Birthright Citizenship

[JoeTheJuggler]

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

First of all, I don't think we should amend our constitution based on what Mexico does. Do you?

Second, while it might not be a matter of citizenship in those other countries, U.S. citizens have an easier time emigrating to almost any country in the world than people from those countries have of emigrating to the U.S.

I know this from first-hand experience wrt to the U.S. and Ecuador, as an example. Heck, U.S. citizens can visit Ecuador for up to 90 days without any visa at all. Those who think the U.S. is less restrictive than other countries are not considering the real world.

ETA: This point also goes to the idea that the 14th Amendment is unfair to people waiting their turn. We could actually change our immigration policies that make for prohibitively long waits to sole this problem without a constitutional amendment that we know would harm people.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Back to the topic, I still haven't gotten a satisfactory answer to my question: what problem is so terrible and pressing that we need to amend our constitution when we know such an amendment will actually harm people?

 

[Thunder]

U.S. citizens have an easier time emigrating to almost any country in the world than people from those countries have of emigrating to the U.S.

prove it.

how easy is it for Americans to immigrate to Japan, New Zealand, Nepal, or Iceland?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

prove it.

It's pretty general knowledge--and again not on topic. (We really ought not amend our constitution based on the policies of other nations.)

how easy is it for Americans to immigrate to Japan, New Zealand, Nepal, or Iceland?

Read the sentence of mine you quoted. I said "almost any country". Of the 200+ countries in the world, I have no doubt you can find a couple of countries where it is currently more difficult for a U.S. citizen to emigrate there than the reverse.

However. . .

New Zealand:

New Zealand is very open to American immigration. I looked into it when I was there and the Dept of Immigration was downright friendly. You still need to prove why they should let you in; skill set, financial independence, job offer, spouse, etc -- but they aren't going to discourage you from trying.

I'm in the process of immigrating to Australia now. It's less pleasant, but I'm on a spouse-visa and the hardest question they asked me at my interview was, "do you have any questions?"

Linky.

Japan:

Japan has tight immigration policies, but it's not very difficult to get a work permit. I personally know several U.S. jugglers who did stints working at Japanese amusement parks.


Now, do we need to go through each of the countries on the planet, or will you concede my point?

U.S. citizens have a much easier time going almost anywhere on the planet than do citizens of Latin American countries.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So Thunder, still no answer to my question at the heart of this thread topic?

What problem is so big and terrible and pressing that it can only be solved by a constitutional amendment that we know for a fact would harm people?

 

[Thunder]

Japan has tight immigration policies, but it's not very difficult to get a work permit.

this is called moving the goal posts.

 

[hgc]

So Thunder, still no answer to my question at the heart of this thread topic?

What problem is so big and terrible and pressing that it can only be solved by a constitutional amendment that we know for a fact would harm people?

Don't hold your breath. Parky don't play that.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I am in favor of this, we can finally start stripping the damned Irish of their supposed citizenship. It should be simple, prove your ancenstors were here before 1776 of GTFO.

 

[Thunder]

What problem is so big and terrible and pressing that it can only be solved by a constitutional amendment that we know for a fact would harm people?

funny...that's not my claim.

but I'll play anyways.

hundreds of thousands of children of illegals are born in the USA every year.

these children are eligible for Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and in-state tuition.

this would not be the case if these people were not citizens.

so yes, birthright citizenship for ANYONE born in the USA, including children of illegal aliens, does have a real price tag.

now, let me say this again, for the hard of hearing and willfully ignorant:

I am in favor of legal immigration to the USA. Lots of it.

I am in favor of a GENEROUS and HUMANE asylum program in the USA.

I am in favor of a robust, efficient, and productive guest worker program in the USA.

But I am also in favor of cracking down HARD on illegal immigrants, those who employ them, those who house them, and those who help them get here illegally.

sorry if that troubles you.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

funny...that's not my claim.

but I'll play anyways.

hundreds of thousands of children of illegals are born in the USA every year.

these children are eligible for Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and in-state tuition.

this would not be the case if these people were not citizens.

so yes, birthright citizenship for ANYONE born in the USA, including children of illegal aliens, does have a real price tag.

So?

Those children can take their in-state tuition and get college degrees and go out and be productive members of society. You act as if Illegals and their citizen children contribute nothing back to the country.

To me, that is a very prejudiced view. Can you justify it?

 

[Thunder]

To me, that is a very prejudiced view. Can you justify it?

ok

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

funny...that's not my claim.

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

hundreds of thousands of children of illegals are born in the USA every year.

So what?

these children are eligible for Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and in-state tuition.

So are all other (nearly 300 million) U.S. citizens. So what? They're also eligible to work and they also will pay taxes. That's how our government and economy functions.

this would not be the case if these people were not citizens.

It would also not be the case that the other nearly 300 million citizens would be eligible for welfare, medicaid, medicare, social security and in-state tuition if they were stripped of their citizenship and deported. (By the way, there's case law that says in-state tuition isn't dependent on immigration status. The matter's not so clear as you present it.)

so yes, birthright citizenship for ANYONE born in the USA, including children of illegal aliens, does have a real price tag.

That doesn't follow. Again, birthright citizen for anyone born in the USA, including children of citizens also has a price tag by your reasoning.

Remember, there is a broad consensus that the net effect of all immigration on the U.S. economy is positive. If you're arguing that it's negative, you're wrong.

I am in favor of legal immigration to the USA. Lots of it.

I know, we're not really talking about immigration. We're talking about your desire to strip citizenship from U.S. citizens. People born in the U.S. are not immigrant, but citizens. You keep forgetting that.

But I am also in favor of cracking down HARD on illegal immigrants, those who employ them, those who house them, and those who help them get here illegally.

sorry if that troubles you.

Well, I disagree with you on immigration policy, but again, that's not what you're talking about. You're talking about amending the constitution to strip citizenship from certain U.S. citizens. The people in question were born in this country. They didn't immigrate here--legally or illegally. They are citizens for the exact same reason I am a citizen. (It would be different if I were born outside the U.S., then my parents' status would come into play.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Those children can take their in-state tuition and get college degrees and go out and be productive members of society. You act as if Illegals and their citizen children contribute nothing back to the country.

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.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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]

this is called moving the goal posts.

Nonsense. You introduced the argument that other countries don't have the equivalent of the 14th Amendment--presumably as an argument in favor of why we should amend our Constitution to repeal the 14th Amendment.

I'm pointing out that not only is that an illogical argument, it's based on a broader false premise: that immigration and travel policies are more liberal for citizens of other countries than they are for U.S. citizens.

I pointed out that compared to what citizens of most countries have to face, those of us with U.S. passports have a much easier time going to and working in most countries on the planet.

Of a U.S. citizen and a Mexican citizen, which would have the easier time entering and working in Japan?

For that matter, what does it take for a U.S. citizen to vacation in Mexico and what does it take for the reverse?

So consider the argument in favor of repealing the 14th Amendment based on the immigration policies of other countries to be thoroughly debunked.

 

[Thunder]

I am in favor of this, we can finally start stripping the damned Irish of their supposed citizenship. It should be simple, prove your ancenstors were here before 1776 of GTFO.

move it to 1894 and I am set.

 

[Arus808]

prove it.

how easy is it for Americans to immigrate to Japan, New Zealand, Nepal, or Iceland?

To Japan?

1) Fill out the Application for Residency form at the US Embassy
2) 5 years of residency (proven) - or longer (longer the better)
3) Learn Japanese - yes you're required to learn the language.
4) Maintain good behavior and also a way to support yourself financially, and if you can contribute financially as well
5) Renounce your US Citizenship at the US Embassy.
6) Japanese Minister then reviews the applications, which can take up to a year.




No tests or examinations are required.

 

[Thunder]

To Japan?

1) Fill out the Application for Residency form at the US Embassy
2) 5 years of residency (proven) - or longer (longer the better)
3) Learn Japanese - yes you're required to learn the language.
4) Maintain good behavior and also a way to support yourself financially, and if you can contribute financially as well
5) Renounce your US Citizenship at the US Embassy.
6) Japanese Minister then reviews the applications, which can take up to a year.

yeah, and what about the visa to live & work in Japan? how long does it take to get that?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

yeah, and what about the visa to live & work in Japan? how long does it take to get that?

I have a friend who taught English in Japan for some time, and she said the paperwork wasn't at all difficult, and I have several friends who juggled in Japanese amusement parks for 3 month periods. I don't think it was anything they planned more than a year out, so it couldn't have taken very long.
[ETA: Here's a description. Apparently it's an easy process.]

I think you're missing the forest for the trees again. The argument that we should repeal the 14th Amendment because other governments don't have the equivalent of the 14th Amendment fails on two accounts:

1. We shouldn't set our policy based on the policies of other countries. (Sovereignty, and all that. Plus logically if it's wrong, two wrongs don't make a right. That is, your argument is a tu quoque type of fallacy.)

2. Considering only citizenship to children of illegal aliens misses the bigger picture. A U.S. Passport can get you in almost anywhere with relative ease. It isn't so with--for example--a Mexican passport. So even in considering Japan, let's compare how easy or difficult it is for an American to enter (and work) in Japan to how easy or difficult it is for a Mexican to enter (and work) in Japan. If your argument is based on the premise that immigration policies for U.S. citizens into other countries is more restrictive than citizens of other countries entering the U.S., your premise is false. Consider the simple example of how easy it is for me to go to Mexico than for a Mexican to come here. I would not have to hire a coyote and cross a dangerous desert, I assure you.

ETA: In other words, U.S. citizens generally wouldn't need any policy that allows for "anchor babies" because it's relatively easy for us to visit and even work in most countries in the world.

 

[Thunder]

Consider the simple example of how easy it is for me to go to Mexico than for a Mexican to come here. I would not have to hire a coyote and cross a dangerous desert, I assure you.

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:

http://klwilliamson.com/about/are-you-an-american-patriot/mexicos-immigration-policy/

The legal basis for Mexico’s immigration law is found in the Ley General de Población [the General Population Law]. PDF.
The cabinet-level department responsible for immigration is the Secretaria de Gobernación, loosely translated as the Interior Department.

According to Article 3, section VII of the General Population Law, the responsibility of this department is to
“Subject the immigration of foreigners to the methods it deems relevant, and to achieve the best assimilation of these [immigrants] to the national environment and their adequate distribution in [Mexican] territory.” [Sujetar la inmigración de extranjeros a las modalidades que juzgue pertinentes, y procurar la mejor asimilación de éstos al medio nacional y su adecuada distribución en el territorio.]

So the goals of Mexican immigration policy are assimilation and the distribution of immigrants throughout Mexican territory.

Mexico has had immigrants from many countries, from Latin America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East and even the U.S.A. And Mexico has done a good job in assimilating these immigrants. Part of it is because the immigration levels are so much lower than in the U.S., and partly because the Mexican system does indeed encourage assimilation.

According to Article 32 of the General Population Law,
“The Interior Department will establish, subject to the corresponding demographic studies, the number of foreigners whose entrance to the country may be permitted, whether by activities or zone of residence, and will subject to the methods that it deems relevant the immigration of foreigners, according to their possibilities of contributing to the national progress.” [Artículo 32.- La Secretaría de Gobernación fijará, previos los estudios demográficos correspondientes, el número de extranjeros cuya internación podrá permitirse al país, ya sea por actividades o por zonas de residencia, y sujetará a las modalidades que juzgue pertinentes, la inmigración de extranjeros, según sean sus posibilidades de contribuir al progreso nacional.]

So the Interior Department establishes immigration quotas based on the demographic situation of the country, and wants immigrants who will contribute to the development of the nation.

Article 34 even explains what kinds of immigrants Mexico is looking for:
“The Department of the Interior may establish for the foreigners who enter Mexico the conditions that it deems appropriate with respect to the activities to which they will engage in and the place or places of their residence. It will take care thusly that the immigrants shall be useful elements for the country and that they will have the necessary income levels for their subsistence… and of the persons who are under their economic dependence.” [Artículo 34.- La Secretaría de Gobernación podrá fijar a los extranjeros que se internen en el país las condiciones que estime convenientes respecto a las actividades a que habrán de dedicarse y al lugar o lugares de su residencia. Cuidará asimismo de que los inmigrantes sean elementos útiles para el país y de que cuenten con los ingresos necesarios para su subsistencia y en su caso, la de las personas que estén bajo su dependencia económica.]

“Useful elements”?” Necessary income levels?” It sounds as though Mexico is being rather choosy. Mexico wants immigrants who are (1) useful to Mexico and (2) who have enough income to take care of themselves and their families. How discriminatory!

OK, so what kinds of immigrants does Mexico not want? Well, that’s spelled out in the General Population Law, Article 37. It states that
“The Department of the Interior may deny to foreigners the entrance into the country or a change in immigration status for any of the following reasons:

I. When there is no international reciprocity.”
(What if we did that? What if we conditioned our immigration policy on how other countries took in our people—starting with Mexico?)

“II. When the national demographic equilibrium demands it.”
(When it doesn’t upset Mexico’s demographic equilibrium).

“III. When the quotas referred to in Article 32 of this law don’t permit it.”
(See Article 32 above).

IV. “When it is considered harmful to the economic interests of Mexicans.”
(Shouldn’t we also limit immigration if it’s harmful to the economic interests of ordinary Americans?)

V. When they (the immigrants) have broken the la
ws of Mexico or have criminal antecedents abroad.
(Mexico doesn’t want criminal immigrants).

VI. When they have broken this [immigration] law, its regulations or other applicable administrative orders in the matter, or if they don’t comply with the established requirements.
(What if we did that—instead of repeatedly amnestying illegals?)

VII. If they are not physically or mentally healthy in the judgment of the health authority, or are prevented by other legal orders.

And, just to make sure everything’s covered, Article 38 stipulates that “The Department of the Interior is authorized to suspend or forbid the admission of foreigners, when it is determined to be in the national interest.”


wow.....good thing America's immigration policies aren't as bad as Mexico's.

I wonder if anyone accused Mexico of racism & xenophobia..due to their very tough immigration regulations.

I doubt it.