Birthright citizenship...good, bad, or ugly?

I'm thinking skunk with dual terran/martian citizenship, possibly forced to make a choice at age of majority. Also, why skunks?
 
why not skunks ?
Click to expand...

Because skunks don't already have a government and you are adding multiple variables to your hypothetical.

Two skunks produce offspring in Kansas. Are they American?!?;)
 
JuanCarlos said:
Would you be less offended at the idea of birthright citizenship if policies were enacted (like the ones I mention a couple posts up, or similar) to ensure that the parents of these children don't benefit from the citizenship of the child? Because I do agree that that's something that needs to be addressed. I just disagree with how it should be addressed.
Click to expand...

I think the benifit alone of the child becoming a US citizen by being born to an illegal in the USA is enough to incentive to subvert the system. Illegals are still going to flood across the border to drop a child in the USA. Make that child a citizen automatically and you will never have the political will present in the nation to then deport the criminal parent, splitting up the family. It would be a game of chicken between the law of the USA and the illegal giving birth in the USA. The illegal already doesn't care about the law when it goes against them and knows the US legal system wil blink first anyway.

An amendment must be passed to change the 14th's blanket citizenship status for those born here. Of course we do not have the political will for that either...

The only thing that may happen is an armed border. There needs to be a no-man's land between the two nations with any person found in between subject to being fired upon.
 
Well, ideally they would be able to stay...but then you get into the fact that they can't support themselves, and would either be a drain on social service and/or fall victim to an atrocious foster care system. Least harm is done at that point, provided nobody legally here can take care of them, by sending them back with the parents (until they're older). Though I suppose if the parents wanted to put them up for adoption/into the foster care system that would be fair.

It's a matter of balancing the fact that the child is a natural born citizen, yet at the same time a baby and obviously unable to, you know, care for itself.
Click to expand...

Ideally they are not made citizens at all, the entire family that is here illegally is deported, they are given a packet of immigration forms, told to contact the nearest consulate in their country of origin and fall in at the back of the line.


I'm not aware of any particular crimes and any specific people have committed...yet statistics says that it's likely they have knowingly committed a crime at some point or another. Marijuana prohibition alone has made over 50% of people in this country criminals (tried it at one point or another). Going back in people's family trees, I'm guessing that alcohol prohibition did the same. Then there are the many other "common" crimes...underage drinking, trespassing, speeding, etc...basically, I think that people who've never knowingly and intentionally broken the law at some point or another are probably a pretty small minority. Going up somebody's family tree (and coming back down all the branches) it's statistically unlikely that anybody can claim their entire family falls into this category. Are you arguing with this assessment?

Note I've said "unlikely," not impossible.
Click to expand...

If you're talking about the child "profiting" from illegal immigration (though citizenship), the child committed no crime. The parents did. And I've made it pretty obvious that I'm quite alright with ensuring (or attempting to) that the parents don't profit from it.
Click to expand...



You've missed the point. The parents are gaining from their illegal activities. They know that through kindness (lack of balls) they will not be deported because such a stink will be raised in the media about tearing a poor immigrant family apart or a stink about expelling a poor little U.S. citizen baby for doing nothing wrong except being born to illegal immigrants. It's not impossible or unlikely that it can be proven that the parents are legal or illegal immigrants. The parents and child are both profiting from an illegal action.
Are you saying that it's ok if I rob a bank for one million dollars and give it to my daughter, I should be send to jail, but the bank should be out of their money because my daughter did nothing wrong except accept a gift from her dad which isn't a crime?
 
You've missed the point. The parents are gaining from their illegal activities. They know that through kindness (lack of balls) they will not be deported because such a stink will be raised in the media about tearing a poor immigrant family apart or a stink about expelling a poor little U.S. citizen baby for doing nothing wrong except being born to illegal immigrants. It's not impossible or unlikely that it can be proven that the parents are legal or illegal immigrants. The parents and child are both profiting from an illegal action.
Click to expand...

I think you'd be surprised what most people would be willing to do when it comes to illegal immigrants; they're not popular on either side of the aisle. I also think that a scheme like the one I devised is much more likely than a constitutional amendment, which is what will be necessary to deny their children citizenship, like it or not.

Are you saying that it's ok if I rob a bank for one million dollars and give it to my daughter, I should be send to jail, but the bank should be out of their money because my daughter did nothing wrong except accept a gift from her dad which isn't a crime?
Click to expand...

I didn't realize that citizenship was a scarce resource, and that if the baby in this case "accepts" it then somebody else loses theirs. So, who here has has lost (or knows somebody who has) their citizenship because some anchor baby took it away from them? [Ben Stein Voice] Anyone.......anyone?

Yeah, that's what I thought. Next analogy, please. Try and make the next one...well, analogous.
 
I think you'd be surprised what most people would be willing to do when it comes to illegal immigrants; they're not popular on either side of the aisle. I also think that a scheme like the one I devised is much more likely than a constitutional amendment, which is what will be necessary to deny their children citizenship, like it or not.
Click to expand...


I'm not surprised by desperation at all. Desperation on both sides of the proverbial fence. I also don't believe your plan is anymore constitutional than not giving "anchor babies" citizenship. Under your plan you're still expelling a citizen of the U.S. for the crime of being born. Under my plan I'm expelling a child and parents who entered the country illegally.


I didn't realize that citizenship was a scarce resource, and that if the baby in this case "accepts" it then somebody else loses theirs. So, who here has has lost (or knows somebody who has) their citizenship because some anchor baby took it away from them? [Ben Stein Voice] Anyone.......anyone?
Click to expand...


If citizenship wasn't a scarce resource there wouldn't be people risking life and limb to get it. I don't see a flood of Americans flocking to Mexico under the cover of darkness, hiding inside trucks or paying coyotes to take them into Mexico for the status of Mexican citizenship. Since there are quotas for the quantities of people allowed to immigrate legally I would say that yes, for every person who jumps to the front of the line illegally it pushes another person back who is legally trying to enter.


Yeah, that's what I thought. Next analogy, please. Try and make the next one...well, analogous.
Click to expand...

Next:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:



You should really read aloud what you type and think about it before you hit submit reply;)
 
I'm not surprised by desperation at all. Desperation on both sides of the proverbial fence. I also don't believe your plan is anymore constitutional than not giving "anchor babies" citizenship. Under your plan you're still expelling a citizen of the U.S. for the crime of being born. Under my plan I'm expelling a child and parents who entered the country illegally.
Click to expand...

I'm not expelling a citizen, though. I'm allowing the parents of a minor child to decide where their baby goes (and, of course, expelling the parents). When they're old enough to make such decisions for themselves, then they can come back. I fail to see the problem there.

If citizenship wasn't a scarce resource there wouldn't be people risking life and limb to get it. I don't see a flood of Americans flocking to Mexico under the cover of darkness, hiding inside trucks or paying coyotes to take them into Mexico for the status of Mexican citizenship. Since there are quotas for the quantities of people allowed to immigrate legally I would say that yes, for every person who jumps to the front of the line illegally it pushes another person back who is legally trying to enter.
Click to expand...

First off, those people paying the coyotes and risking their life trekking across the desert aren't doing it for citizenship; last I checked, we aren't giving it to those folks. They're doing it for work/money, which are scarce resources.

Also, unless I'm mistaken we don't adjust our quotas every year for the number of natural citizens born here (regardless of the status of the parents). "Anchor babies" are never immigrating, thus they aren't jumping in line in front of anybody. And citizens can have just as many children as they like, without having to pay any charge for citizenship on each one. So no, citizenship by birth is not a scarce resource.

Then there's also the debate that could be had as to whether our immigration quotas are just setting an artificial limit on a resource that isn't particularly scarce, and that that has a lot to do with why they're so hard to enforce...but that's the subject of a whole 'nother immigration thread, and if you want to discuss it I encourage you to go start it.

For now you can just admit that your analogy was deeply and fundamentally flawed, and move on.
 
I'm not expelling a citizen, though. I'm allowing the parents of a minor child to decide where their baby goes (and, of course, expelling the parents). When they're old enough to make such decisions for themselves, then they can come back. I fail to see the problem there.
Click to expand...


The parents have two choices, 1. leave their newborn with family or strangers 2. make the newborn citizen leave the country. Nice choices, either they give up their child or their child is expelled from the country. Anyway you want to word it, the citizen is being expelled from the country even if for a specified time or he's not allowed to grow up with his parents. If you don't see a problem with that you're more course than I am. At least I would like to keep child and parents together.


First off, those people paying the coyotes and risking their life trekking across the desert aren't doing it for citizenship; last I checked, we aren't giving it to those folks. They're doing it for work/money, which are scarce resources.
Click to expand...

So, they would turn down citizenship if offered? I guess you better explain that to all of the protesters.


Also, unless I'm mistaken we don't adjust our quotas every year for the number of natural citizens born here (regardless of the status of the parents). "Anchor babies" are never immigrating, thus they aren't jumping in line in front of anybody. And citizens can have just as many children as they like, without having to pay any charge for citizenship on each one. So no, citizenship by birth is not a scarce resource.
Click to expand...


I never said citizenship by birth was scarce resource, I said citizenship by immigration was a scarce resource. The baby arrived in the U.S. by illegal transportation, no different than stowing away in the back of a 65 Impala.

Then there's also the debate that could be had as to whether our immigration quotas are just setting an artificial limit on a resource that isn't particularly scarce, and that that has a lot to do with why they're so hard to enforce...but that's the subject of a whole 'nother immigration thread, and if you want to discuss it I encourage you to go start it.
Click to expand...

I'll agree that the limits are artificial, there is no easy way of determining from year to year in a timely manner what our resources can handle. That is why they are set based on trends over numerous years.

For now you can just admit that your analogy was deeply and fundamentally flawed, and move on.
Click to expand...

Why would I do that? I enjoy poking holes in your argument as much as you enjoy having holes poked in them;) :p
 
First off, those people paying the coyotes and risking their life trekking across the desert aren't doing it for citizenship; last I checked, we aren't giving it to those folks. They're doing it for work/money, which are scarce resources.
Click to expand...
So, they would turn down citizenship if offered? I guess you better explain that to all of the protesters.
Click to expand...
Of course they wouldn't. But since capital letters seem to be fairly effective around here, I'll give that a shot: WE AREN'T OFFERING.

They're coming here for work and/or money.

If you believe otherwise, you should go talk to STAGE 2 and most of the other anti-immigrant folks; they're desperate to convince everybody that these people have no desire to be Americans and are only coming to take our resources and send them back to Mexico. But again, that's another thread that you're welcome to start.

Also, unless I'm mistaken we don't adjust our quotas every year for the number of natural citizens born here (regardless of the status of the parents). "Anchor babies" are never immigrating, thus they aren't jumping in line in front of anybody. And citizens can have just as many children as they like, without having to pay any charge for citizenship on each one. So no, citizenship by birth is not a scarce resource.
Click to expand...
I never said citizenship by birth was scarce resource, I said citizenship by immigration was a scarce resource. The baby arrived in the U.S. by illegal transportation, no different than stowing away in the back of a 65 Impala.
Click to expand...
Like it or not the baby is not a person (legally), and thus its citizenship not determined, until birth. If you don't like that, go start an abortion thread. I'm sure it will end well.

And that's before we get into the idea that an illegal immigrant could possibly conceive while here in the US, thus never "transporting" the fetus in her womb.

So yeah. Citizenship by birth. Not a scarce resource.
 
Some subjects are complicated, this one is not. Someone above summed it up concisely:

Birthright citizenship is nonsense, people born here should have to go through the process and earn it just like foreigners do. Maybe if Americans had to go through that process they'd learn a thing or two about our system of govt and we'd have a more informed electorate.
Click to expand...

If your parents are citizens (or ONE of your two parents are citizens), and you are born here, then you should be a citizen.

If both of your parents are non-citizens, then you should be a non-citizen, born here or not.
 
Yes, if they haven't gotten off their duff and done the naturualization process for THIRTY years, at least one of them, then tough noogies.
 
Of course they wouldn't. But since capital letters seem to be fairly effective around here, I'll give that a shot: WE AREN'T OFFERING.

They're coming here for work and/or money.

If you believe otherwise, you should go talk to STAGE 2 and most of the other anti-immigrant folks; they're desperate to convince everybody that these people have no desire to be Americans and are only coming to take our resources and send them back to Mexico. But again, that's another thread that you're welcome to start.
Click to expand...


I won't get into a shouting match with you. Of course they are coming here for work and money. They would also gladly accept citizenship if it were offered to criminals. Of course we're offering citizenship, just not to criminals who cross the boarder illegally.


Like it or not the baby is not a person (legally), and thus its citizenship not determined, until birth. If you don't like that, go start an abortion thread. I'm sure it will end well.

And that's before we get into the idea that an illegal immigrant could possibly conceive while here in the US, thus never "transporting" the fetus in her womb.
Click to expand...

If the carrier of the baby is illegally in the country everything that person does is illegal. It's not hard to understand, they work; it's illegal, they drive; it's illegal, they have a child; it's illegal. It's not a hard concept.
Since we're throwing out compromises I have one. We treat an illegal alien under the same rules and laws that their country of origin treats illegal aliens. i.e If it's a Russian illegal and Russia throws illegals in the gulag, we throw them in prison, if it a Mexican illegal and Mexico deports illegals to Norway, we send illegal Mexicans to Norway. That way it's fair and equatable across the globe. Nobody can claim we are treating anyone worse than the country of origin treats the illegal immigrants they have in their country. Sound good



So yeah. Citizenship by birth. Not a scarce resource.
Click to expand...

Seems pretty scarce to me. I travel all over the world and have never heard someone say "If only I could get to Mexico my life would be better." Usually it's more like " I wish I could live in America, but they have given all the visas away this year." "I wish I could come to America, but I can't prove I won't stay." "Can you tell me how to get a green card?"
 
Yes, if they haven't gotten off their duff and done the naturualization process for THIRTY years, at least one of them, then tough noogies.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Yeah, because you can't contribute to America without being a citizen. That's great. :p I'm amazed.
 
If the carrier of the baby is illegally in the country everything that person does is illegal. It's not hard to understand, they work; it's illegal, they drive; it's illegal, they have a child; it's illegal. It's not a hard concept.
Click to expand...

Really? I wasn't aware there were provisions for "driving while here illegaly" (note: not the same as "driving without a license") or "eating a ham sandwich while here illegaly" or "having sex while here illegaly" in our criminal code.

Since we're throwing out compromises I have one. We treat an illegal alien under the same rules and laws that their country of origin treats illegal aliens. i.e If it's a Russian illegal and Russia throws illegals in the gulag, we throw them in prison, if it a Mexican illegal and Mexico deports illegals to Norway, we send illegal Mexicans to Norway. That way it's fair and equatable across the globe. Nobody can claim we are treating anyone worse than the country of origin treats the illegal immigrants they have in their country. Sound good
Click to expand...

No, that sounds idiotic and more than a bit childish. "But Mexico isn't nice to their immigrants!!!1!1!"

Give me a break.

So yeah. Citizenship by birth. Not a scarce resource.
Click to expand...
Seems pretty scarce to me. I travel all over the world and have never heard someone say "If only I could get to Mexico my life would be better." Usually it's more like " I wish I could live in America, but they have given all the visas away this year." "I wish I could come to America, but I can't prove I won't stay." "Can you tell me how to get a green card?"
Click to expand...
Amazingly, all four (including the first one regarding getting to Mexico) relate to citizenship by immigration, not natural birth.
 
Didn't say they weren't contribuiting (*cough* red herring *cough*). Said that

IF THEY WANT THEIR KIDS TO BE CITIZENS, KNOWING WHAT THE RULES ARE (if the rules where changed to what they should be), THEN THEY SHOULD GET OFF THEIR ARSES AT SOME POINT DURING THE 30 YEARS OF CONTRIBUTION, AND GO THROUGH THE NATURALIZATION PROCESS - it ain't difficult, the the issue is not complicated.
 
Didn't say they weren't contribuiting (*cough* red herring *cough*). Said that
Click to expand...
No, you didn't. But then why must someone give up citizenship in their homeland because they want to live here? I see no reason. They don't want to vote, they don't have to be citizens. Aside from voting I can think of no rights that should be afforded to citizens and not residents.
IF THEY WANT THEIR KIDS TO BE CITIZENS, KNOWING WHAT THE RULES ARE (if the rules where changed to what they should be), THEN THEY SHOULD GET OFF THEIR ARSES AT SOME POINT DURING THE 30 YEARS OF CONTRIBUTION, AND GO THROUGH THE NATURALIZATION PROCESS - it ain't difficult, the the issue is not complicated.
Click to expand...
What you believe the rules should be and what I believe they should be are two different things. :) I don't mind when immigrants keep their citizenship but any individual born on US territory is and should always be a natural-born American.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top