Birthright Citizenship

[JoeTheJuggler]

This touches a notion that has bothered me in a different context in recent years, having to do with the treatment of alleged terrorists apprehended by the US around the world in within our borders. Many, many people making arguments about this practice made special note that the protections provided us under the constitution are not to be extended to non-US citizens.

This is contrary to the plain text of the constitution, which expressly describes rights to hold public office and to vote as belonging to citizens, but ascribes almost all the other rights to "the people" and "persons." This is intentional, as the text and spirit of this document provides* these protections to all persons who come under the jurisdiction of US, and not just citizens.

I've had this argument with many people in the last several years, and I've concluded that probably a majority of people think that the Bill of Rights (especially due process and especially the rights of the accused) apply only to U.S. citizens. I'm not sure where this misconception came from, but it is contrary to U.S. law. As you point out, the plain text of the Constitution distinguishes "the people" and "persons" or "the accused" from "citizens". (Where it means "citizens" it uses that word.) Second, case law explicitly says that non-citizens accused of a crime are indeed entitled to the same rights of the accused as citizens accused of a crime. [ETA: See especially Boumediene v. Bush.]

But then again, the majority of Americans reject evolution as the explanation of the origin of extant species. The majority of Americans probably don't know a lot about our government.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I didn't read this one specifically, but given the 88,000 figure and the "legal immigrant" label, I assume it's the same study with the same deficiencies I cited above.


Okay, this one actually has some numbers, and that's nice. But it doesn't do much for your argument. First of all, fewer than half of the removals were listed as being based on simply being in the US illegally, and more than 3/4 of the aliens had criminal records. The report also states that a given charge for removal isn't necessarily the most severe charge available, and an alien could be listed as having been removed for simply being in the US illegally when he was actually a felon because it was the easiest charge to tack on to get him out.

So the original question is still lacking an answer. How often does removal happen compared to how many parents of US citizens are encountered? (And at this point I think it should be made clear that the removals should be for the simple act of being in the US illegally, because no one's suggesting that criminals should be allowed to stay, right?)


Dude, you have no idea. The number of programs the federal government uses that are text-based terminal programs is really disgusting.

Ok, I will conceed that the numbers are sketchy, but then the numbers would be sketchy for the counter argument as well. i.e. how many parents of illegal aleins who are caught are NOT deported because they have citizen children.

Based on the report, deportation of parents does indeed happen, which is a qualitiative, if not quantitative assessment.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I see it more as a comparitive cost analysis. How much do illegal aliens actually cost the US by using social services such as education, emergency rooms, etc versus how much will it cost us to increase enforcement to find and remove people who, other than being here without proper documentation, have violated no laws.

and how much does the labor that those illegals provide benifit the economy?

 

[TragicMonkey]

and what Native American tribe do you belong to?

I never claimed to belong to any. I freely admit that my ancestors were thieves and recipients of stolen lands. That's one of the reasons I don't try to sit in judgment and decide who has legitimate claim to various tracts of territory--because nobody does.

oh, and btw, North America was not "stolen" from the Native Americans.

it was conquered. just like how all the European tribes conquered the lands that eventually came to be known as independent states, such as Spain, Portugal, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, etc etc.

Okay, so if a gang of armed thugs bursts into your house and takes control of it, they've conquered it. Does using a different word make it right?

 

[Shalamar]

i will fight to the death, to defend the rights of ALL Americans.

illegal aliens are not Americans, and they should go home.

I will help them pay their way, but they should go home.

The USA is not the planet Earth. We are not responsible for the human and civil rights of all mankind. Its not our obligation to care for the whole population of the planet Earth. This is what some folks want from the USA.

What about Legal Residents of the USA?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Where can I live, under your silly idea, where I'm not a thief?

Nowhere. Everybody's a thief if you go back far enough. The lesson is that nobody has a good case for legitimizing their ownership of a tract of land. It's all arbitrary, accidental, the product of dubious transactions. Therefore if we wish to retain things like land ownership and citizenship as functioning things we have to come up with a better way to determine them that doesn't involve trying to trace what your ancestors did and when.

Birth seems a good one to me, as it's beyond the control of the person born so it can't have been arranged out of ill intent. Born in America, you're an American. Simple, easy, and fair. Founding Fathers tested and approved!

 

[Thunder]

What about Legal Residents of the USA?

they are fine as well.

 

[Thunder]

Okay, so if a gang of armed thugs bursts into your house and takes control of it, they've conquered it. Does using a different word make it right?

Britain used to be controlled by Celtish tribes.

than Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Normans invaded. They conquered the island, and now the Celts live in the far north and west of the island, still under some control of the conquering poeples and their descendants.

do you consider Great Britain to be..stolen land?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Britain used to be controlled by Celtish tribes.

than Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Normans invaded. They conquered the island, and now the Celts live in the far north and west of the island, still under some control of the conquering poeples and their descendants.

do you consider Great Britain to be..stolen land?

Of course. Don't you get it? All land is stolen from someone. Even the Native Americans were always stealing it from each other. Unless you discover land that's never been seen before, and how often is that the case? My point is that it's not tenable to base decisions on who gets to be citizens to something as arbitrary as a popular vote deciding who gets to be a citizen, or which group of ancestors counts for doing whatever whenever. Birth determination is far more fair. It's impervious to the accidents of history, it involves zero volition, good or ill, on the part of the person, and everybody undergoes the process of being born one time only, in one distinct place.

 

[Thunder]

Birth determination is far more fair.

if I go with my fictional wife to Germany for vacation, and wifey gives birth in Germany, the kid is still an American..and not a German.

do you find this to be...unfare?

I find it to be logical and reasonable.

 

[TragicMonkey]

if I go with my fictional wife to Germany for vacation, and wifey gives birth in Germany, the kid is still an American..and not a German.

do you find this to be...unfare?

I find it to be logical and reasonable.

I have no quarrel with extending citizenship to the children of citizens who happen to be born elsewhere, I have quarrel with restricting citizenship to people who have parents who are citizens.

In fact, in my view, the best thing would be for the child to have the option of choosing American or German citizenship on reaching the age of majority of either country. Or dual citizenship, even better.

 

[cwalner]

if I go with my fictional wife to Germany for vacation, and wifey gives birth in Germany, the kid is still an American..and not a German.

do you find this to be...unfare?

I find it to be logical and reasonable.

reverse that (ie you and your wife are German visiting the US and she gives birth) then the child is a dual citizen until such time as he/she chooses to renounce one citizenship.

I find that to be logical and reasonable.

ETA: TM kind of beat me to it.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I guess it boils down to the fact that I find it a lesser evil to extend a benefit to those that may not deserve it than to withhold a benefit from those that do deserve it.

Unless and until the US experiences an overpopulation problem, I see no need to reevaluate criteria for citizenship or residence.

 

[Thunder]

reverse that (ie you and your wife are German visiting the US and she gives birth) then the child is a dual citizen until such time as he/she chooses to renounce one citizenship.

I find that to be logical and reasonable.

I find it rediculous.

If I am on vacation with my fictional pregnant wife in India, or Italy, or Iran, and she gives birth while on vacation...the child she automatically become a citizen of India, Italy, or Iran?

that's just silly. citizenship should be inherited, not born into.

 

[Dr. Keith]

that's just silly. citizenship should be inherited, not born into.

It is clear that you feel this, but you really haven't done much to say why.

So, I agree that you think it should be that way. I think that only landed gentry should be able to vote. Sadly, neither is supported by our constitution.

 

[Thunder]

It is clear that you feel this, but you really haven't done much to say why.

why do I feel this way? because it makes sense to me. it seems logical to me. it is my personal opinion and view.

I also think inherited citizenship keeps things less complicated and confusing.

 

[TragicMonkey]

that's just silly. citizenship should be inherited, not born into.

"Born into" is the definition of "inherit". But we know what you meant.

 

[Giggywig]

why do I feel this way? because it makes sense to me. it seems logical to me. it is my personal opinion and view.

I think you may be using a novel definition for "logical." Unless you can explain your reasoning.

 

[cwalner]

that's just silly. citizenship should be inherited, not born into.

This is also ridiculous. Lets change the hypothetical, a bit. Lets say the parents are both legal resident aliens living in the US. They both are citizens of, lets say, Russia. They have no intention of returning to Russia, both work here in the US. Why should thier child inherit thier parent's Russian citizenship instead of being born into US citizenship. This child is going to be raised in the US. What makes you or me more American than this child.

To extend this further, why should this change because the parents did not enter the country legally. The child is still going to be raised in the US, and will be just as American as you or I.

One of the principles adopted around the founding of this country was the decision to not have debt inherited because of the problems that causes and the basic unfairness to punish the child for the irresponsibility of the parent. In a similar vein, the child did not enter the country illegally, and therefore commited no crime. Why should the child be punished for crimes committed by his/her parents?

 

[AlBell]

When did the discussion switch to legal resident aliens?