If not "birthright" citizenship, what?

[gregthehammer]

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?



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.

Most countries don't make you take a test either.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

And why should they take him?

 

[Trebuchet]

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

It seems fairly clear that Jindal's parents came legally, probably on a student visa. Bobby's citizenship may or may not have helped them stay here.

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

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.

If you look at CynicalSkeptic's link, you'll see that this issue has been addressed by a 1961 convention, which presumably the US would agree to (if has not done so already) if it were not mooted by birthright citizenship.

 

[sunmaster14]

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

Unless Jindal wants to remove birthright citizenship retroactively, I don't see the relevance this has to his opinion on the issue.

 

[Upchurch]

Unless Jindal wants to remove birthright citizenship retroactively, I don't see the relevance this has to his opinion on the issue.

It's hypocritical, at the very least, for someone who has had all the advantages of birthright citizenship to turn around and argue that others can't have it. Birthright citizenship is the reason he can run for president at all.

 

[Bob001]

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

Your own link says Jindal's parents came to the U.S. as legal immigrants on his father's student visa. Wikipedia says it was a doctoral program in engineering:

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.

He is not what anybody means by an anchor baby. And a child's U.S. citizenship doesn't benefit his parents until he is 21 and can sponsor them. Illegal immigrants whose children are U.S. citizens by birth can be, and have been, deported.
http://www.uscis.gov/family/family-us-citizens

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

It's hypocritical, at the very least, for someone who has had all the advantages of birthright citizenship to turn around and argue that others can't have it. Birthright citizenship is the reason he can run for president at all.

That depends on whether or not he wants to remove birthright citizenship for everyone, or just for illegal immigrants. I wouldn't see anything hypocritical in his stance if he still wanted the children of legal immigrants to have citizenship. Considering that the Supreme Court already ruled that the children of legal immigrants HAVE citizenship, that seems like the most tenable stance.

 

[sunmaster14]

It's hypocritical, at the very least, for someone who has had all the advantages of birthright citizenship to turn around and argue that others can't have it. Birthright citizenship is the reason he can run for president at all.

I don't see that as hypocritical at all. Do you think he should have to renounce his citizenship before he can take a position on whether or not we should have birthright citizenship? Or can he only be in support of birthright citizenship?

If somebody pays a low capital gains tax on stock sales in 2012, does that mean it is hypocritical for him to want to raise the capital gains tax in 2013?

If somebody drives at 65 mph on a certain highway while the speed limit is 65mph, is he being hypocritical if he wants to lower the speed limit to 55mph?

Finally, what do you mean that it's hypocritical at the very least? What else is his position on birthright citizenship, due to the fact that he (arguably) benefited from it?

 

[Bogative]

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

The meme started with a group that calls themselves "Occupy Democrats" and they have a reputation for starting false means about Republicans on their Facebook page.

"Pants on Fire" is the rating PolitiFact gave the claim.

Jindal was five when his mother became naturalized and 15 when his father became so, he wouldn't have been able to sponsor them for naturalization until he's 21.

 

[The Don]

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.

How would the highlighted come to pass ?

I have friends, he is Thai but naturalised British, she is Swedish. One of their children was born in The Netherlands and while not entitled to Dutch citizenship, was entitled to Thai, British and Swedish - although IIRC there was some administrative inconvenience involved.

In the absence of birthright citizenship, a child born in the U.S. to Indian parents would AFAIK be entitled to Indian citizenship. Whilst it may not be the U.S. citizenship that they desire, they wouldn't be stateless.

If the parents lose their right to remain in the U.S. then I guess they'd have to leave (either to go back to India or to go to work somewhere else) and their children would likely go with them (which is also AFAIK what would happen in the U.K. for a child born to U.S. parents unless the child was over 10 and had lived continuously in the U.K.). Although this represents a change to "birthright" citizenship it doesn't seem to be fundamentally unfair.

Maybe a compromise would be to be able to grant "indefinite right to remain" in a matter of a few years to those working in the U.S. rather than them having to wair for full naturalisation .

 

[Bob001]

....
In the absence of birthright citizenship, a child born in the U.S. to Indian parents would AFAIK be entitled to Indian citizenship. Whilst it may not be the U.S. citizenship that they desire, they wouldn't be stateless.
.....

Interestingly, the rules about Indian citizenship seem to be fairly complex. Outside the country, the baby isn't an Indian citizen unless the parents register the birth at a consulate within a year. It's not automatic.

A person born outside India on or after 3rd Decmber, 2004 shall not be a citizen of India, unless the parents declare that the minor does not hold passport of another country and his birth is registered at an Indian consulate within one year of the date of birth or with the permission of the Central Government, after the expiry of the said period.

There is also no "birthright" citizenship in India if either of the parents is an "illegal migrant."
http://indiancitizenshiponline.nic.in/acquisition1.htm

 

[Fudbucker]

If we changed how citizenship is conferred, we'd be in pretty good company. Is there any Western European country that grants citizenship just by virtue of being in the host country? I know Britain and France don't.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

If we changed how citizenship is conferred, we'd be in pretty good company. Is there any Western European country that grants citizenship just by virtue of being in the host country? I know Britain and France don't.

Currently, the only two nations considered "developed" that bestow birthright citizenship are the United States and Canada.

There used to be a few more. The following countries have repealed birthright citizenship in the past few decades:

Australia (2007)
New Zealand (2005)
Ireland (2005)
France (1993)
India (1987)
Malta (1989)
UK (1983)
Portugal (1981)

The only other countries in the world besides the US and Canada that currently provide birthright citizenship are:

Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Barbados
Belize
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Columbia
Dominica
Ecuador
El Salvador
Fiji
Grenada
Guatemala
Guyana
Honduras
Jamaica
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Trinidad and Tobago
Uruguay
Venezuela

All of the rest of the countries in the world do not have birthright citizenship. I really don't understand why people are acting as though this proposal of Trump's is some over-the-top thing. By any reasonable standard, it's not. One may agree or disagree with getting rid of it, but to act as though he's some kind of lunatic for suggesting it is disingenuous.

 

[The Don]

Interestingly, the rules about Indian citizenship seem to be fairly complex. Outside the country, the baby isn't an Indian citizen unless the parents register the birth at a consulate within a year. It's not automatic.

That's only an issue if the removal of "birthright" citizenship is done retrospectively. When my friends' son was born they knew they had to register the birth locally in The Netherlands and then sort out his citizenship with the other countries. It was a bit of administration but hardly onerous (made more complicated by them wanting him to have three citizenships).

A child is born to U.S. based "guest workers", they follow the procedure to get their child citizenship of their country - hardly the end of the world. If they don't do it then they only have themselves to blame.

 

[TragicMonkey]

That's only an issue if the removal of "birthright" citizenship is done retrospectively. When my friends' son was born they knew they had to register the birth locally in The Netherlands and then sort out his citizenship with the other countries. It was a bit of administration but hardly onerous (made more complicated by them wanting him to have three citizenships).

A child is born to U.S. based "guest workers", they follow the procedure to get their child citizenship of their country - hardly the end of the world. If they don't do it then they only have themselves to blame.

America is different, and should remain so in this. We're a nation of immigrants. Born here, you're an American, and to hell with the past. It's a key part of what makes America America.

 

[Bob001]

....
A child is born to U.S. based "guest workers", they follow the procedure to get their child citizenship of their country - hardly the end of the world. If they don't do it then they only have themselves to blame.

Fair enough. But what happens to the child if the parents, for whatever reason, fail to do so? The consequences of their negligence (or ignorance or whatever) fall on the child, not the parents. If a baby doesn't automatically receive citizenship either through his parents or by his birthplace, he could literally grow up without holding citizenship anywhere.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Fair enough. But what happens to the child if the parents, for whatever reason, fail to do so? The consequences of their negligence (or ignorance or whatever) fall on the child, not the parents.

You can say that about almost anything. It's generally the case that when parents are negligent, the child suffers. I don't see what makes this specific issue special in that regard.

 

[Bob001]

You can say that about almost anything. It's generally the case that when parents are negligent, the child suffers. I don't see what makes this specific issue special in that regard.

Sure, but ordinarily when parents are negligent -- failure to provide adequate care or education -- the impact is limited to the child and his community, and except in cases of extreme abuse, the child as an adult might be able to overcome parental neglect through hard work, education, therapy etc. But a stateless person poses an international political dilemma. It might involve the governments of the country where the child was born, the country where the child might have moved (or been moved to), and the country or countries where the birth parents are citizens. And there might not be anything the person can do about it even as an adult, if he can't even establish legal residence somewhere and become naturalized. At the very least, the law should provide some mechanism that allows an adult to obtain citizenship for himself on the same terms that his parents could/should have obtained it for him.
http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c155.html

 

[Z]

Great - a future America with officers on every corner, asking everyone for their papers.

Why does that scenario sound familiar???