• 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.

So it begins. Birthright Citizenship repeal

Yup. These guys sure love them some "constitution," except the parts they don't like, of course.

It's one thing to talk about ending birthright citizenship by amending the constitution. But when you try to introduce a law like this, it's like trying to legislate that women can't vote -- it's saying that the constitution doesn't matter one whit.
 
Their argument is that illegals aren't submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of the USA.

I'm thinking this is just another step towards scapegoating.
 
I hear a right wing premise that while I do not agree with their intent, I think the premise is an interesting discussion as to why a change may be needed.

Citizenship may mean something very different from 150 years ago. With the rise of the social contract, citizenship includes access to an array of benefits, welfare, and entitlements (in all the positive meanings of those words). Maybe ideas of citizenship should evolve also?

As for specifically the American situation, let me put my economic brain on it. Illegal immigrants are rational. Right now the benefits from birthright citizenship outweigh the costs of immigrating therefore some rationally try to have children in the US. Changing the citizenship requirement creates some benefits and costs. If benefits outweigh costs, then the citizenship rules should be changed.
 
King's bill will fail, the state legislator's bills will fail.

They are not intended to pass. They are intended to gin up the issue so that the real attack can be made on the other parts of the 14th amendment, the due process and the equal protection clauses.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Right now the benefits from birthright citizenship outweigh the costs of immigrating therefore some rationally try to have children in the US.
Click to expand...

Studies have shown that the majority of children born to illegal immigrants are born well after the parents have been in this country for at least 9 months.

The parents come here for jobs.

They can have kids anywhere.
 
BobTheCoward said:
If benefits outweigh costs, then the citizenship rules should be changed.
Click to expand...

The majority of the costs of social benefits such as public health, education etc. are recouped manyfold when the children become tax paying, productive adults.
 
Alferd_Packer said:
Studies have shown that the majority of children born to illegal immigrants are born well after the parents have been in this country for at least 9 months.

The parents come here for jobs.

They can have kids anywhere.
Click to expand...

Which is why I added a lot of what-ifs in regards to costs and benefits to changing the system and on how much it is an influence. If you want to debate the actual magnitude of costs and benefits, you can have that discussion but I won't comment as I am indifferent on the immigration issue. I am just providing an if-then economic argument for such a change.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I hear a right wing premise that while I do not agree with their intent, I think the premise is an interesting discussion as to why a change may be needed.

Citizenship may mean something very different from 150 years ago. With the rise of the social contract, citizenship includes access to an array of benefits, welfare, and entitlements (in all the positive meanings of those words). Maybe ideas of citizenship should evolve also?

As for specifically the American situation, let me put my economic brain on it. Illegal immigrants are rational. Right now the benefits from birthright citizenship outweigh the costs of immigrating therefore some rationally try to have children in the US. Changing the citizenship requirement creates some benefits and costs. If benefits outweigh costs, then the citizenship rules should be changed.
Click to expand...

Immigrants, being mostly young, are a big net benefit via the taxes they pay, if'n social safety net issues are your only concern. However, that is a minor concern. Economic development trumps that. We should let in everybody under 30 who wants in. Actually, everyone, since the young would swamp the old incoming, anyway.

Yes, it is that freakin' simple. The more people in an economically free society, the better.
 
Last edited:
Alferd_Packer said:
One does not "submit" to jurisdiction. You are either subject to it or you are not.
Click to expand...

And if they're not subject to US jurisdiction, then I expect the proponents of these laws to release guys like this from prison.

For comparison purposes, here's what it's like when people who actually aren't subject to US jurisdiction commit the exact same crime.
 
Last edited:
I agree with what folks here have said--especially Alfred Packer and Beerina.

I'd add another issue not mentioned. Even if they were right and there were a good reason to change the law, it would have to be done by constitutional amendment. A state most certainly doesn't have the authority to establish immigration policy.

ETA: I said that in a bit confuzzled way. Even if the judiciary were willing to radically change the interpretation of the 14th Amendment (overturning some pretty long-standing case law) and an amendment weren't required to change the law, this law would still fail based preemption of federal authority by a state.

If it passes the legislature, I predict it will be enjoined before it ever can be put into effect, and that will be the end of it. (It won't get anywhere with the appellate court, and it will never be taken up by the SCOTUS.)
 
Last edited:
This is just typical right wing nationalism and xenophobia.

This might put a hitch in the Republican wet dream of having Arnold run for president.
 
What claim do the proponents of this legislation have to citizenship themselves, if it's not birth? It can't be that their parents were Americans, because their parents probably were Americans only by virture of being born here also.
 
Joe, just an FYI. There are two proposals here. The OP is about Steve King, the Congressman from Iowa. His proposal is to amend Federal law. The page I posted is from the group of state legislators led by Russell Peace of Arizona and Pennsylvania state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe. They are trying to change state laws. Both violate the 14th amendment.

Sorry for the confusion.
 
Last edited:
Thomas Jefferson's mother was English, Andrew Jackson's parents were Irish..Do birthers feel these men were unfit to be president?

Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico- in the eyes of a wingnut birther, does that disqualify Mittens from running for president?
 
TragicMonkey said:
What claim do the proponents of this legislation have to citizenship themselves, if it's not birth? It can't be that their parents were Americans, because their parents probably were Americans only by virture of being born here also.
Click to expand...

Theoretically, anyone who was born here before their parents became naturalized would not be a citizen, and their children would not be citizens also. It would effectively wipe out Wong Kim Ark meaning that a huge number of Chinese whose ancestors came here during the Chinese exclusion acts would not be citizens as well. Furthermore, anyone who is eligible for Irish citizenship though Irish ancestry under Irish law would be excluded from U.S. citizenship as well as a number of other countries with Jus Sanguinis laws.
 
Last edited:
Alferd_Packer said:
Theoretically, anyone who was born here before their parents became naturalized would not be a citizen, and their children would not be citizens also. It would effectively wipe out Wong Kim Ark meaning that a huge number of Chinese whose parents came here during the Chinese exclusion acts would not be citizens as well. Furthermore, anyone who is eligible for Irish citizenship though Irish ancestry under Irish law would be excluded from U.S. citizenship as well.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the opposite--if birth wasn't enough to grant citizenship, then everybody born in America is not a citizen. Only foreigners who legally emigrated and became naturalized would be citizens, and they couldn't pass that on to their kids because that would be birthright citizenship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Trump Is Right About Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment
2 3
Replies
51
Views
1K
Resume
R

Back
Top Bottom