Birthright Citizenship

[BobTheCoward]

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

It forces membership, duties, and responsibilities the person never agreed to. People generally should not be compelled against their will.

 

[carlitos]

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.

The onus is on those seeking to amend the Constitution, I would think.

 

[BobTheCoward]

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.



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.

I feel you did more than opine. But I agree, your statements are opining.

In the most pedantic sense, people are most likely raised in the country of their birth. People are most likely raised in the country their parents have citizenship.

 

[phiwum]

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?

If so, it should be repealed. The plain language strongly entails that the provision is still in effect.

Now, to be fair, those advising Trump say "not subject to the jurisdiction" meant, originally, "not beholden to a foreign nation". And they can argue that point and perhaps the stacked court really will agree.

But at present, that's not what it means. At present, it means everyone born in the US, aside from those born under diplomatic immunity.

 

[Bob001]

It forces membership, duties, and responsibilities the person never agreed to. People generally should not be compelled against their will.

Almost all of those duties and responsibilities -- to pay taxes, to obey the laws, to care for and educate your children, etc. -- fall equally on non-citizen residents. And the debate here is on what country an infant should be a citizen of, not whether he should be a citizen of someplace.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Almost all of those duties and responsibilities -- to pay taxes, to obey the laws, to care for and educate your children, etc. -- fall equally on non-citizen residents. And the debate here is on what country an infant should be a citizen of, not whether he should be a citizen of someplace.

Your question did not specify.

 

[Thermal]

The onus is on those seeking to amend the Constitution, I would think.

If so, it should be repealed. The plain language strongly entails that the provision is still in effect.

Now, to be fair, those advising Trump say "not subject to the jurisdiction" meant, originally, "not beholden to a foreign nation". And they can argue that point and perhaps the stacked court really will agree.

But at present, that's not what it means. At present, it means everyone born in the US, aside from those born under diplomatic immunity.

Agreed to all. I am not arguing that the Constitution be amended for the political reasons set forth by the administration. But is does seem odd in the modern world to retain such a provision.

 

[Thermal]

I feel you did more than opine. But I agree, your statements are opining.

In the most pedantic sense, people are most likely raised in the country of their birth. People are most likely raised in the country their parents have citizenship.

Hot damn. Are we in general agreement, then?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Hot damn. Are we in general agreement, then?

Only if you are admitting your claim was the most pedantic version that could be argued and doesn't inform anything.

 

[Bob001]

A Trump-appointed federal judge and Kellyanne Conway's lawyer hubby both shoot Trump down.

“Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. That birthright is protected no less for children of undocumented persons than for descendants of Mayflower passengers,” the U.S. circuit judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit wrote in a 2006 law review article. Contrary to Trump’s announcement Tuesday, Ho said that a constitutional amendment was the exclusive way to restrict birthright citizenship.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...udge-he-appointed-says-he-cant/?noredirect=on

But at its core, birthright citizenship is what our 14th Amendment is all about, bridging the Declaration of Independence’s promise that “all men are created equal” with a constitutional commitment that all those born in the United States share in that equality.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e8-b3f0-62607289efee_story.html?noredirect=on

 

[lomiller]

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.

What if no one recognises the parent’s citizenship, what is the citizenship of the children then?

Even if that were not an issue is it really ok for a country to start imposing its laws on everyone else? Eg. Country A thinks citizenship comes only from the parent’s citizenship; country B thinks it comes from where you were born. How do you reconcile these without unless Country A gets to impose laws on Country B without consent of it's voters?

 

[phiwum]

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.

According to the arguments around here, the relevant fact isn't the Australian birth rate, but the Australian white birth rate. Because (1) they're totally white supremacist and (2) they're letting down the race.

Funny ol' argument, that.

 

[Thermal]

Only if you are admitting your claim was the most pedantic version that could be argued and doesn't inform anything.

So close...

You assert that a discussion must inform, then? I was not aware of this criteria. Argument and opinion are somehow unacceptable? Or are you foisting undisclosed terms and agreements?

 

[rdwight]

Is the consensus here that there is no cost to birthright citizenship or that the cost isn't large enough to justify changing things?

 

[lomiller]

It forces membership, duties, and responsibilities the person never agreed to. People generally should not be compelled against their will.

Nothing says "freeing people from the being compelled" like denying them any/all protection against those who would compel them against their will…

 

[phiwum]

Agreed to all. I am not arguing that the Constitution be amended for the political reasons set forth by the administration. But is does seem odd in the modern world to retain such a provision.

Eh, I think reasonable folk can disagree on this. I don't have an argument that would convince you, I think, and you haven't provided an argument which would convince me (though my position is soft: leave well enough alone).

 

[Thermal]

What if no one recognises the parent’s citizenship, what is the citizenship of the children then?

Same status as the parents. A provision could be made for stateless children as a sort of refugee, I suppose.

Even if that were not an issue is it really ok for a country to start imposing its laws on everyone else? Eg. Country A thinks citizenship comes only from the parent’s citizenship; country B thinks it comes from where you were born. How do you reconcile these without unless Country A gets to impose laws on Country B without consent of it's voters?

The dilemma you propose is the status quo, and would exist in any variation unless all nations adopted identical criteria in a universal treaty. Similar to states who acknowledged (or not) marriages in other states.

 

[Hellbound]

Is the consensus here that there is no cost to birthright citizenship or that the cost isn't large enough to justify changing things?

Can't speak for everyone, but mine's a bit more nuanced.

There's little cost to it, but little cost to changing it either, as long as other parts of law are changed to cover the gap made by simply doing away with birthright citizenship.

The problem is, we'd create perpetual non-citizens (as others have mentioned). Places that don't have birthright citizenship almost always have some modified method (such as can become a citizen at 18 if you've lived here x years as a minor, or similar) that prevents this permanent group of uncitizens. I have no issue getting rid of birthright if we implemented something similar.

 

[Belz...]

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?

The right-wing seem to want to reinstate slavery, so no, it remains relevant.

 

[BobTheCoward]

So close...

You assert that a discussion must inform, then? I was not aware of this criteria. Argument and opinion are somehow unacceptable? Or are you foisting undisclosed terms and agreements?

I would never assert that and I am the king pedant. I love pedanticism. I'm just making sure we are on the same page about it