course they have babies here.

Then there is the fear mongering they are going to upset the white nationalists' control at the ballot box. Quash those potential voters be they new citizens-eventual voters, or actual legit voters that aren't white.

That's what this is about. If it's been posted already, my apologies, I haven't had time to read much of the thread.

 

[Cain]

Republicans believe that America screwed up with the 14th Amendment, but somehow got things right with the Electoral College.

Is birthright citizenship "stupid"? Maybe in a globalized, interconnected world where, in one day, you can wake up in Prague and fall asleep in Las Vegas. Not all technology carries political consequences (e.g., going from muskets to AR-15s).