• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Birthright Citizenship

lionking said:
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?
Click to expand...

What in gods name are you talking about???? US has 44 million "born overseas," close to twice the population of Australia.
 
phiwum said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes but they don't know or even speak the language of their home country, effectively rendering them stateless.
 
Baylor said:
What in gods name are you talking about???? US has 44 million "born overseas," close to twice the population of Australia.
Click to expand...



It is bloody obvious to everyone reading that “per capita” was just a waste of two words. But to ease your pedantic soul, of course I was referring to percentages.
 
lionking said:
It is bloody obvious to everyone reading that “per capita” was just a waste of two words. But to ease your pedantic soul, of course I was referring to percentages.
Click to expand...

Still a meaningless statistic since 1) US has a much bigger population and 2) White Australians won't breed.
 
phiwum said:
(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.)
Click to expand...

There would probably be SOME number of stateless children. Not every country automatically confers citizenship by descent.

For instance, New Zealand only confers citizenship by descent to children born abroad if a parent is themselves a citizen by descent. A couple who were naturalized New Zealand citizens who then moved to a country without jus solis and had a child before becoming citizens would have a stateless child.

I'm just citing New Zealand because I had been looking at policy in that part of the world. I imagine we'd find similar situations with parents of other countries as well.

But honestly, I think a problem similar to the dreamers would be bad enough. While they may technically have citizenship somewhere, it would be a country they may have never seen and may not even speak the language of. They would be a group we invest in 18 years of education for, only to have them not be able to fully participate and fullfill our investment.
 
lionking said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can certainly agree that it doesn't seem to benefit a country to have people born as citizens who never live there. I know "birth tourism" is a thing although I wonder to what extent it has a measurable negative impact.

But I find it far more of an issue to have large numbers of residents who live their whole lives in a country but are unable to fully participate. In the US, we already have that with children brought to the US at a young age, the "dreamers". Eliminating jus soli would dramatically increase that population. I'm not sure if Australia had such an effect from their policy change.
 
Bob001 said:
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.
Click to expand...

He was born in the US
 
I'm sure having a permanent underclass of people shut out from full participation will lead to a stable, healthy society.
 
lionking said:
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.
Click to expand...
From the first paragraph of his own link:
you’ll notice that Australia’s power structure is overwhelmingly white, nowhere near as diverse as the country at large.
Click to expand...
Whoops, he missed that bit. Changes the whole focus of the article...and his misbegotten conclusions.

I have to ask: Is there such a fallacy as argumentum ad ignoratum?
 
TragicMonkey said:
I'm sure having a permanent underclass of people shut out from full participation will lead to a stable, healthy society.
Click to expand...

I'd venture to guess that most of these European (or Australian) countries that don't have birthright citizenship have ways for people who are living permanently in the country to naturalize and become citizens. Otherwise you have the problem of multi-generational, permanently stateless peoples.

The goal of any liberal democracy should be that all of the permanent residents, barring extraordinary circumstances, can attain citizenship. Either by birthright or automatic naturalization, seems that most Western countries do this.

Looking at birthright citizenship out of context of the greater citizenship process is pointless. Countries without birthright citizenship have ways of naturalizing residents who don't qualify that way. The US doesn't really have a reasonable naturalization process, so revoking the birthright criteria would be a mistake without further, simultaneous reform.
 
Of course we have a naturalisation process in Australia! It may be flawed and changeable but we do have one. As shown above, it all depends on what you define "birthright" as re citizenship.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Of course we have a naturalisation process in Australia! It may be flawed and changeable but we do have one. As shown above, it all depends on what you define "birthright" as re citizenship.
Click to expand...

Right, and that's why this whole "Europe doesn't have birthright" argument seems disingenuous. These countries don't have the DREAMer problem that we have in the US.

The anti-immigration people use Europe as an example for policies for denying citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, but the totality of citizenship policy in these countries do not have that outcome. If we adopted the policies of France, in totality, not just the birthright part, it would not have the desired outcome of the anti-immigrant contingent. Anchor babies would just become anchor elementary school kids. All the DREAMers would be eligible for citizenship. Long term green card holders would be automatically eligible for naturalization. It would be easier for immigrants, not harder.
 
Last edited:
Slings and Arrows said:
"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.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the 14th Amendment introduced by Republicans?
 
Baylor said:
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.
Click to expand...

Blacks and asians and whites are the same species, Baylor.

But thanks for demonstrating your racism.

Baylor said:
Australia is a white supremacist nation that needs cheap labor so it imports and breeds brown people.
Click to expand...

Bwa ha ha! You realised you were wrong on your previous claim and are repurposing it. That's adorable.
 
Last edited:
My problem with citizenship is a matter of values. I can't stand that something so valuable desired by millions is given away and squandered on people like the Trump family.

Not only do I think citizenship should be an affirmative step by everyone, I think it should only come with negatives. Give everyone in the borders right to vote and benefits. Make citizens pay taxes and do jury duty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom