• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Birthright Citizenship

WilliamSeger said:
The main idea that went out with royalty [...]
Click to expand...
Fundamentally, liberalism (classical sense) is concerned with liberty and equality, which is why liberals challenged the divine right of kings. Citizenship rationalizes and normalizes grotesque political inequalities. Hondurans want to avoid being murdered; we want to avoid paying for their school lunches. Poor immigrants are cast as parasites who drain our coffers, where our native poor would not be.

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?
Click to expand...
This begs the question twice: there is no obvious reason that the right to vote should be limited to citizens (and it isn't in many countries), and no reason being born among the governed should be more important than being among the governed at all.

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?
Click to expand...
Taking a position against an unjust institutions isn't a political philosophy. I'm simply applying a broadly liberal political philosophy to a question that gets surprisingly little attention.

I don't seriously believe that citizenship should be earned. I don't see any really strong, principled reason for it to exist in the first place.
 
mumblethrax said:
Poor immigrants are cast as parasites who drain our coffers, where our native poor would not be.
Click to expand...
I take serious issue with this. There are politicians running this country who take great joy in pissing and ******** all over poor US citizens every chance they get. They'll blow billions of dollars on military equipment we may never need while quibbling over millions to feed and house US citizens struggling to stay alive.
 
mumblethrax said:
Fundamentally, liberalism (classical sense) is concerned with liberty and equality, which is why liberals challenged the divine right of kings. Citizenship rationalizes and normalizes grotesque political inequalities. Hondurans want to avoid being murdered; we want to avoid paying for their school lunches. Poor immigrants are cast as parasites who drain our coffers, where our native poor would not be.


This begs the question twice: there is no obvious reason that the right to vote should be limited to citizens (and it isn't in many countries), and no reason being born among the governed should be more important than being among the governed at all.


Taking a position against an unjust institutions isn't a political philosophy. I'm simply applying a broadly liberal political philosophy to a question that gets surprisingly little attention.

I don't seriously believe that citizenship should be earned. I don't see any really strong, principled reason for it to exist in the first place.
Click to expand...

In the Constitution, "citizens" have two special rights: voting and running for office. You don't solve any problems by redefining words, so I have no idea what you're getting at. I don't see who you think ought to have the right to participate in government and why that's "right" compared to what we have now, so we don't seem to be getting anywhere.
 
WilliamSeger said:
...Our answer in the US was a representative democracy based on the idea that a "just" government must have the "consent of the governed." [snip]

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.
Click to expand...

Small nitpick, but IMO very important: The USA is a constitutional republic, and whether an individual is liberal or not is beside the point.
 
mumblethrax said:
What does that have to do with anything? The constitution normalized and entrenched slavery.
Click to expand...

What exactly do you think the issue is? Whatever else "citizen" status might mean in other laws and policies, it's constitutional meaning is the right to participate in government, and changing the birthright policy would mean denying that right to a class. Are you proposing some sort of second-class citizenship that has that right but not other benefits? Propose whatever you like, but please also explain what problem you're trying to solve.
 
DragonLady said:
Small nitpick, but IMO very important: The USA is a constitutional republic, and whether an individual is liberal or not is beside the point.
Click to expand...

We have a constitutional republic based on the political philosophy of liberal democracy; it doesn't have anything to do with everyone being "liberals" so don't take it personally. :D
 
WilliamSeger said:
What exactly do you think the issue is? Whatever else "citizen" status might mean in other laws and policies, it's constitutional meaning is the right to participate in government, and changing the birthright policy would mean denying that right to a class. Are you proposing some sort of second-class citizenship that has that right but not other benefits? Propose whatever you like, but please also explain what problem you're trying to solve.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the constitutional meaning of citizenship is reduceable to voting. Felons lose their rights to vote in most states for certain periods and circumstances, but they're still citizens.

Children under 18 are very much citizens, but can't participate in government in that way. I would say that the most relevant meaning of "citizen" in the US context is more like a right to live here that cannot be revoked.
 
WilliamSeger said:
What exactly do you think the issue is? Whatever else "citizen" status might mean in other laws and policies, it's constitutional meaning is the right to participate in government, and changing the birthright policy would mean denying that right to a class.
Click to expand...
That's not the constitutional meaning of citizenship. Non-citizens have been participating in government (including voting) for as long as the country has existed, and no court has ever found that to be unconstitutional. The constitutional meaning of citizenship is more or less irrelevant to the discussion in any case.

And I'm not arguing against jus soli. Just pointing out that political birthright ought to be anathema in a liberal democracy.
 
Last edited:
Cavemonster said:
I'm not sure the constitutional meaning of citizenship is reduceable to voting. Felons lose their rights to vote in most states for certain periods and circumstances, but they're still citizens.

Children under 18 are very much citizens, but can't participate in government in that way. I would say that the most relevant meaning of "citizen" in the US context is more like a right to live here that cannot be revoked.
Click to expand...

Other benefits of citizenship (like not being deported) are because they are specified in individual laws. Taking away a felon's right to vote is similar to taking away his right to freedom. In each case, legislators decided those things are "just." And in each case the laws can be changed, and they don't necessarily need to be restricted to citizen/non-citizen classes if there are good reasons for more. I'm not trying to reduce citizenship to voting; I'm saying that you're taking away the most important right when you deny citizenship to an entire class. And yes, this particular right doesn't mean anything until you're old enough to participate, which is why all this about babies really seems to be about something else: either some form of racism/nativism/nationalism or how much they cost. I'm opposed to the former, and I think the arguments about the latter are either short-sighted or just self-centered. Nullifying birthright citizenship would certainly create a lot of problems, and for everyone, not just the target class. What problems would it solve?
 
mumblethrax said:
That's not the constitutional meaning of citizenship. Non-citizens have been participating in government (including voting) for as long as the country has existed, and no court has ever found that to be unconstitutional. The constitutional meaning of citizenship is more or less irrelevant to the discussion in any case.

And I'm not arguing against jus soli. Just pointing out that political birthright ought to be anathema in a liberal democracy.
Click to expand...

Sorry, the first paragraph is just wrong and I have no idea what you're trying to say in the second.
 
DragonLady said:
Small nitpick, but IMO very important: The USA is a constitutional republic, and whether an individual is liberal or not is beside the point.
Click to expand...
A republic is a country that does not have a monarch. A republic is not necessarily a democracy.

A liberal democracy is one that emphasizes the rights of the individual. All western democracies are liberal democracies. Whether an individual is liberal or not is indeed beside the point.

A constitutional monarchy is one in which the monarch is subject to laws. This contrasts with an absolute monarchy where the ruler may do anything and government power is basically private property. It's not really clear how a republic could not be constitutional.
 
WilliamSeger said:
Sorry, the first paragraph is just wrong and I have no idea what you're trying to say in the second.
Click to expand...
No, it's not wrong. The constitution doesn't define citizenship and does not require citizenship of voters. Non-citizens have been permitted to vote in at least some elections since the beginning of the republic. And this is not relevant. Americans retreat from a losing political argument to the sainted constitution, our national safety blanket.

And I don't see how you can fail to understand the idea that political birthright ought to be anathema in a liberal democracy, unless you do so willfully. Old-school liberalism is dead set against against aristocracy, but we have any aristocracy of citizens vs. aliens (and especially illegal aliens), justified by nothing more than accidents of birth.
 
mumblethrax said:
No, it's not wrong. The constitution doesn't define citizenship and does not require citizenship of voters. Non-citizens have been permitted to vote in at least some elections since the beginning of the republic. And this is not relevant. Americans retreat from a losing political argument to the sainted constitution, our national safety blanket.

And I don't see how you can fail to understand the idea that political birthright ought to be anathema in a liberal democracy, unless you do so willfully. Old-school liberalism is dead set against against aristocracy, but we have any aristocracy of citizens vs. aliens (and especially illegal aliens), justified by nothing more than accidents of birth.
Click to expand...

So, should people who immigrate here of their own free will have more voting rights than people who were simply born here? After all, they made the conscious decision to prefer our country over another.
 
Random said:
So, should people who immigrate here of their own free will have more voting rights than people who were simply born here? After all, they made the conscious decision to prefer our country over another.
Click to expand...
It's sort of fascinating that naturalized citizens are the truest citizens, from a liberal perspective, having become citizens through merit, effort and patience, and yet they are literally second-class citizens, barred from attaining the highest office in the land. So the first step ought to be to move towards equality.

But I'll just reiterate that I'm making no policy proposal here, merely pointing out that the arrangement is wildly illiberal. How to fix it...that's an engineering question.
 
mumblethrax said:
No, it's not wrong. The constitution doesn't define citizenship and does not require citizenship of voters. Non-citizens have been permitted to vote in at least some elections since the beginning of the republic. And this is not relevant. Americans retreat from a losing political argument to the sainted constitution, our national safety blanket.

And I don't see how you can fail to understand the idea that political birthright ought to be anathema in a liberal democracy, unless you do so willfully. Old-school liberalism is dead set against against aristocracy, but we have any aristocracy of citizens vs. aliens (and especially illegal aliens), justified by nothing more than accidents of birth.
Click to expand...

No, you still don't get it. The Constitution doesn't define who is a citizen -- that's in US code -- it defines what a citizen can do to participate in government: vote and run for office. I have no idea what you think it means, but it's quite clear: only citizens can do those things. Almost all other rights guaranteed by the Constitution or implied by law are protected for everyone within our borders.

And I'm pretty sure, from what you're saying, that you've don't understand this birthright citizenship issue; it sounds like you might have it completely backwards. Changing the law means that the right to vote and any other benefits of citizenship are inherited or earned privileges, not universal rights. Taking rights away from individuals must be justified; taking rights away from entire classes based on nothing but membership in that class is decidedly illiberal.

ETA: I misspoke about the Constitution defining a citizen. It didn't until the 14th Amendment was passed to prevent states from taking away birthright citizenship.
 
Last edited:
WilliamSeger said:
No, you still don't get it. The Constitution doesn't define who is a citizen -- that's in US code -- it defines what a citizen can do to participate in government: vote and run for office.
Click to expand...
As I've repeatedly pointed out, the constitution does not require that voters be citizens. That's why non-citizens have often been permitted to vote in US elections. And this is still irrelevant, as the constitution cannot answer free-floating political questions. It is a legal document, not a truth-seeking argument.

And I'm pretty sure, from what you're saying, that you've don't understand this birthright citizenship issue; it sounds like you might have it completely backwards. Changing the law means that the right to vote and any other benefits of citizenship are inherited or earned privileges, not universal rights. Taking rights away from individuals must be justified; taking rights away from entire classes based on nothing but membership in that class is decidedly illiberal.
Click to expand...
I understand the current issue just fine--it's anti-immigrant red meat thrown out by an ethnonationalist president just before an election.

What I'm pointing out is a) birthright citizenship is a terrible name, since that contrasts with naturalized citizenship, and not with jus sanguinis citizenship, b) that birthright citizenship describes any arrangement where you are a citizen due to the circumstances of your birth, and c) that none of this can be justified from a classically liberal perspective. The advantages of citizenship are enormous, and the principle means by which we distinguish citizens from aliens are a bizarre and arbitrary birth lottery. Your mom **** you out of her womb on this side of the border, congratulations, you're a citizen. She popped a squat 100 feet away? Sorry, Juan, you can **** right off forever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom