Birthright Citizenship

[acbytesla]

Full context for those that aren't bothering to 'even read the thread.'

I addressed this in post 57 ...see below.

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.

 

[acbytesla]

I know. It's the mechanism that stuck me as odd. When the 14th amendment's birthright provision was set up, it was with a mind to confer citizenship to former slaves, IIRC. That provision is certainly obsolete, no?

Yes. But the law cannot be changed through Executive Order. Since it was written into the Constitution, it requires another Amendment to repeal it like prohibition.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I know. It's the mechanism that stuck me as odd. When the 14th amendment's birthright provision was set up, it was with a mind to confer citizenship to former slaves, IIRC. That provision is certainly obsolete, no?

Maybe life born into a country that doesn't recognize you as equal has something in common with ex slavery.bin that case, it wouldn't be obsolete.

 

[Darat]

But they did. Trump was willing to give them citizenship for the wall. The dems balked.

Why if it is a policy he wants didn't he take action to implement it regardless of whether his wall was funded or not?

 

[Thermal]

Yes. But the law cannot be changed through Executive Order. Since it was written into the Constitution, it requires another Amendment to repeal it like prohibition.

I'm not claiming it can. It quite obviously cannot. Well, obvious except to one unfortunate mistake that was made in Nov '16.

 

[Thermal]

Maybe life born into a country that doesn't recognize you as equal has something in common with ex slavery.bin that case, it wouldn't be obsolete.

The country does recognize you as politically equal. Some of it's citizens may not. In any event, your citizenship cannot be denied in any meaningful way by others. The born-breathing-American-air provision no longer has a purpose. It seems logical to confer citizenship via the parents, regardless of where they happen to be during the actual birth.

 

[lomiller]

But they did. Trump was willing to give them citizenship for the wall. The dems balked.

Republicans think that it makes sense to trade something they already want to have anyway and ask for something stupid and expensive in return. They are basically trying to runt he country the along the lines of a mafia protection racket. "give us the stupid stuff we promised to our base or we'll make bad things to the country" has gone on why to long. It's about time Democrats started calling out the Republicans when they try to pull this crap.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The country does recognize you as politically equal. Some of it's citizens may not. In any event, your citizenship cannot be denied in any meaningful way by others. It seems logical to confer citizenship via the parents, regardless of where they happen to be during the actual birth.

There are a few assumptions there.

"The born-breathing-American-air provision no longer has a purpose. "

Maybe, maybe not. We would have to more closely examine how much being born here without citizenship is like the late 1800s.

" It seems logical to confer citizenship via the parents, regardless of where they happen to be during the actual birth."

This would actually need a logical proof before being judged logical.

 

[Doubt]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2...r-baby-bust/x9JYDX7zzV6xeCkP76RC0M/story.html

Birthright citizenship will be a useful tool for dealing with the population crash that has already started. Birth rate in the US is at 1.77 per woman. Well below replacement rates and less than the 1.79 figure cited for Australia.

 

[Thermal]

There are a few assumptions there.

"The born-breathing-American-air provision no longer has a purpose. "

Maybe, maybe not. We would have to more closely examine how much being born here without citizenship is like the late 1800s.

Not necessary, except in the historical sense. That important transition has passed, and does not have a modern equivalent, nor a foreseeable one.

" It seems logical to confer citizenship via the parents, regardless of where they happen to be during the actual birth."

This would actually need a logical proof before being judged logical.

Reasonable, then, instead of formally logical.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Not necessary, except in the historical sense. That important transition has passed, and does not have a modern equivalent, nor a foreseeable one.



Reasonable, then, instead of formally logical.

I need some demonstration it is reasonable.

 

[lomiller]

What Trump and his followers seem to think is that if someone has Hispanic ancestor you can just ship them off to any country where most people have brown skin and that will solve all the problems since all brown skinned people are the same anyway. What happens if these people don’t have legal citizenship rights there either? How would the US feel if countries just up and decided they don’t want certain people so they will just start shipping them to the US? If you don’t find this acceptable why would you think it’s acceptable for the US to just start throwing people illegally into other countries?



Ultimately, if you don’t have some form of citizenship rights for people born in your country then you risk creating an underclass you can’t legally deport anywhere but have no legal or constitutional rights. The had such an under-class and a very large one, which is almost certainly why it saw the need to create such an amendment in the first place. Ultimately this comes down to whether you support liberty and the notion that “all people are created equal”, if you do need to have such a law otherwise you are creating a class of people who are not considered equal and don’t have any rights anywhere.

 

[Thermal]

I need some demonstration it is reasonable.

There seem to be three main options:

1. citizenship based on where you happened to have popped out. I don't see any reason for this.

2. the child is stateless until an age of accountability. Impractical and pointless.

3. citizenship consistent with the birth parents. Makes the most sense, as the child will most likely be raised in the country where the parents are citizens, and be an integral part of the culture and society.

 

[BobTheCoward]

There seem to be three main options:

1. citizenship based on where you happened to have popped out. I don't see any reason for this.

2. the child is stateless until an age of accountability. Impractical and pointless.

3. citizenship consistent with the birth parents. Makes the most sense, as the child will most likely be raised in the country where the parents are citizens, and be an integral part of the culture and society.

1 is argument from ignorance

3 is an evidence based claim. We can actually look up what are the probability of them being raised there rather than guessing.

 

[Random]

But they did. Trump was willing to give them citizenship for the wall. The dems balked.

Not quite. Back in October of 2017, the Dems were willing to provide partial funding for Trump’s Magical Racism Fence in exchange for legal protections for the Dreamers (not full citizenship though). But when they got to the final meeting to make the deal, Trump added in cutting off funding to sanctuary cities and ending the ability of naturalized citizens to sponsor family members for citizenship (Chain Migration). Dems said that this wasn’t the deal that they had agreed to and it collapsed.

Another example of our Dealmaker in Chief screwing up a deal…

 

[Bob001]

There seem to be three main options:

1. citizenship based on where you happened to have popped out. I don't see any reason for this.

2. the child is stateless until an age of accountability. Impractical and pointless.

3. citizenship consistent with the birth parents. Makes the most sense, as the child will most likely be raised in the country where the parents are citizens, and be an integral part of the culture and society.

"Most likely?" No, the whole point is that people who come to America from other countries, legally or otherwise, are most likely to raise their children in their adopted homeland. An end to birthright citizenship would create generations of U.S. residents who would work, go to school, pay taxes, use services who would not be citizens. How is that good for the society?

I repeat, what is the argument against citizenship by birth, which has been the law in the U.S. for 150 years?

 

[Thermal]

1 is argument from ignorance

What? No it's not. There is no logical or reasonable justification for assigning legal citizenship to where one first draws breath. The onus should be on the one who claims there should. Noting a lack of justification is not an argument from ignorance.

3 is an evidence based claim. We can actually look up what are the probability of them being raised there rather than guessing.

Have at it brah. I consider it self evident.

 

[BobTheCoward]

What? No it's not. There is no logical or reasonable justification for assigning legal citizenship to where one first draws breath. The onus should be on the one who claims there should. Noting a lack of justification is not an argument from ignorance.



Have at it brah. I consider it self evident.

To the first point, you cannot simultaneously assert there is no reasonable justification while also asserting a burden on those made a claim. You have asserted a claim of your own in that first sentence.

Second point: you are the one making a claim. It is on you to present evidence for it. It isn't a self evident claim.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

I repeat, what is the argument against citizenship by birth, which has been the law in the U.S. for 150 years?

Brown people are scary?

 

[Thermal]

To the first point, you cannot simultaneously assert there is no reasonable justification while also asserting a burden on those made a claim. You have asserted a claim of your own in that first sentence.

No. I opine that there appears to be no contemporary justification. If one is presented, it could at least be considered. There seems to be none. That is an observation.

Second point: you are the one making a claim. It is on you to present evidence for it. It isn't a self evident claim.

I think it is. I am also not willing to research statistics for you on whether people are more commonly raised in countries of their parent's citizenship or whether we are a planet of gypsies.