• 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

So.

1. We can't change because that would be racist, but countries that have always had it aren't racist.
2. Well that's how we've always done it. (Which really doesn't mesh with the "It's racist" argument since normally that's why we change systems that were set up long ago.)
3. "But Trump / The Republicans" even after I got told to start a new thread specifically to avoid the discussion being nothing beyond "But Trump..."
 
JoeMorgue said:
So.

1. We can't change because that would be racist, but countries that have always had it aren't racist.
Click to expand...

No, we shouldn't change it simply to pander to racists. If it is to be changed there needs to be a real reason and a real cost benefit analysis. Also, people need to understand the consequences of such a change, such as a likely move to national databases for citizenship.

2. Well that's how we've always done it. (Which really doesn't mesh with the "It's racist" argument since normally that's why we change systems that were set up long ago.)
Click to expand...

No, there is a massive cost to changing it. Therefore, there needs to be some massive benefit to the change to justify that massive cost.

3. "But Trump / The Republicans" even after I got told to start a new thread specifically to avoid the discussion being nothing beyond "But Trump..."
Click to expand...

Yeah, wrong thread.
 
JoeMorgue said:
So.
Click to expand...

I think the rule of so applies here. Many posters have provided arguments that go far beyond your bullet points below. You don't seem too interested in engaging those points.

1. We can't change because that would be racist, but countries that have always had it aren't racist.
2. Well that's how we've always done it. (Which really doesn't mesh with the "It's racist" argument since normally that's why we change systems that were set up long ago.)
Click to expand...

These aren't honest representations of the arguments presented.

3. "But Trump / The Republicans" even after I got told to start a new thread specifically to avoid the discussion being nothing beyond "But Trump..."
Click to expand...

To the extent we're talking about jus soli in the abstract, we can leave current US politics out. As soon as you want the discussion to be about what the US should do at this point in history, you can't ignore the current cultural and political landscape.

Your post here seems to suggest that you want to discuss what the US should do here and now. You use the words "we can't change" to frame the discussion around the US choice moving forward, but ignore the actual cultural and political landscape. That's a very specific interest that I'm not sure there's much use in discussing and clearly no interest outside yours. It's sort of like "If you ignore calories fat and salt, can I eat nothing but big macs?" Maybe, but it's not a very interesting question and has little to do with whether you should eat nothing but big macs in the real world where they do have fat, calories and salt.

As many in this thread have already said, if the US were a different place with a different history and political reality, abolishing jus soli or never having had it might well make sense. Given the actual situation it does not.

What more would you actually like to argue about that?
 
Last edited:
rdwight said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'd like a citation for those numbers.
 
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Click to expand...

I don’t understand how someone could argue that someone born in the US to illegal immigrant parents would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Subject to jurisdiction means that they are able to be put on trial. Is anyone arguing that you can’t try the children of illegal immigrants for crimes that they commit in the US?
 
xjx388 said:
As has been pointed out, that case involved parents who were legal residents of the US.
Click to expand...


So what? The plaintiff didn't win on the basis of his parents' status. The Supreme Court found that being born in the U.S. conferred U.S. citizenship. Period.
For Justice Horace Gray it was an open and shut case. The majority opinion was issued on March 28, 1898.

History and law, he wrote, “irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens ….The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/hist...ed-history-lesson-th-amendment/?noredirect=on
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e8-85df-7a6b4d25cfbb_story.html?noredirect=on

”The concept of "legal" and "illegal" residence didn't even exist before World War I, with the narrow exception of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act. There were no passports or visas. When the 14th Amendment was drafted and approved, no one even contemplated that some people living here could be labeled "illegal," and certainly not their children born here.
https://www.history.com/news/the-birth-of-illegal-immigration
 
I don't think any attempt to quantify and "rank" which sectors of our society pay the most "dues" and what those dues are is going to be possible in our current social environment.
 
Dr. Keith said:
No, we shouldn't change it simply to pander to racists. If it is to be changed there needs to be a real reason and a real cost benefit analysis. Also, people need to understand the consequences of such a change, such as a likely move to national databases for citizenship.
Click to expand...

But it needs to be done to stop the white genocide. that is the whole purpose it was brought up anyway. Trumps favorite source of info in twitter @whitegenocidetm told him so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom