Birthright Citizenship

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

And just like now, the idea of all those blacks voting worried white racists, obviously.

 

[acbytesla]

And just like now, the idea of all those blacks voting worried white racists, obviously.

Interestingly though. There was a big fear among the Northern States politicians that didn't want to count all those former slaves for representation given that those Southern States would prevent them from voting.

 

[WilliamSeger]

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.

In addition, Trump is taking a page from the Lee Atwater/Reagan play book and recasting racial issues as economic issues: He's ranting about "those people" coming here to drop their babies, and then we have to take care of the worthless things until they're 85. That pushes even fairly non-racist Republicans' buttons, because one of the main reason they're Republicans is the resentment they feel about any of their tax money supporting people who won't support themselves. If they happen to feel a little extra resentment toward Hispanics trying to get over on them, so much the better.

 

[jimbob]

How do you mean that the amendment didn't clear the bar? At the time it addressed people who were born here but were not being granted the rights of citizenship, and that was a major harm in need of remedy.

Yes, but I am going the vibe that a lot of Trump supporters don't like that Amendment and why it was implemented.

 

[lionking]

I find this whole debate fascinating. Australia doesn’t have birthright citizenship. One parent needs to be an Australian citizen before the baby has citizenship. If, for some reason, a law was proposed to grant birthright citizenship in Australia it would not stand a chance of being passed, and there would be widespread public opposition.

 

[Baylor]

I find this whole debate fascinating. Australia doesn’t have birthright citizenship. One parent needs to be an Australian citizen before the baby has citizenship. If, for some reason, a law was proposed to grant birthright citizenship in Australia it would not stand a chance of being passed, and there would be widespread public opposition.

Because Australia is a white supremacist country.

 

[Baylor]

If we didn't have birthright citizenship, and someone had a baby, where would they be a citizen of, if not here? We could be creating a refugee crisis in our own country if we did away with birthright citizenship, creating a bunch of stateless kids.

We already have a bunch of stateless kids in our country. Democrats call them "Dreamers."

 

[Baylor]

Yes, but I am going the vibe that a lot of Trump supporters don't like that Amendment and why it was implemented.

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. It's the far-left media organizations that don't like it.

 

[lionking]

Because Australia is a white supremacist country.

Interesting. Do you know the proportion of Australians born overseas or to a parent born overseas? I’ll tell you. It’s about 50%. Only 40% of people born overseas speak only English at home. The biggest growing proportion of overseas citizens are from India and China. We have had a non-discriminatory immigration policy for decades. We allow in more refugees, per capita, that nearly every country. We are (mostly) proud of our multicultural society and are (mostly) welcoming of immigrants.

What Australians don’t like are illegal immigrants and people who overstay on visas. Some might consider that racist, but I don’t. I think that not allowing birthright citizenship is a reasonable position to hold.

But call Australia a white supremacist nation. It will be yet another of the long line of things you are wrong about.

 

[Cavemonster]

I find this whole debate fascinating. Australia doesn’t have birthright citizenship. One parent needs to be an Australian citizen before the baby has citizenship. If, for some reason, a law was proposed to grant birthright citizenship in Australia it would not stand a chance of being passed, and there would be widespread public opposition.

Two minor corrections, assuming wikipedia is correct in it's paraphrasing of the impact of this law. Australia does have a slightly modified jus soli. If you are born in Australia and live there for the first 10 years of your life, you are granted citizenship regardless of you. One parent having permanent resident status would also be enough.

http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aca2007254/s12.html

And beyond that, Australia has 2.8% foreign born population as compared to the US's 19.8. While those numbers aren't exactly the same as the number of non-citizen residents, clearly the impact of removing jus soli in the US would be far greater than removing it in Australia was.

I've looked around to see more of the justification used to remove jus soli from Australia law in 1984, and I haven't found much. I'd be curious what the reasoning was, and would not be surprised if there was some racism involved.

 

[lionking]

Two minor corrections, assuming wikipedia is correct in it's paraphrasing of the impact of this law. Australia does have a slightly modified jus soli. If you are born in Australia and live there for the first 10 years of your life, you are granted citizenship regardless of you. One parent having permanent resident status would also be enough.

http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aca2007254/s12.html

And beyond that, Australia has 2.8% foreign born population as compared to the US's 19.8. While those numbers aren't exactly the same as the number of non-citizen residents, clearly the impact of removing jus soli in the US would be far greater than removing it in Australia was.

I've looked around to see more of the justification used to remove jus soli from Australia law in 1984, and I haven't found much. I'd be curious what the reasoning was, and would not be surprised if there was some racism involved.

No, it’s 28%.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/lookup/3412.0Media Release12015-16

The proportion of Australians born overseas continues to reach new heights, with over 28 per cent of Australia's population born overseas, according to figures released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).

Puts a different complexion on your argument.

 

[Cavemonster]

No, it’s 28%.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/lookup/3412.0Media Release12015-16



Puts a different complexion on your argument.

Ah, fair enough, I was confusing the numbers of % of total immigrant population for the % of local population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...dependent_territories_by_immigrant_population

That said, again, the histories and realities of immigration between the countries are different, which still creates a difference in the impact of policy.

I can't pretend to be an expert in Australia's immigration situation, could you expound on your understanding of why jus soli was ended in 1984?

 

[lionking]

I can't pretend to be an expert in Australia's immigration situation, could you expound on your understanding of why jus soli was ended in 1984?

Essentially because it wasn’t an issue before then. Australia, like the US, Canada, Britain and any number of other countries are destinations for immigrants. We welcomed immigrants in droves after WWII, and Vietnamese and other Indochinese from the 1970s to today. Other nations followed, including African and Middle Eastern. And their children were also welcome.

But people coming on temporary visas of many types was not common until the 1980s. As I said earlier, I think it’s a reasonable position to hold that children of tourists (who generally go back home) and visa holders (who often don’t want to) do not automatically become citizens on their birth in Australia.

 

[Baylor]

No, it’s 28%.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/lookup/3412.0Media Release12015-16



Puts a different complexion on your argument.

Hardly. The white people in Australia are like the panda bear--they won't screw to save their own species. Australia's fertility rate is an abysmal 1.79 births per woman, well below replacement level, that's including the fertile immigrants.

 

[lionking]

Hardly. The white people in Australia are like the panda bear--they won't screw to save their own species. Australia's fertility rate is an abysmal 1.79 births per woman, well below replacement level, that's including the fertile immigrants.

Hang on. Are we a white supremacist nation or one under the heel of breeding darkies?

As usual, your posts are hopelessly ignorant and all over the place.

Australia’s population is thriving (unlike Japan and a growing number of European nations) and the place is quite harmonious compared to so many other parts of the world.

Must be a bugger being continuously wrong.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Baylor might be correct that some parts of White America have no skills left besides procreation.

 

[Baylor]

Hang on. Are we a white supremacist nation or one under the heel of breeding darkies?

As usual, your posts are hopelessly ignorant and all over the place.

Australia’s population is thriving (unlike Japan and a growing number of European nations) and the place is quite harmonious compared to so many other parts of the world.

Must be a bugger being continuously wrong.

Australia is a white supremacist nation that needs cheap labor so it imports and breeds brown people. Australia hasn't had replacement rate fertility levels since 1976! Despite importing immigrants, they have refused to give them political representation. Whites still hold power and oppress those under them. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/world/australia/study-diversity-multicultural.html

 

[lionking]

Australia is a white supremacist nation that needs cheap labor so it imports and breeds brown people. Australia hasn't had replacement rate fertility levels since 1976! Despite importing immigrants, they have refused to give them political representation. Whites still hold power and oppress those under them. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/world/australia/study-diversity-multicultural.html

Oh boy. Where to start.

Cheap labor? Do you know the minimum Australian wage? $AU18.75. The minimum wage in the land of the free? $7.25, or around $AU10.

I’m sorry, refused to give immigrants political representation? Two of our most recent Prime Ministers, Gillard and Abbott, were born overseas. Who, exactly, is trying to refuse immigrants representation? Perhaps the Melbourne Club? The HR Nichols Society? They are doing a pretty piss weak job then.

By the way, did you miss my post which shows Australia has more people born overseas than any other nation? Including increasing numbers of Asians?

But I’m getting used to posts of yours which display such utter ignorance. Keep them up. Very entertaining.

 

[phiwum]

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

Seems likely that's what he meant, but I sure wasn't reading it that way. That context was lost on me.

Perhaps he could have clarified his meaning immediately, rather than throwing a hissy fit because we didn't understand him.

 

[phiwum]

We already have a bunch of stateless kids in our country. Democrats call them "Dreamers."

They almost certainly have the same citizenship as their parents. Or, since almost every nation in the Americas has birthright citizenship, they are citizens of their birthplace.

(Carlitos is also wrong about repealing birthright citizenship creating stateless kids, since children born in the US to non-citizens will almost certainly inherit citizenship from their parents.)