Birthright Citizenship

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, it isn’t established that it must be a constitutional amendment. Congress could act and change the Immigration law that specifies birthright citizenship and then test cases can hit SCOTUS, for example.

It's in the friggin Constitution! Revisionist history won't change that no matter who said the Constitution wasn't a fixed document.

There might be a couple dishonest SCOTUS judges but they aren't running the court completely.

 

[Bob001]

Actually it was tested over a hundred years ago in US vs Wong Kim Ark. In a 6-2 decision, they decided that the child of two Chinese workers who was born inside the US was a US citizen, regardless of the nationality of his parents. Considering that this was the Court that came out with the Plessy vs Ferguson, you can hardly argue that the Wong Kim Ark decision was based on Liberal touchy-feelyness.

Speaking of old Mr. Wong:

It was the fall of 1895, and Wong Kim Ark was puzzled and alarmed as he bided his time on the steamship Coptic, which floated in the San Francisco Bay after returning him from a visit to China. His papers were in order. He had seen to that. The required statement, certification from white men that he was born in the United States and therefore a citizen, were in order. He had traveled to China for a visit and had little trouble being readmitted.

On this occasion, however, authorities denied him entry, returning him to the ship on which he had arrived, and from there to another ship, the Gaelic, and then to the Peking. For four months, the only certainty to Wong’s life was the tides in San Francisco Bay, where he awaited word of his fate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/hist...ed-history-lesson-th-amendment/?noredirect=on

I found it interesting to note that this was the pre-passport era. Most people didn't have to prove their identity in any formal way, but Chinese-American citizens were required to create elaborate documents for themselves if they wanted to come home.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, and there's been slavery in the US .

It's not personal LK. I wasn't comparing the two countries.

The White Australia Policy started to be dismantled in 1949 and was fully swept away in the 1970s. Since then, we have become a veritable multiculturalism poster child. Baylor keeps dredging up ancient history to try to make a point about modern Australia. In vain.

"Fully swept away" sounds like people here claiming there is no more racism.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... There is a lot of Australian history, particularly that more than 100 years ago, which is shameful. We are not perfect, but we are certainly not a white supremacist nation at all.

Be careful what you close your eyes to.

NSW Nationals to purge white supremacists and neo-Nazis from party ranks

White supremacist posters targeting students placed at Melbourne high schools

I'm going to go with small but possibly growing numbers.

 

[Minoosh]

Obligations? Problems? I don't get it. Given that our budget is currently based on endless population and economic growth, people having new American babies is a very good thing. These kids are going to fund our social security and infrastructure when we're old.

This isn't brought up enough, IMO. It's a very real issue. We need the young folks and their productivity.

 

[xjx388]

Actually it was tested over a hundred years ago in US vs Wong Kim Ark. In a 6-2 decision, they decided that the child of two Chinese workers who was born inside the US was a US citizen, regardless of the nationality of his parents. Considering that this was the Court that came out with Plessy vs Ferguson, you can hardly argue that the Wong Kim Ark decision was based on Liberal touchy-feelyness.

But his parents were legal residents. It has not been tested when the parents are not here legally. It has been enforced as if mere birth were enough but enforcement can change and then that would have to be tested to settle it for sure.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cavemonster]

Not at all. It would be as simple as creating a new kind of birth certificate for births of foreign citizens. Immigration can follow it's usual course of action on it's own.

As it happens currently, the hospitals don't contact immigration or anything. Our hospitals in the Rio Grande Valley regularly get "birth tourists," and they aren't turned in and deported.

I'm still not sure I'm following you. The usual course of action currently results in the children of undocumented immigrants born here generally staying here.

I may still be misreading you, but your older comment seemed to state that undocumented families would not stay within a country under your proposal in the way that they currently do, and this post seems to suggest that a certificate issued by hospitals would be used in some way towards that aim.

 

[Minoosh]

Here's something very odd but true: Chinese citizens are recruiting Chinese-American egg and sperm donors to create an IVF embryo which in turn is carried by a surrogate in the U.S. The result is an instant U.S. citizen. They are having anchor babies they're not even related to.

A friend of mine had a GF in this business. Typically the Chinese parents did come over for the birth and to take the kid home. Preferred egg and sperm donors were Harvard graduates. These were the very rich variety of Chinese people.

In a broader sense I just like the whole idea that kids born here are citizens. They're not disadvantaged by being assigned their parents' citizenship. They're equal to the babies born to U.S. citizens. It seems more in keeping with U.S. values than to start discriminating on the basis of who their parents are.

ETA: IMO illegal immigrants are undeniably under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Not sure it matters for this thread though.

 

[lionking]

"Fully swept away" sounds like people here claiming there is no more racism.

I was talking about the White Australia Policy, which is totally gone and we have a no discrimination immigration policy. I wouldn't be silly enough to say that there is no racism in Australia or in any other country in the world. It exits and we have stupid racist fringe groups. But if you look at election results, anti-immigration parties are not even a blimp on the radar. I will not see a hard right, anti-immigration party in power in Australia in my lifetime.

 

[Random]

But his parents were legal residents. It has not been tested when the parents are not here legally. It has been enforced as if mere birth were enough but enforcement can change and then that would have to be tested to settle it for sure.

I really don't see the difference here. Either way, they would be under the jurisdiction of the US Government. Heck, if they are not under the jurisdiction of the US Government, how could we deport them anyway?

 

[xjx388]

I'm still not sure I'm following you. The usual course of action currently results in the children of undocumented immigrants born here generally staying here.

They can stay here because they are citizens. They can stay with family members or friends who have residency or citizenship. Or they can live in Mexico with their parents and cross over to attend school.

If they were not citizens, this would not be possible. Immigration would be able to deport them along with parents. They could not attend school. They could not get benefits. IOW, there would be no incentive to have your kid born in the US because they would not automatically get the rights and benefits of citizenship.

I may still be misreading you, but your older comment seemed to state that undocumented families would not stay within a country under your proposal in the way that they currently do, and this post seems to suggest that a certificate issued by hospitals would be used in some way towards that aim.

If the parent is illegal and the kid is not automatically a citizen, 1)There is no reason to have their kid here and 2)There is no benefit to having the kid live here. Thus, undocumented families would not stay in country in the way that they currently do.

 

[Vixen]

There is another thread about Trump's statement that he would like to end birthright citizenship via an executive order.

At least one poster expressed a desire to discuss in abstract whether repealing birthright citizenship might be a good thing outside of the context of Trump and the GOP's possible intentions.

This is the thread to do that.

Here's the thing. Apparently, the Irish embassy in the UK has seen a huge increase of Brits applying for an Irish passport (to remain an EU citizen). If you were born in Ireland before 2005, or in the UK to either (a) a parent who was born in Ireland or is an Irish citizen or (b) a grandparent (ditto), you can claim Irish citizenship. ETA: (c) or you are a Norn Iron Brit.

Many of the UK's Jewish population are claiming German citizenship for a similar reason.

Thus we have the truly ironic situation whereby Brit-Brits will likely have to get a visa if they travel to Europe, whereas the dual-Nats, the Irish and the German (and probably a whole load of other British EU nationals) will continue to travel freely across Europe.

Not what the Brexiteers had in mind!

IMV a citizenship bill needs to be either lex jus sanguinis or jus solis otherwise it is going to be chaotic, with the legislature having to be changed every year to allow for the 'exceptions', as has happened to UK nationality laws, which became complex, when British Commonwealth citizens needed to be kept out due to race hate.

 

[xjx388]

I really don't see the difference here. Either way, they would be under the jurisdiction of the US Government. Heck, if they are not under the jurisdiction of the US Government, how could we deport them anyway?

It's a subject of debate that has not been definitively resolved through the courts, is my point. Legal scholars mostly argue that the 14th grants birthright citizenship but many do not. Until it's tested, it's a relatively open debate.

 

[phiwum]

The USA always had birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment was only to clear up that it applied to everyone.

Is that so?

It might have been unclear before, but was there some really clear cases or something? Again, obviously, slaves would have been excepted. I'm not quibbling there.

 

[phiwum]

Originally, if you lived in US territory and were white, you were a citizen. I think most people can see how this isn’t exactly consistent with much of what the US Constitution was aiming for...

I'm good with that... kidding! Kidding!

 

[Random]

They can stay here because they are citizens. They can stay with family members or friends who have residency or citizenship. Or they can live in Mexico with their parents and cross over to attend school.

If they were not citizens, this would not be possible. Immigration would be able to deport them along with parents. They could not attend school. They could not get benefits. IOW, there would be no incentive to have your kid born in the US because they would not automatically get the rights and benefits of citizenship.

If the parent is illegal and the kid is not automatically a citizen, 1)There is no reason to have their kid here and 2)There is no benefit to having the kid live here. Thus, undocumented families would not stay in country in the way that they currently do.

The assumption you are making is that illegal immigrants are having kids in the US because they are incentivized to. Maybe they do it because they want kids, and the location is a secondary concern.

Single illegal immigrants come in on a regular basis. Are they planning to find someone in the US to have kids with?

Illegal immigrants marry other illegal immigrants in the US. Are they plotting to take advantage of our immigration policies with regards to married couples?

And illegal immigrant families are having children in the US. Are they all doing it for the sweet, lucrative benefits that we shower on our children? If so, they are pretty stupid as we kinda treat children like garbage in terms of social spending...

 

[xjx388]

It's in the friggin Constitution! Revisionist history won't change that no matter who said the Constitution wasn't a fixed document.

There might be a couple dishonest SCOTUS judges but they aren't running the court completely.

As I've said before, it's still an open debate having never been tested before by SCOTUS. You can find legal scholars who argue both sides.

 

[phiwum]

Ivanka, Eric and Don jr are all anchor babies. Their mom Ivana was not a citizen at the time of their births.

But their father was. Duh.

 

[Minoosh]

We could just seize all the babies born in the U.S. and return them only if their parents can prove citizenship. Or, they could reclaim the kid in another country, but not here. Probably there are some Americans who would like this idea, as long as it was accompanied by a degree of racial profiling - i.e. white people would be exempt, and only parents with dark skin or Hispanic names would be targeted.

 

[xjx388]

The assumption you are making is that illegal immigrants are having kids in the US because they are incentivized to. Maybe they do it because they want kids, and the location is a secondary concern.

That doesn't explain why women cross the border when they are about to give birth. For a Mexican National mother-to-be, why would they risk an illegal crossing while pregnant unless they were highly incentivized to give birth here and not in Mexico? No, I don't think you can argue location is a secondary concern; it's the only concern.

Single illegal immigrants come in on a regular basis. Are they planning to find someone in the US to have kids with?

Don't know. That's another issue entirely.

Illegal immigrants marry other illegal immigrants in the US. Are they plotting to take advantage of our immigration policies with regards to married couples?

There is no advantage to take. Getting married in the US has no effect on immigration status.

And illegal immigrant families are having children in the US. Are they all doing it for the sweet, lucrative benefits that we shower on our children? If so, they are pretty stupid as we kinda treat children like garbage in terms of social spending...

Do you think they are treated better in Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua . . .?