Birthright Citizenship

[Malerin]

This is the only actual argument you've presented in the entire thread. Unfortunately for you, there's a giant gaping hole in it.

The thing that rewards illegal immigration isn't the 14th amendment, it's the US economy. Large sections of our economy (agriculture, for example) would not function without massive numbers of cheap laborers. There is a strong demand for illegal immigrants, and it's the salaries those jobs provide that reward illegal immigration. Those jobs are the only reason for illegal immigration in the first place. Birthright citizenship is a footnote to that - if we changed the 14th amendment as you want, do you really think it would have an effect on the numbers of illegal immigrants in the US?

If you want an example, take the United Arab Emirates. It's essentially impossible by any means to get citizenship there, and yet something close to 90% of the population are immigrant laborers. Why? Because they can earn money working there.

It's not just the economy. If the country I'm living in (and hope to start a family in) is falling apart and tens of thousands are being killed in drug wars, might I want to sneak into the far more stable country just to the North? Esp. if I know that any children born in said country are automatic citizens?

 

[sol invictus]

It's not just the economy. If the country I'm living in (and hope to start a family in) is falling apart and tens of thousands are being killed in drug wars, might I want to sneak into the far more stable country just to the North? Esp. if I know that any children born in said country are automatic citizens?

It takes a very strong incentive to leave one's home, move to a foreign country with a different language, and live illegally, in fear of arrest and deportation, at the mercy of ruthless and exploitative employers.

If you have an incentive - economic or otherwise - strong enough that you're considering it, the fact that your kids can get citizenship and 20 years down the line might sponsor you is just not a significant factor.

If you want to stop rewarding illegal immigration, you need to either change US law, change the US economy, or change the situation in other countries (e.g. Mexico). Changing the 14th amendment isn't going to have any discernable effect.

 

[Malerin]

It takes a very strong incentive to leave one's home, move to a foreign country with a different language, and live illegally, in fear of arrest and deportation, at the mercy of ruthless and exploitative employers.

It all depends on what conditions are like at home. Conditions in Mexico are terrible.

If you have an incentive - economic or otherwise - strong enough that you're considering it, the fact that your kids can get citizenship and 20 years down the line might sponsor you is just not a significant factor.

I'm not thinking in terms of sponsorship. I'm thinking my kids will never be deported, will be well educated, have access to medical care, get good jobs, not be decapitated by some drug lord's henchman. That's a powerful incentive, if I want to bring kids into the world. Perhaps some INS official will not want to deport me if it means destroying my family. The stats seem to bear that one out.

If you want to stop rewarding illegal immigration, you need to either change US law, change the US economy, or change the situation in other countries (e.g. Mexico). Changing the 14th amendment isn't going to have any discernable effect.

Why don't we do it and see? Many industrialized nations similar to ours don't give out citizenship so freely.

 

[sol invictus]

I'm thinking my kids will never be deported, will be well educated, have access to medical care, get good jobs, not be decapitated by some drug lord's henchman. That's a powerful incentive, if I want to bring kids into the world.

[sarcasm]
Yes, we should try our hardest to change all that.
[/sarcasm]

Why don't we do it and see?

Because it's obvious it won't have any significant effect on the flow of immigrants, for precisely the reasons you bring up.

Because amending the US constitution isn't something one does on a "try and see" kind of whim.

Because birthright citizenship is simple, elegant, and practical.

Because people born and raised in a country should be citizens of it.

Because a child should not be held responsible for the crimes of a parent.

Because we need immigrants for our economy, and exploiting needed workers by refusing them citizenship is morally and legally reprehensible.

 

[Malerin]

I'm thinking my kids will never be deported, will be well educated, have access to medical care, get good jobs, not be decapitated by some drug lord's henchman. That's a powerful incentive, if I want to bring kids into the world.

[sarcasm]
Yes, we should try our hardest to change all that.
[/sarcasm]

So all of a sudden we have infinite resources? There are a billion children living in poverty. Let them all in, right? Open borders!

Why don't we do it and see?

Because it's obvious it won't have any significant effect on the flow of immigrants, for precisely the reasons you bring up.

Why is it obvious? The incentive is I know my future child will be guaranteed citizenship if I simply give birth in America. Citizenship confers huge benefits. If that's gone, you've taken away a huge incentive.

Because amending the US constitution isn't something one does on a "try and see" kind of whim.

I forgot that all changes to the constitution are permament
:cough: 18th amendment :cough:

As I pointed out before, we're the outlier. Most other industrialized countries don't grant automatic citizenship. We also happen to have an illegal immigration problem. Perhaps these other countries are on to something?

Because birthright citizenship is simple, elegant, and practical.

Open borders are simple and elegant too. Neither is very practical. I live in California. Illegal immigration costs us billions a year. As much as I want to help all the huddled masses in other countries, you have to draw a line at some point.

Because people born and raised in a country should be citizens of it.

Unless their parents broke the law and snuck in, in which case they shouldn't be citizens of it.

Because a child should not be held responsible for the crimes of a parent.

Then we shouldn't put parents in prison. That harms a child, right?

Because we need immigrants for our economy, and exploiting needed workers by refusing them citizenship is morally and legally reprehensible.

I agree with you. They can apply for citizenship and we can accept as many as we think we need for the economy. Do you think there will be a shortage of applications?

 

[sol invictus]

So all of a sudden we have infinite resources? There are a billion children living in poverty. Let them all in, right? Open borders!

Our resources stem from our people. Open borders would be an interesting experiment, one I would probably support. But this thread isn't about change in that direction, it's about change in the opposite direction.

Why is it obvious? The incentive is I know my future child will be guaranteed citizenship if I simply give birth in America. Citizenship confers huge benefits. If that's gone, you've taken away a huge incentive.

Because only the desperate are willing to take the terrible risks associated with illegal immigration.

We also happen to have an illegal immigration problem. Perhaps these other countries are on to something?

Have you never been to Europe? The problems with illegal immigration are very severe there. More importantly, the problems with legal immigration are far worse than they are here, at least in part because European culture is more rigid, less able to absorb change. Birthright citizenship is part of the core of American society and values. Anyone can be an American, anyone can feel American, everyone can take their fair shot.

Then we shouldn't put parents in prison. That harms a child, right?

Not a valid analogy. You're suggesting directly, legally penalizing the child for the crime of its parents. Children born in the US to legal immigrants are citizens, children born in the US to illegal immigrants are not.

I agree with you. They can apply for citizenship and we can accept as many as we think we need for the economy. Do you think there will be a shortage of applications?

If our immigration laws allowed that in sufficient numbers there would be little illegal immigration irrespective of the 14th Amendment. But they don't.

 

[Malerin]

So all of a sudden we have infinite resources? There are a billion children living in poverty. Let them all in, right? Open borders!

Our resources stem from our people.

Not clear what you mean by this. The Colorado River, a hugely important resource in the West, only drops when the population goes up. Immigration doesn't magically create more water.

Open borders would be an interesting experiment, one I would probably support. But this thread isn't about change in that direction, it's about change in the opposite direction.

Open borders would be a disaster. Mexico is essentially a failed state with a population over 100 million. We would be swamped. So if open borders aren't feasible, some type of restrictive immigration policy is. The immigration policy we have now isn't working. One of the options is to adopt a policy more in line with the rest of the industrialized world.

Why is it obvious? The incentive is I know my future child will be guaranteed citizenship if I simply give birth in America. Citizenship confers huge benefits. If that's gone, you've taken away a huge incentive.

Because only the desperate are willing to take the terrible risks associated with illegal immigration.

And if you know your kids won't get automatic citizenship, that may make one not so desperate to go to America.

We also happen to have an illegal immigration problem. Perhaps these other countries are on to something?

Have you never been to Europe? The problems with illegal immigration are very severe there.

I've been to England. I didn't notice anything comparable to what I see in Southern California. Britain has a population of 51 million and a high end estimate of 900,000 illegal immigrants. About 1.7%. We have a population of around 300 million with 13 million illegals. About 4%. Our problems with illegals are more severe than Britain's.

More importantly, the problems with legal immigration are far worse than they are here, at least in part because European culture is more rigid, less able to absorb change.

Have you been to L.A. lately? How do you quantify "far worse"?

Birthright citizenship is part of the core of American society and values. Anyone can be an American, anyone can feel American, everyone can take their fair shot.

If they follow the law. Illegal immigrants are not American, probably don't feel American, and don't get a fair shot. This is as it should be. They are here illegally. Changing the 14th amendment to mirror most other industrialized countries (i.e., the requirement of at least one parent to be a legal resident) still confers birthright citizenship.

Societal values change. The consitution is amended to reflect those changes. For most of the country's history, it was a "core part of American society and values" that women should not be allowed to vote.

Then we shouldn't put parents in prison. That harms a child, right?

Not a valid analogy. You're suggesting directly, legally penalizing the child for the crime of its parents.

How is not being granted automatic citizenship penalizing a child? I'm not proposing an ex post facto change. The children who have been born here continue to be citizens. Future children born here of illegals won't be citizens. That's not a legal penalty.

Children born in the US to legal immigrants are citizens, children born in the US to illegal immigrants are not.

That would be the legal change, yes. Again, not a penalty. Britain has had a requirement for citizenship of at least one parent being a legal resident for almost thirty years now. Is that three decades worth of "penalties"?

I agree with you. They can apply for citizenship and we can accept as many as we think we need for the economy. Do you think there will be a shortage of applications?

If our immigration laws allowed that in sufficient numbers there would be little illegal immigration irrespective of the 14th Amendment. But they don't.

We have enough poor people in this country. We don't need to import any more. Employment has not kept up with population growth for several years. Therefore, we don't need to grow the population right now.

 

[sol invictus]

Open borders would be a disaster. Mexico is essentially a failed state with a population over 100 million. We would be swamped.

So what? Certainly the average well-being of (current) American citizens might decrease for some time, but at the same time the average well-being of those Mexicans that chose to immigrate would probably increase. And in the long run I suspect everyone would be considerably better off on average. In my book that's a positive outcome, which is why I would probably support it.

So if open borders aren't feasible, some type of restrictive immigration policy is. The immigration policy we have now isn't working. One of the options is to adopt a policy more in line with the rest of the industrialized world.

We do have an immigration policy that's in line with the rest of the world's. Our immigration policy is how many visas we grant, how well we patrol our borders, how well we check for immigration violations in the workforce, etc. Like all industrialized nations, we have a strict policy on paper, and (deliberately) do not enforce it in practice.

I've been to England. I didn't notice anything comparable to what I see in Southern California. Britain has a population of 51 million and a high end estimate of 900,000 illegal immigrants. About 1.7%. We have a population of around 300 million with 13 million illegals. About 4%. Our problems with illegals are more severe than Britain's.

England is a special case. It's an island, and it's just about the most difficult place to get in Europe for an illegal immigrant. Most illegal immigrants to Europe come across the sea to Spain or Italy or Greece, or by land into eastern Europe or Greece.

To give some numbers, a source I found said that Greece detained about 10,000 illegals a month in a recent year. That's the per-capita equivalent of the US detaining about 300,000 illegals a month.

Have you been to L.A. lately? How do you quantify "far worse"?

As for legal immigrants: the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, recently stated "Der Ansatz für Multikulti ist gescheitert, absolut gescheitert!" (multiculturalism has utterly failed). Can you imagine Obama saying something like that? He never would, because it's obviously not true here. In France there were very serious riots across the country (not just in one city), mainly involving legal immigrants and their children. While it's just a feeling, the sense I get from people there is that the situation is much more tense than it is in the US.

If they follow the law. Illegal immigrants are not American, probably don't feel American, and don't get a fair shot. This is as it should be. They are here illegally.

We're not talking about them, we're talking about babies born in the US.

How is not being granted automatic citizenship penalizing a child? I'm not proposing an ex post facto change. The children who have been born here continue to be citizens. Future children born here of illegals won't be citizens. That's not a legal penalty.

Two children, born on the same day in the same US hospital. As it stands now, all such children are automatically US citizens by constitutional right. As you would have it, that right will be obviated and the child penalized if its parents committed a certain, specific crime.

Now you might try to weasel that citizenship is not a right, it's a privilege - and so this isn't a penalty, it's the lack of a benefit. Should we then also deny citizenship to children born of convicted murderers? That's a vastly more serious crime than a visa violation, after all. What about future felons (since at the time of the child's birth, the immigration status of the parents is presumably not known to be illegal) - shall we remove citizenship from children with parents that are later convicted of a felony? And what about poor brown people? Odds are their kids are going to be poor and brown too, right?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

It takes a very strong incentive to leave one's home, move to a foreign country with a different language, and live illegally, in fear of arrest and deportation, at the mercy of ruthless and exploitative employers.

If you have an incentive - economic or otherwise - strong enough that you're considering it, the fact that your kids can get citizenship and 20 years down the line might sponsor you is just not a significant factor.

If you want to stop rewarding illegal immigration, you need to either change US law, change the US economy, or change the situation in other countries (e.g. Mexico). Changing the 14th amendment isn't going to have any discernable effect.

nice points.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Steve King, the Crazy right winger from Iowa intends to try the same tactic in the house.

King said a constitutional amendment isn't necessary to end birthright citizenship, since the 14th Amendment language “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” indicated the amendment writers wanted exceptions for some Indian tribes and babies born to diplomats, who had sovereignty outside the United States. He said he believes a bill would be sufficient to halt birthright citizenship.

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/new...cle_c4f6a343-b8cf-5ca8-ad83-f7b07bdaa746.html

but he also said:

"The framers did not consider the babies of illegals when they framed the 14th amendment because we didn't have immigration law at the time so they could not have wanted to confer automatic citizenship on the babies of people who were unlawfully in the United States," King said.

King wants Congress to pass a ban on "anchor babies," place it in statute, and wait for the other side to challenge the prohibition in the courts. If King and his forces lose, they'll move for a constitutional amendment to change the practice, he said.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ut-plan-to-abolish-birthright-citizenship.php

The “Framers?” What a dofuss.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It takes a very strong incentive to leave one's home, move to a foreign country with a different language, and live illegally, in fear of arrest and deportation, at the mercy of ruthless and exploitative employers.

If you have an incentive - economic or otherwise - strong enough that you're considering it, the fact that your kids can get citizenship and 20 years down the line might sponsor you is just not a significant factor.

If you want to stop rewarding illegal immigration, you need to either change US law, change the US economy, or change the situation in other countries (e.g. Mexico). Changing the 14th amendment isn't going to have any discernable effect.

Well said.

I heard a piece on NPR the other day about possible "anchor babies" being born in the U.S. to visiting Chinese women. They'd come here on a tourist visa but specifically to give birth here. I don't think it's so much that they get citizenship as it is to hide the birth from the Chinese government and its draconian reproduction laws.

But yes, the problem there is in China. OH yeah, the story also mentioned that these women (apparently from one of the wealthier classes in China) like to shop here, where expensive designer shoes are something like 1/4 of what they would cost in China. That has a lot to do with monetary policies in U.S. and China.

Again, my broader question to Thunder remains: what problem is so terrible that you'd favor a constitutional amendment that we know would cause harm?

 

[Arus808]

Steve King, the Crazy right winger from Iowa intends to try the same tactic in the house.


http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/new...cle_c4f6a343-b8cf-5ca8-ad83-f7b07bdaa746.html

but he also said:


http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ut-plan-to-abolish-birthright-citizenship.php

The “Framers?” What a dofuss.

apparently the moron, didn't read the findings in US vs Wong Kim Ark - Supreme Court covered the whole "subject to jurisdiction" in that decision since WKA was born to Chinese immigrants, on US SOIL, who, because of the Chinese exclusion act, could not become naturalized citizens.

 

[Thunder]

Me and my imaginary wife go to Mexico for vacation. She gives birth 2 months prematurely in Cancun.

should the baby be Mexican...or American?

 

[Random]

Me and my imaginary wife go to Mexico for vacation. She gives birth 2 months prematurely in Cancun.

should the baby be Mexican...or American?

If you and your wife are both American citizens, the child would be automatically given US citizenship by virtue of having both parents be US citizens, and would be automatically granted Mexican citizenship by virtue of having been physically born in Mexico. Your child would be dual national.

There is nothing particularly wrong with this, I myself am a natural born US citizen and natural born Canadian citizen.

 

[Thunder]

If you and your wife are both American citizens, the child would be automatically given US citizenship by virtue of having both parents be US citizens, and would be automatically granted Mexican citizenship by virtue of having been physically born in Mexico. .

r u sure about this? Mexico has birthright citizenship even for children born of folks on vacation?

I'd like to see some evidence please.

 

[Random]

r u sure about this? Mexico has birthright citizenship even for children born of folks on vacation?

I'd like to see some evidence please.

Yup, article 30, sec. A I of the Mexican constituition states that individuals born in Mexico are citizens regardless of the citizenship or nationality of their parents. Don't have a conveniently copyable source at the moment though. Stupid PDF files...

 

[Arus808]

I'd like to see some evidence please.

yes and you can look it up for yourself

Mexican Citizenship


Thunder, you're being awfully obtuse about this. Why can't you do your own 30 second research to get your answer?

 

[Thunder]

Thunder, you're being awfully obtuse about this. Why can't you do your own 30 second research to get your answer?

#1. I accept the guys word.

#2. I do not have to prove other people's claims. Read about scientific skepticism sometime.

 

[hgc]

#1. I accept the guys word.

#2. I do not have to prove other people's claims. Read about scientific skepticism sometime.

So now you have the answer to your hypothetical -- your baby has citizenship in both Mexico and USA.

What next?

 

[Thunder]

So now you have the answer to your hypothetical -- your baby has citizenship in both Mexico and USA.

What next?

nuthin. my question was answered.