Birthright Citizenship

[Dr. Keith]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/726765bdc8bc1e1f31.png[/qimg]

A simple visual on medicaid and snap usage. As I said, elevated rates of usage. Things like this are the costs associated with current policy. That is why i said this comes down to more a moral question that a statistical one.

But that elevated usage by citizens born to non-citizens is so small in impact that there is almost no difference between the overall rates for Natives and Immigrants.

So, thank you for pointing out that they cost a bit more on average, but are so small in number as to have almost no impact on the overall costs of these programs as compared to native children.

I guess now we can get on to the cost of changing our entire system of tracking and determining the citizenship of every newborn in the country.

 

[mumblethrax]

Why do we call it "birthright citizenship"? That doesn't distinguish dirt citizen babies from blood citizen babies--it's all birthright. Wait, is it because we're stupid? ****, I think it might be because we're real real dumb.

There's something so unpleasantly pre-modern about all this birthright talk. That's an idea that should have gone out with royalty and racial classifications. We should instead confer citizenship only on the hardest working, most deserving babies (so probably mostly Asians).

 

[Minoosh]

Here's something else to consider: Why am I buying milk/cereal/formula for other people's babies? Well, I want them to get vitamins, minerals and protein available from these subsidized foods. If those babies were gone, I wouldn't have to do this. But be aware that their is a glut of milk and cereal on the market, because milk and cereal crops are one of the few things the U.S. is a net producer of. WIC is actually supporting the dairy and farming industries, which for some reason insist on overproduction subsidized by the government. (Those farmers then whine when Canada doesn't want to buy subsidized dairy products that compete with Canada's own regulated dairy industry).

In double-entry bookkeeping, every credit is also a debit. If I lend you money, it's a debit to my cash-on-hand account but a credit to my accounts receivable account. You don't get an accurate picture just looking at one or the other. If you look only at assistance figures but do not factor in lower produce costs, you're not getting the whole picture.

I'm of the draconian opinion that no one should have babies - with so much extant need, why manufacture more? But mine is an unusual position, and most people don't agree with me. Spawning needy little genetically-related humans is regarded as a basic right, so I get to pay dairy farmers to feed them.

 

[Minoosh]

I think you missed a point here.

I did miss that point, but it addresses the previous claim that illegal immigration is a net burden on society. I didn't notice the goalposts moving. Besides, if the children born here are not U.S. citizens, then they will never collect Social Security either, even if they jack someone's number and have payroll taxes withheld.

 

[WilliamSeger]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/726765bdc8bc1e1f31.png[/qimg]

A simple visual on medicaid and snap usage. As I said, elevated rates of usage. Things like this are the costs associated with current policy. That is why i said this comes down to more a moral question that a statistical one.

Say what?!? What is the moral question you are answering?

 

[Minoosh]

That's nonsense! I have it on good authority that childless people don't care about the future of the country.

Oh, I'm getting there. Under the current administration, it's a lot less painful if I don't care.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Spawning needy little genetically-related humans is regarded as a basic right, so I get to pay dairy farmers to feed them.

Have you seen what dairy farmers do with free time?

 

[Bob001]

Why do we call it "birthright citizenship"? That doesn't distinguish dirt citizen babies from blood citizen babies--it's all birthright. Wait, is it because we're stupid? ****, I think it might be because we're real real dumb.

There's something so unpleasantly pre-modern about all this birthright talk. That's an idea that should have gone out with royalty and racial classifications. We should instead confer citizenship only on the hardest working, most deserving babies (so probably mostly Asians).

The term seems to have been developed by the right-wing as a political statement, the way they relabeled ordinary inheritance taxes as a death tax.

But there is a difference. If you are a citizen the moment you are born, neither you nor anybody else has to prove anything to anybody. Otherwise, upon your birth your parents have to prove to the government that they are citizens or lawful residents, entitled to bestow citizenship upon their children. In countries that do it like that, there can be generations of people who were born there, who have never lived anywhere else, and who aren't citizens because of ethnic or family history. It creates a permanent, often abused underclass.

Look at what's happening in Myanmar now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_people

 

[xjx388]

This point is not as cut-and-dried as you seem to think. You'll find numerous arguments against that "fact." They pay into Social Security, but will never benefit from it.

Why wouldn't an American citizen benefit from it? We are talking about the kids that are born here to parents who are not legally resident. Those kids will benefit from their contributions to SS.

And demographically the U.S. actually needs more young citizens.

Valid point.

The Armed Forces at one point were eager to see immigration reform that would help recruiting. Food prices remain low partly due to immigration. To get to the "net" figure, you need to look at benefits, not just costs.

I am all for a system that allows properly vetted foreign nationals to join our military and get a fast track to citizenship.

Food prices are so low because agriculture depends on illegal immigration. If they had to pay their workers fairly, that would drive costs up somewhat.

***

The birth of children to illegal immigrants costs society in many ways. One obvious way, right from the get go, is that Medicaid is paying for a lot of those births, under the Emergency Medicaid program. The rest of the cost of those births is just written off, which increases the cost to the rest of us. And those women, for the most part, didn't get prenatal care, which increases the risk of problems with the actual birth and the development of the child afterwards. That treatment is also paid by Medicaid.

Then there is the cost of providing various other benefits throughout the kids' life. That baby gets added to someone's household as a dependent. That household now gets more SNAP, TANF, EIC, etc. That kid gets free Medicaid and public school. The guardians get free child care.

I don't think there has been any study (that I can find, anyway) that quantifies that cost in a nice neat number. But just looking at the variety of programs involved it's certainly a significant number. A number that wouldn't exist if we simply changed the concept of birthright citizenship.

I totally agree that we need more young people in the US and I want to give opportunities to immigrants, especially from countries like Mexico, China, India, etc. But I want them to come over the right way, a way in which we can decide who comes over and in what circumstances so that we can have more control over the costs. The current system forces unknown immigrants with unquantifiable costs on us.

 

[rdwight]

But that elevated usage by citizens born to non-citizens is so small in impact that there is almost no difference between the overall rates for Natives and Immigrants.

So, thank you for pointing out that they cost a bit more on average, but are so small in number as to have almost no impact on the overall costs of these programs as compared to native children.

I guess now we can get on to the cost of changing our entire system of tracking and determining the citizenship of every newborn in the country.

An 18% increase in Medicaid coverage is not what I would call a small amount when applied to millions of individuals. Breaks down to a yearly additional cost of 2.32 billion(1) a year for that one program alone in direct cost not mentioning administrative costs, but overall I see your point. It is not much different than mine, just a matter of how costs and spending are viewed by each individual.

As to the cost of changing the system, I've already conceded I don't have a basis to determine how large a net +/- it would be since I don't have a concrete outline of how it would work and be implemented/administered.

(1)18% x 5 million = 900k x 2577 per year Medicaid cost average per child US

 

[mumblethrax]

But there is a difference. If you are a citizen the moment you are born, neither you nor anybody else has to prove anything to anybody.

But you do. You have to prove that you were born in the US if challenged. Or, if born to US citizens outside of the US, you have to prove that they were citizens if challenged.

If you're Obama, you have to do it twice.

I mean it's not procedure in jus sanguinis countries to recite your lineage to the courts prior to attaining citizenship. Not even in Iceland.

There's surely a difference between these arrangements, but "birthright", if anything, invokes lineage more strongly that soil.

 

[Minoosh]

Have you seen what dairy farmers do with free time?

Well, that was random.

 

[Minoosh]

A number that wouldn't exist if we simply changed the concept of birthright citizenship.

I don't think it would be simple.

I totally agree that we need more young people in the US and I want to give opportunities to immigrants, especially from countries like Mexico, China, India, etc. But I want them to come over the right way, a way in which we can decide who comes over and in what circumstances so that we can have more control over the costs.

As a country, we really like the idea of a labor force that has no rights. It's why Republicans can't fix immigration even among themselves.

I'd give legal status to about 90 percent of illegal immigrants TODAY, except that in the process they would obtain rights, and then we'd see more people coming to undercut the people who have new rights. And business would probably find a way to import them.

The current system forces unknown immigrants with unquantifiable costs on us.

The current system of childbirth does the same thing, IMO. But I realize I'm in the minority there. Bottom line, to me "birthright" citizenship is not a problem that needs fixing. Other people disagree. That's fine.

 

[rdwight]

I did miss that point, but it addresses the previous claim that illegal immigration is a net burden on society. I didn't notice the goalposts moving. Besides, if the children born here are not U.S. citizens, then they will never collect Social Security either, even if they jack someone's number and have payroll taxes withheld.

There was no goal post moving. You misread my statement and broke off into your own examples unrelated to it.

 

[Minoosh]

There was no goal post moving. You misread my statement and broke off into your own examples unrelated to it.

It addressed the net cost of illegal immigration, which was the claim I took up. Then you asked for a citation for something different, and I did not notice you were asking a different question.

ETA: This is the claim I meant to address:

It is verifiable fact they are a net drain on society.

If you're not going to factor in the upside of illegal immigration, you can't address the "net drain" issue.

 

[Dr. Keith]

An 18% increase in Medicaid coverage is not what I would call a small amount when applied to millions of individuals. Breaks down to a yearly additional cost of 2.32 billion(1) a year for that one program alone in direct cost not mentioning administrative costs, but overall I see your point. It is not much different than mine, just a matter of how costs and spending are viewed by each individual.

As to the cost of changing the system, I've already conceded I don't have a basis to determine how large a net +/- it would be since I don't have a concrete outline of how it would work and be implemented/administered.

(1)18% x 5 million = 900k x 2577 per year Medicaid cost average per child US

But from your chart immigrants overall have an ever so slightly lower medicaid cost than natives. In other words, while this subgroup of immigrants may be higher, immigrants overall are actually about the same as natives. So, immigration as a whole, the way we are currently doing it, is not having a huge impact on medicaid.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Well, that was random.

Shut up and pay your dairy subsidies.

 

[Minoosh]

This is one of the problems I encounter when having these discussions. Do you believe children born to illegal immigrants have no cost? It is verifiable fact they are a net drain on society. Morally, you can argue the cost is not as important, but that should be a separate discussion and should not lead people to deny facts. But that never seems to be the case.

So going back to your original context: Children are a net drain on society. They don't work or pay taxes. We tolerate them in the hopes that someday they will not be a net drain on society. I feel the same whether they are children of illegal immigrants or not. We pulled a fast one on the so-called Dreamers, leading them to believe there would be a quick legislative fix to their dilemma. I doubt if they'll fall for that again. But meanwhile, it seems very defensible to me that children born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens. So defensible that it has hardly needed defending. Trump does like to blow things up though.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Trump's proposal is just pure us vs. them racism.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...port-his-latest-hate-narrative/?noredirect=on

His wording is so dishonest: "They say I can do it with an E.O."

Who's they, his kids? Miller?

It's awful listening to Trump's incredibly dishonest campaign. Conflating a single immigrant accused of murder with the couple thousand coming here from Honduras.

What's discouraging is how stupid half this country is.

Or maybe I should say, how frightening.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Why do we call it "birthright citizenship"? That doesn't distinguish dirt citizen babies from blood citizen babies--it's all birthright. Wait, is it because we're stupid? ****, I think it might be because we're real real dumb.

There's something so unpleasantly pre-modern about all this birthright talk. That's an idea that should have gone out with royalty and racial classifications. We should instead confer citizenship only on the hardest working, most deserving babies (so probably mostly Asians).

The main idea that went out with royalty was the notion of the "divine right of kings" -- the political philosophy that the monarch was granted the right to wield power by the kingdom's official god, and that it was inherited. As soon as you throw out that notion, the next question is, who does have the right? Our answer in the US was a representative democracy based on the idea that a "just" government must have the "consent of the governed." And so we vote on representatives -- or at least, those among "the governed" who are allowed to vote. Voting is the most important right -- not privilege -- that a citizen has in a liberal democracy, so who is disqualified is a very important issue.

So, first question, did I inherit a privilege to vote from my parents, or should I have that right because I was born as one of "the governed" in a liberal democracy?

If your answer is neither, that it ought to be a privilege that's earned rather than inherited or bestowed on everyone, then the next question is, what will you call your political philosophy? I assume it will be named to reference the criteria you chose to select your plutocrats -- say, propertarians or intelligencians or some such term.

The next question might be how you would get from a liberal democracy to such a government, but I don't think I want to go there.