Birthright Citizenship

[JoeTheJuggler]

from what I have read, Mexico's immigration policies are more stringent than America's.

here is a nice little analysis of Mexico's immigration policy:


(What if we did that? What if we conditioned our immigration policy on how other countries took in our people—starting with Mexico?)

So you think we should set U.S. policy based on Mexico's?

And again, do you think it's more difficult for me, a U.S. citizen, to enter Mexico than it is for a Mexican citizen to enter the U.S.?

Just how many U.S. citizens have had to hire a coyote and cross the desert or wade a river to enter Mexico?

 

[Thunder]

And again, do you think it's more difficult for me, a U.S. citizen, to enter Mexico than it is for a Mexican citizen to enter the U.S.?

you tell me. it is easier for an American to immigrate to and become a citizen of Mexico, or vice-versa?

and evidence please.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So since you think reciprocity is a good idea, do you think U.S. military policies should be strictly reciprocal with those of our neighbors?

For example, we should only have military bases in countries that have their own military bases on U.S. soil?

 

[Thunder]

Just how many U.S. citizens have had to hire a coyote and cross the desert or wade a river to enter Mexico?

strawman. why the **** would an American want to cross illegally into northern Mexico? to get shot by a drug dealer?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

you tell me. it is easier for an American to immigrate to and become a citizen of Mexico, or vice-versa?

and evidence please.

You're the one claiming Mexico's policies are more restrictive, as some twisted and illogical argument in favor of repealing the 14th Amendment.

FWIW, here's what Wikipedia has to say about U.S. immigrants to Mexico:

The largest number of Americans outside the United States live in Mexico. According to American Citizens Abroad, there are more than 1,000,000 Americans living in the Mexican Republic (as of 1999).[10] However, this number is disputed. Some estimates set the number as low as 124, 082. According to the 2000 census, there were 343,591 Americans living in Mexico. Mostly, people who come from the USA are students, retirees, or missionaries, pastors, and other employees from religious organizations. Also, professors who come employed from Mexican companies to teach English, as well as some corporate employees and executives. These residents often don't stay the whole year, with many retirees living half of the year in the USA to keep their retiree benefits, while others, known as "snowbirds", spend only the winter months south of the border. The American community in Mexico is found throughout the country, but there are significant concentrations of U.S. citizens in all the north of Mexico, especially in Tijuana, Mexicali, Los Cabos, San Carlos, Mazatlán, Saltillo, Monterrey and Nuevo Laredo. Also in the central parts of the country such as San Miguel de Allende, Ajijic, Chapala, Mexico City and Cuernavaca, and along the Pacific coast, most especially in the greater Puerto Vallarta area. In the past few years, a growing American community has developed in Mérida.

It seems to me if it were so restrictive and difficult, it wouldn't be the country with the largest number of Americans living outside the U.S.

And again, getting citizenship isn't the real issue. If you can live there and work there easily, there is no need to become a citizen. So you've got to consider the entire policy and not focus on one item.

And yet again, will you answer my question please. What problem is so pressing and severe that the only solution is to repeal the 14th Amendment, knowing that such a decision would harm people?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

strawman.

Nonsense. You are in fact the one who introduced the policies of other countries in a discussion of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I'm merely pointing out the flaws in your argument.

 

[Thunder]

And again, getting citizenship isn't the real issue.

um...wrong.

we are talking about getting citizenship, not work and vacation visas.

 

[Thunder]

What problem is so pressing and severe that the only solution is to repeal the 14th Amendment, knowing that such a decision would harm people?

don't put words in my mouth.

I NEVER said we should repeal the 14th. I said we should amend it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Also haven't heard back from you on this major point:

Even if there were a small net negative impact on our economy (which there isn't--or at least it remains to be proven), what is the moral argument for an anti-immigrant position? (Elsewhere, you've argued that we should completely close the borders whenever unemployment reaches some level--I think you said 7%.)

Is it that we took the land that forms much of Texas and the southwestern U.S. from the Mexicans fair and square by superior military strength? That we purchased a big chunk of the rest of the land west of the Mississippi from the French? That we basically stole all of it by force from the indigenous peoples that lived here?

Is there no room in your position for compassion, knowing that if there's any cost to us at all (and I don't think there is), it's minor compared to the boon living here can give these Mexican immigrants?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

don't put words in my mouth.

I NEVER said we should repeal the 14th. I said we should amend it.

Amending an amendment so that it undoes that amendment is repealing the Amendment. When we repealed prohibition, it was done by passing another amendment.

You want to repeal the first clause of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. [ETA: in context, I've been simply saying you want to repeal the 14th Amendment, but I really don't think you're talking about how we apportion Representatives or any of that. It's a legitimate shorthand in context.]

So what is the justification? What problem is so grave that we should do this, knowing that it will harm people?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

um...wrong.

we are talking about getting citizenship, not work and vacation visas.

You're missing the point. People don't want citizenship for its own sake, but rather for the privileges and immunities that go with it. If you can get the ones you want (notably, the right to work and the right to live there), then citizenship isn't the only way to go about it.

That it's easier for U.S. citizens to travel to, live in, and even in work in other countries points out the problem in your argument for repealing the 14th Amendment because other countries don't have an equivalent to it.

 

[Thunder]

That it's easier for U.S. citizens to travel to, live in, and even in work in other countries points out the problem in your argument for repealing the 14th Amendment because other countries don't have an equivalent to it.

I will send you $10 via Paypal, if you can show where I said the 14th Amendment should be repealed.

 

[Malerin]

So you're not in favor of amending the Constitution so that the children of illegals would be stripped of citizenship?

Stripped? No. They would never be granted citizenship in the first place.

 

[Malerin]

Or that somehow their parents' immigration status makes them inferior to other U.S. citizens, such that they will be a net drain on the U.S. economy.

Of course, Parky's opinion runs contrary to the consensus of economists and most (if not all) objective measures.

I think you're right, Alfred_Packer, that it's some kind of prejudice that accounts for his position. It's certainly not a conclusion one could legitimately reach by looking at the economic impact of these citizens compared to other citizens.

His position is in line with many other democratic industrialized countries. Are they all prejudiced?

 

[Thunder]

His position is in line with many other democratic industrialized countries. Are they all prejudiced?

no, only America is prejudiced. the rest of the free world is simply practical.

 

[Malerin]

Amending an amendment so that it undoes that amendment is repealing the Amendment. When we repealed prohibition, it was done by passing another amendment.

You want to repeal the first clause of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. [ETA: in context, I've been simply saying you want to repeal the 14th Amendment, but I really don't think you're talking about how we apportion Representatives or any of that. It's a legitimate shorthand in context.]

So what is the justification? What problem is so grave that we should do this, knowing that it will harm people?

Being ineligible for a benefit is not being harmed.

 

[Thunder]

Amending an amendment so that it undoes that amendment is repealing the Amendment. When we repealed prohibition, it was done by passing another amendment.

I am not against the whole 14th Amendment. Clearly, the children of American citizens born in the USA, should be instant citizens.

I only have a problem with the children of non-citizens gaining instant citizenship if they are born in the USA, especially if their parents are here illegally.

My change to the 14th Amendment would be this: birthright citizenship would NOT apply to those born of illegal aliens or people who are residing in the United States on a work or vacation visa. Children of Permanent Residents can acquire birthright citizenship.

what monumental crisis does this solve? none.

but since when are Constitutional Amendments only appropriate & passed due to a horrible national crisis? I can name several that have nothing to do with any crisis.

 

[deepatrax]

I am not against the whole 14th Amendment. Clearly, the children of American citizens born in the USA, should be instant citizens.

I only have a problem with the children of non-citizens gaining instant citizenship if they are born in the USA, especially if their parents are here illegally.

My change to the 14th Amendment would be this: birthright citizenship would NOT apply to those born of illegal aliens or people who are residing in the United States on a work or vacation visa. Children of Permanent Residents can acquire birthright citizenship.

what monumental crisis does this solve? none.

but since when are Constitutional Amendments only appropriate & passed due to a horrible national crisis? I can name several that have nothing to do with any crisis.

I would make a slight change to your change...adding wording that says birthright citizenship would apply if at least 1 parent is an American citizen. If the father and/or mother is American, then the child is too. If neither are, then neither is the child.

 

[Thunder]

I would make a slight change to your change...adding wording that says birthright citizenship would apply if at least 1 parent is an American citizen. If the father and/or mother is American, then the child is too. If neither are, then neither is the child.

sounds fine.

 

[Arus808]

I would make a slight change to your change...adding wording that says birthright citizenship would apply if at least 1 parent is an American citizen. If the father and/or mother is American, then the child is too. If neither are, then neither is the child.

that won't fly.

some people come to America as permanent residents. They are working toward their Citizenship, but requires for them to do a minium of 5 years permanent residency in order to qualify. They have their green cards and are here legally

In 5 years that couple could have kids. Is it fair that their kids are denied citizenship, while their parents are trying to get naturalized?

why would you punish the child because his/her parents were not citizens at the time of his/her birth.

that is why we have birthright citizenship; SO We ARE NOT CREATING A SECOND CLASS OF PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE.