• 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

Look, I am sort of undecided as to whether birthright citizenship is a good idea or not, but one thing I am convinced of: Trump has no right to abolish it by Executive Order.
 
xjx388 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because they might be highly incentivized to GTFO of a dangerous or desperate situation.
 
dudalb said:
Look, I am sort of undecided as to whether birthright citizenship is a good idea or not, but one thing I am convinced of: Trump has no right to abolish it by Executive Order.
Click to expand...



Even that is not so cut and dried. He could sign an Order interpreting the law in a certain way and directing enforcement of the law according to that interpretation. Then it would be up to the courts. Granted, most legal scholars think such an Order would be struck down; but, there is a non-zero chance that it wouldn’t.

And it’s less clear if Congressional action would be as dubious.

In any case, getting back to the abstract concept, it seems to me that many people here acknowledge that the concept of birthright citizenship is, at the very least, an option we could decide to eliminate. If an EO is a way to bring that debate to the forefront, put the concept to the test and then spur Congress to act (probably giving too much credit to Trump, here)...ok, why is that necessarily bad? Clearly, a lot of Americans want that to happen, even here in the Democrat pro-immigration stronghold of South Texas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
xjx388 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sure, in that case, they are clearly arriving so their child can be a US citizen. Makes sense if we are a such a great country. But its a bit different from illegal immigrants already living here having kids.

Don't know. That's another issue entirely.
Click to expand...
Yes it is another issue entirely. People illegally immigrate to the US without regards to whether or not they are going to have kids here.

There is no advantage to take. Getting married in the US has no effect on immigration status.
Click to expand...
Yup. Another step in the process of going from single to married with kids that doesn't care about US Birthright Citizenship.

Do you think they are treated better in Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua . . .?
Click to expand...
Sure, but that's a pretty low bar to clear.

The point I am trying to make is that illegal immigrants are going to come here and have kids regardless of what our birthright citizenship laws are. Making it so that someone born here is automatically a US citizen provides a clear, bright line rule that helps reduce the possibilities of stateless citizens being created in our borders.
 
xjx388 said:
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.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
That law is the 14th.

Some conservatives claim that it does not apply widely to those born in the U.S. and this could be tested in the courts
 
Random said:
Sure, in that case, they are clearly arriving so their child can be a US citizen. Makes sense if we are a such a great country. But its a bit different from illegal immigrants already living here having kids.





Yes it is another issue entirely. People illegally immigrate to the US without regards to whether or not they are going to have kids here.





Yup. Another step in the process of going from single to married with kids that doesn't care about US Birthright Citizenship.





Sure, but that's a pretty low bar to clear.



The point I am trying to make is that illegal immigrants are going to come here and have kids regardless of what our birthright citizenship laws are. Making it so that someone born here is automatically a US citizen provides a clear, bright line rule that helps reduce the possibilities of stateless citizens being created in our borders.
Click to expand...



Making it so that the citizenship of the baby is the same as that of its parents is also a clear bright line that does not create a stateless citizen. Mexico gives citizenship to any child born to its nationals abroad. This would apply to illegal immigrants living here as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
xjx388 said:
Making it so that the citizenship of the baby is the same as that of its parents is also a clear bright line that does not create a stateless citizen.
Click to expand...

My father was Yugoslavian and my mother was Czechoslovakian. What's my citizenship?
 
TragicMonkey said:
My father was Yugoslavian and my mother was Czechoslovakian. What's my citizenship?
Click to expand...



Yugoslavakian, duh. You get your own country, which somehow seems appropriate... :D

Slightly more seriously, assuming you were born in the US:

1. Were your parents residing here legally? You can have US citizenship as SCOTUS has already ruled.

2. Otherwise, hoo boy, good luck figuring that **** out... Which respective states were they from? What are their laws? I’d bet you could probably claim to be a citizen of whatever territories those are now. Czech, Slovak, Macedonian, Bosnian...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
lionking said:
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.
Click to expand...
Only a policy to stop those unwashed refugee masses coming on boats sailing toward the north coast before they can set foot on Oz?

The cost of Australia’s stop the boats policy saves $3.5 billion

Tough Australian boat policies aiding people smugglers and terrorism
AUSTRALIA and other Western nations risk fuelling global radicalisation by turning their backs on desperate refugees, Amnesty International’s global chief has warned.
Click to expand...
It's not like there's a shortage of space there, though I suppose there's a shortage of water.

I'm not trying to burst your bubble, LK. I just think you might want to check that rosy picture you're painting. More than a few Aussies, just like the alt-right here only want white immigrants.
 
Last edited:
xjx388 said:
Making it so that the citizenship of the baby is the same as that of its parents is also a clear bright line that does not create a stateless citizen. Mexico gives citizenship to any child born to its nationals abroad. This would apply to illegal immigrants living here as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Saying they are a citizen because they were born here is also a clear bright line that does not create a stateless citizen.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Only a policy to stop those unwashed refugee masses coming on boats sailing toward the north coast before they can set foot on Oz?

The cost of Australia’s stop the boats policy saves $3.5 billion

Tough Australian boat policies aiding people smugglers and terrorism

I'm not trying to burst your bubble, LK. I just think you might want to check that rosy picture you're painting. More than a few Aussies, just like the alt-right here only want white immigrants.
Click to expand...

I know what I'm posting about. I was talking about our immigration policy, what you and Amnesty are talking about are people arriving in other nations and attempting to get into Australia. In the past this practice led to hundreds of people drowning while trying to get here on unsafe boats. The boats and the drownings have stopped.

Australia regulates refugee intakes, something I think is reasonable. In any case, this does not counter the truth that the White Australia Policy is long dead.

ETA Do you realise that one articles you linked points out how the successful policy of stopping boats has saved the country billions?
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
Saying they are a citizen because they were born here is also a clear bright line that does not create a stateless citizen.
Click to expand...

Great, two acceptable options. My original question concerned what the inherent wrong was in choosing no birthright citizenship. Many have said they don't see an inherent wrong and France is a good example of a country which has a workable system without BC.

I lean towards no BC because it causes the least issues for the people who are already citizens here.
 
xjx388 said:
Yugoslavakian, duh. You get your own country, which somehow seems appropriate... :D
Click to expand...
As I stated earlier birthright citizenship makes sense and is the right thing to do. We need more young U.S. citizens, we're at below replacement rates. The folks who come here illegally are the entrepreneurial ones who take risks for a better life for their kids, not a bunch of shirkers wanting a handout. It reflects my values, that the child is born as an equal to any other child born in the U.S. We do not discriminate based on the circumstances of their parents. I know a lot of these kids and they are Americans. More Americans, more working young people who will join the armed forces, go to school, get jobs taking care of old people and pay full taxes. I may be a bit starry-eyed but I know many of these kids and we could be doing a whole lot worse.
 
Dr. Keith said:
As others have pointed out, even if you take away birthright citizenship you end up with a patch work of regulations that convey citizenship to most of this people born here if they stick around long enough. Thus, you have to set up an entire government agency that determines who is and who isn't a citizen. I think the cost of implementing such a system, without using a national ID that would trigger the number of the beast fanatics, would be much more than the cost of simply allowing birth right citizenship.
And the change over would be a **** show for at least 20 years.

Starting from scratch, I think you could do something better than what we have. Starting where we are, I don't think there is enough value in changing to justify the cost. There are other ways to deal with illegal immigration.
Click to expand...

Good point. I honestly didn't think through what exactly would be required to implement the checks and oversight such a change would entail. My initial thought was birth certificate -> school records + 5 years = partially there by 11 years old. Basically piggy backing off information we already have recorded. I'd have to look into how it is done where they have this already to get an idea.

Think I read the number of citizen children born to illegal parents is at 4.1 million in the US, increasing in the 300k range a year. That is a lot of paperwork and oversight. Although, is it that much more than application and yearly renewals for a large % of those that are using social services? I dunno.
 
Apart from Trump's assertion that he can unilaterally change the law as if he's a dictator, this discussion is entirely academic. There's no way enough support could be gathered in the US for a constitutional amendment to pass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom