If not "birthright" citizenship, what?

[Bob001]

For people who would like to end "birthright" citizenship (which I prefer to think of as "constitutionally guaranteed citizenship"), what is the alternative? If a U.S. birth certificate isn't enough for someone to prove U.S. citizenship, what would be required? The birth certificates of the parents? But they would just be birth certificates, too, even if they were born in the U.S. A family geneology? Would Immigration investigate every birth? Most birth certificates are issued by city and county authorities. Would they be replaced by a national birth certificate issued only to people who have been determined to be citizens (back to question 1)? Etc. It really starts to look, as with the "voter ID" business, like a way to exclude people from the political process. How would an end to "birthright" citizenship actually work?

 

[TragicMonkey]

My former coworkers favored a test involving a paper bag.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You should be able to prove your ancestry back to the Clovis People. Everybody else get out!

 

[Mudcat]

Something I've heard advocated for is taking the citizenship test to be regarded as a citizen, none of this natural born citizen stuff that unfortunately leads to anchor babies. I can't say I really disagree with the notion but it would require a lot of work and effort so I have doubts it would actually get wide enough support to become an actual thing.

 

[uk_dave]

Examiner: All right, here's your last question. What was the cause of the Civil War?

Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists, there were economic factors, both domestic and inter...

Examiner: Wait, wait... just say slavery.

Apu: Slavery it is, sir.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0774432/quotes

 

[Ladewig]

Something I've heard advocated for is taking the citizenship test to be regarded as a citizen, none of this natural born citizen stuff that unfortunately leads to anchor babies. I can't say I really disagree with the notion but it would require a lot of work and effort so I have doubts it would actually get wide enough support to become an actual thing.

Everyone? Because I think it would be hysterical if some of those jingoistic, flag-waving patriots failed a citizenship test.

 

[The Don]

For people who would like to end "birthright" citizenship (which I prefer to think of as "constitutionally guaranteed citizenship"), what is the alternative? If a U.S. birth certificate isn't enough for someone to prove U.S. citizenship, what would be required? The birth certificates of the parents? But they would just be birth certificates, too, even if they were born in the U.S. A family geneology? Would Immigration investigate every birth? Most birth certificates are issued by city and county authorities. Would they be replaced by a national birth certificate issued only to people who have been determined to be citizens (back to question 1)? Etc. It really starts to look, as with the "voter ID" business, like a way to exclude people from the political process. How would an end to "birthright" citizenship actually work?

If citizenship is restricted to either children born overseas to at least one U.S. citizen or children born in the U.S. to at least one parent with U.S. residency then you could end up with two types of documentation, a birth certificate (which is only a record of the birth) and then some kind of citizenship document which is issued some time later after all the necessary checks have been done. The birth certificate could still be issued locally but it would be up to the parents to provide sufficient information to justify the latter piece of identification.

All birth certificates issued prior to the new legislation being introduced would be considered citizenship documents both for the individual and for proving the citizenship of parents.

This is how it's done in The Netherlands:

http://www.government.nl/issues/dutch-nationality/dutch-nationality-by-birth-or-family-ties
http://www.government.nl/issues/family-law/birth-of-a-child

 

[Mudcat]

Everyone?

Yes, everyone. Even people that were born here with parents who are American citizens.

Again, I don't necessarily disagree with the notion.

But I would go a step further and allow citizenship for x amount of years in the service. Whether that service is as police, military, firemen, EMT, et cetera, it doesn't mater.

Because I think it would be hysterical if some of those jingoistic, flag-waving patriots failed a citizenship test.

I agree.

 

[gregthehammer]

Yes, everyone. Even people that were born here with parents who are American citizens.

Again, I don't necessarily disagree with the notion.

But I would go a step further and allow citizenship for x amount of years in the service. Whether that service is as police, military, firemen, EMT, et cetera, it doesn't mater.



I agree.

The bolded bit is, no offense, the dumbest damned thing I ever heard. Those second, third, tenth, and so on generation children of immigrants who don't pass the test, where exactly would they be deported to?

 

[Pup]

The bolded bit is, no offense, the dumbest damned thing I ever heard. Those second, third, tenth, and so on generation children of immigrants who don't pass the test, where exactly would they be deported to?

I'm also wondering about mentally handicapped people. Got Down syndrome? Can't memorize test questions? No citizenship for you. Ever.

 

[timhau]

For people who would like to end "birthright" citizenship (which I prefer to think of as "constitutionally guaranteed citizenship"), what is the alternative? If a U.S. birth certificate isn't enough for someone to prove U.S. citizenship, what would be required?

Citizenship for white males who have inherited a few hundred million dollars worth of real estate?

 

[sunmaster14]

This article is pretty interesting:

How many other countries share this guarantee? NumbersUSA, a group that favors reduced immigration, compiled a list that shows 33 nations grant citizenship to anyone born within their borders.

The United States is joined by Brazil, Argentina and Mexico, along with nearly every country in Central and South America. The United States and Canada are the only two "developed" countries, as defined by the International Monetary Fund, that still have unrestricted birthright citizenship laws.

A closer look at the list shows an interesting trend: Countries that offer birthright citizenship are located almost exclusively in the Western Hemisphere. No country in Europe or East Asia, for example, has a similar citizenship policy.

So why does birthright citizenship literally divide the world?

One explanation may be colonialism, said John Skrentny, a sociologist at the University of California, San Diego. As European countries colonized the Americas, Skrentny said, many created lenient naturalization laws in order to grow and overpower native populations.

It does seem that birthright citizenship is something of an anachronism.

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

Outside the Americas, automatic birthright citizenship is pretty rare. Even UK and most of the Commonwealth nations place some restrictions. Jus soli^WP

eta: Ninjaed.

 

[Mudcat]

The bolded bit is, no offense, the dumbest damned thing I ever heard. Those second, third, tenth, and so on generation children of immigrants who don't pass the test, where exactly would they be deported to?

Not deported anywhere, just not full citizenship. Plus it's not the only way one could get citizenship, if you'd bother to read the full post.

And how is that any dumber than granting citizenship to someone who had the dumb luck of being born in America?

I'm also wondering about mentally handicapped people. Got Down syndrome? Can't memorize test questions? No citizenship for you. Ever.

Did you even bother reading the full post? Besides, it's not like the idea is entirely unique.

Most countries don't have birthright citizenship in the first place.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Something I've heard advocated for is taking the citizenship test to be regarded as a citizen, none of this natural born citizen stuff that unfortunately leads to anchor babies. I can't say I really disagree with the notion but it would require a lot of work and effort so I have doubts it would actually get wide enough support to become an actual thing.

Starship Troopers, he said innocently.

 

[Mudcat]

Starship Troopers, he said innocently. [qimg]http://rationalia.com/z/3d-angel-3.gif[/qimg]

Do you have a point you wish to make?

 

[Upchurch]

Hopefully not too far off topic, but there is a meme going around that Bobby Jindal is, himself, an "anchor baby". Does anyone know if there is a reliable source for this?

Wikipedia states that his parents came to the US six months before Jindal was born, but they don't say whether his parents used Jindal's citizenship to either become citizens or get retain legal residency.

eta: for example

Bobby Jindal
“We need to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants,” Jindal tweeted on Monday night.

Jindal likely forgot that he is a beneficiary of birthright citizenship, and could even be considered a so-called “anchor baby.” Amar and Raj Jindal, Jindal’s parents, moved to the United States in 1971 as legal immigrants after Raj received a scholarship to Louisiana State University. Though Raj was reportedly a permanent resident, Jindal was born in the United States four months after his parents arrived in the country. Jindal’s mother became a citizen in 1976 and his father was naturalized in 1986.

 

[Dessi]

A friend of mine, C, had an interesting experience:

Her parents, refugees from the Vietnam war, resided in Switzerland when C was born. C has a Swiss birth certificate, but is not a Swiss citizen as Switzerland does not grant birthright citizenship. C's parents immigrated before C satisfied the Swiss residency requirement; C became naturalized as a US citizen 25+ years later. Her experience is interesting to me because, until a few years ago, she was not a citizen of any country.

Many USians do not believe that children of unnaturalized immigrants should have birthright citizenship. I have many coworkers from India, Nepal, China, and elsewhere who reside in the US legally on a work visa; many of Indian coworkers wait for 12+ years before they become naturalized. In the mean time, they may have children who, if not for the benefit of birthright citizenship, would not belong to any country. Suppose that the US did not have birthright citizenship, and the parents of a child lost their visa status for one reason or another (e.g. this can happen of someone on H-1B status is laid off and remain unemployed for at least 3 months); what would happen to their children? They can't be deported back to India, they also can't get a job in US, nor attend school, nor even apply for a passport. They would literally be trapped in the US, and would have to navigate the US's legal structure in the same way that illegal immigrants do (despite being neither illegal nor an immigrant).

Birthright citizenship protects people who might fall into the class of stateless people. I'm not sure what the alternatives are that would not seriously disadvantage children on of unnaturalized US residents.

 

[Ladewig]

A friend of mine, C, had an interesting experience:

Her parents, refugees from the Vietnam war, resided in Switzerland when C was born. C has a Swiss birth certificate, but is not a Swiss citizen as Switzerland does not grant birthright citizenship. C's parents immigrated before C satisfied the Swiss residency requirement; C became naturalized as a US citizen 25+ years later. Her experience is interesting to me because, until a few years ago, she was not a citizen of any country.

Many USians do not believe that children of unnaturalized immigrants should have birthright citizenship. I have many coworkers from India, Nepal, China, and elsewhere who reside in the US legally on a work visa; many of Indian coworkers wait for 12+ years before they become naturalized. In the mean time, they may have children who, if not for the benefit of birthright citizenship, would not belong to any country. Suppose that the did not have birthright citizenship, and the parents of a child lost their visa status for one reason or another (e.g. this can happen of someone on H-1B status is laid off and remain unemployed for at least 3 months); what would happen to their children? They can't be deported back to India, they also can't get a job in US, nor attend school, nor even apply for a passport. They would literally be trapped in the US, and would have to navigate the US's legal structure in the same way that illegal immigrants do (despite being neither illegal nor an immigrant).

Birthright citizenship protects people who might fall into the class of stateless people. I'm not sure what the alternatives are that would not seriously disadvantage children on of unnaturalized US residents.

Agreed.
A related issue is that a child of Mexican nationals here illegally might, as an adult, be sent to Mexico without even being able to speak a word of Spanish.

 

[Puppycow]

It would be ironic and not in a good way if the party of Lincoln were to do away with Lincoln's great achievement. One of them anyway.