Birthright Citizenship

Babbylonian said:
There's no way enough support could be gathered in the US for a constitutional amendment to pass.
Click to expand...

I dunno, if all the crappier states banded together in their white fear they might make up the requisite number. Never underestimate the ubiquity of stupid.
 
Chanakya said:
Baylor said:
White Australians won't breed.
Click to expand...

Why not?
Click to expand...

Probably because they're race traitors.

Random said:
The assumption you are making is that illegal immigrants are having kids in the US because they are incentivized to. Maybe they do it because they want kids, and the location is a secondary concern.

Single illegal immigrants come in on a regular basis. Are they planning to find someone in the US to have kids with?
Click to expand...

I'm sure some are on both counts but, is that really a widespread problem we need to be worried about? I would think not.

Now, if only those immigrants were white...
 
xjx388 said:
Great, two acceptable options. My original question concerned what the inherent wrong was in choosing no birthright citizenship. Many have said they don't see an inherent wrong and France is a good example of a country which has a workable system without BC.

I lean towards no BC because it causes the least issues for the people who are already citizens here.
Click to expand...

What issues does BC cause for citizens here?

And why do we care about them? Most of the citizens here haven't done a damn thing with their citizenship. At least an illegal immigrant is willing to make the arduous step of international travel to express a preference.
 
phiwum said:
Is that so?

It might have been unclear before, but was there some really clear cases or something? Again, obviously, slaves would have been excepted. I'm not quibbling there.
Click to expand...
I don't think that there is any case law on this. The matter must have been too obvious to litigate.

If there had been no birthright citizenship then naturalization must have been the only way to acquire it. If that had been the only way then there would not have been anyone eligible to vote on a naturalization law.

ETA: Nvm. Checked WP and found this:
Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/28/99/
 
Last edited:
zorro99 said:
Ivanka, Eric and Don jr are all anchor babies. Their mom Ivana was not a citizen at the time of their births.
Click to expand...
I suspect it is a joke but was she here illegally and secondly since the father was an American citizen I believe even if born outside the US they can be citizens if the father also met certain residency requirements.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
It's in the friggin Constitution! Revisionist history won't change that no matter who said the Constitution wasn't a fixed document.

There might be a couple dishonest SCOTUS judges but they aren't running the court completely.
Click to expand...

You don't think someone could be honest and interpret differently than the way you and most others believe?
 
Dr. Keith said:
.........

I think the cost of implementing such a system, without using a national ID that would trigger the number of the beast fanatics, would be much more than the cost of simply allowing birth right citizenship........
Click to expand...

Even this concession shows that the conversation itself is poorly framed. I would like opponents of birth right citizenship to quantify the "cost" for me.

The same nativists complaining about "anchor babies" or "birth tourism" are lamenting Europe's low birth rates. Make up your minds - do babies cost money or benefit the overall economy?
 
carlitos said:
Even this concession shows that the conversation itself is poorly framed. I would like opponents of birth right citizenship to quantify the "cost" for me.

The same nativists complaining about "anchor babies" or "birth tourism" are lamenting Europe's low birth rates. Make up your minds - do babies cost money or benefit the overall economy?
Click to expand...

What color are the babies?
 
carlitos said:
Even this concession shows that the conversation itself is poorly framed. I would like opponents of birth right citizenship to quantify the "cost" for me.

The same nativists complaining about "anchor babies" or "birth tourism" are lamenting Europe's low birth rates. Make up your minds - do babies cost money or benefit the overall economy?
Click to expand...

ETA: ninja'd

Easy... white babies good, brown babies evil. It's not about babies or cost or anything, it's about white people who are scared they won't be the default anymore*.

*Not saying that's the only motivation someone could have to want to change the 14th amendment, or have a discussion about immigration. Just that that's the sentiment Trump is playing to.
 
eeyore1954 said:
You don't think someone could be honest and interpret differently than the way you and most others believe?
Click to expand...
What would the honest argument be?
It seems to me that you'd have to do some serious violence to the meaning of the word jurisdiction.
 
carlitos said:
Even this concession shows that the conversation itself is poorly framed. I would like opponents of birth right citizenship to quantify the "cost" for me.

The same nativists complaining about "anchor babies" or "birth tourism" are lamenting Europe's low birth rates. Make up your minds - do babies cost money or benefit the overall economy?
Click to expand...

Very good point. I agree that if we are going to assign a cost to birthright citizenship we need to balance the benefits.

I see a similar discussion with regards to dreamers. My sample is likely skewed, but all the dreamers I know are good employees and students. I have one client who has spent his own money to keep some key employees who are dreamers. These people are important to the success of his business, not a drag on the economy.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I dunno, if all the crappier states banded together in their white fear they might make up the requisite number. Never underestimate the ubiquity of stupid.
Click to expand...

I share your pessimism.

But I don't think it is gross stupidity so much as just not thinking through the consequences of a change to a complex system you have little insight into. It reminds of every time I hear someone say "there ought to be a law".
 
GnaGnaMan said:
What would the honest argument be?
It seems to me that you'd have to do some serious violence to the meaning of the word jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

This is not new ground for people who "love the Constitution." Have you missed some of the "scholarship" on the meaning of the word "militia"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom