This is easy-to-find information.
I am sad to see that the Netherlands isn’t on there, even restricted.
The real answer is that no one would be questioning birthright citizenship if the only babies of immigrants being born here were white.
Conservatives are only freaking the fuck out about birthright citizenship because they hate the appearance of brown babies.
Everything else is retroactive justification to try to give the air of legitimacy to otherwise racist excuses.
Ah, the racist mantra finally raises its ugly head.
As for Scott’s question, I think the problems are evident in our countries total inability to do anything with the illegal immigrant issue. Neither side really cares about it except in a “what would get us votes” way. Business wants it.
And I would ask again, why do we reward those who illegally enter the country by making their children citizens? I am not saying we should remove them from the country, I am not saying they could never gain citizenship, I am merely saying don’t reward them.
Illegal immigration and the whole over staying your visa thing need answers and the while the right attacks it at it’s core in a fashion that reeks of racism the left waves it’s hands and says cool dude, lets let everyone be a citizen, in fact lets remove the borders all together because we are all citizens of the world.
I want something in the middle.
Well come on, you know that’s what you were waiting for all along. And of course, it’s also the truth. You wouldn’t see any Republicans campaigning against it or complaining about “anchor babies” if the babies were all white.
Who are all these people on the left calling for removing the borders? That sounds straight out of the Hannity/Fox Propaganda Handbook.
What are the benefits of removing the 14th amendment?
What are the costs of removing the 14th amendment?
I think the benefits are clear. It expresses the best of my country and to a lesser extent, my beliefs. It brings in people that activily want to be in this country, whose families want to be part of our country.
Also, if they are anything like our dreamers, these babies will grow up with American Values and be American in every way that counts, except actually, if we strike down the 14th amendment, the only way that counts.
Sorry, the problems aren’t evident or I wouldn’t have asked the question. Could you list the problems caused by birthright citizenship, please, and then offer something to address the actual size of those problems? Maybe begin with how many people get birthright citizenship each year, broken down into categories of parents (e.g. legal permanent residents, legal temporary residents, tourists, undocumented residents).
Asked and answered, again, here:
Maybe say something directly about these answers, i.e. what you disagree with and why.
They’re not being rewarded.
As others have already pointed out, there are two important topics at play here that have the potential to “rile up” Americans:
First is a policy question: Is birthright citizenship generally a good thing for nations to have? Is it a good thing for America?
Second is a constitutional question: Can Congress “clarify legislatively” unclear areas about the Constitution? And is there anything limiting the abilities of Congress to decide that part of the Constitution is “unclear” and hence in need of “clarification”?
The first question about the merits of birthright citizenship could be the topic of a healthy and respectful debate between mature forum users.
But the second question is basically a direct assault on America’s constitutional order, and thus an indirect assault on all of our civil and political rights. And, especially during the Trump administration, this context is going to make this conversation difficult.
Thanks for the link, I would not have known to look there or for the term “jus solis”.
Interestingly, the three nations most embroiled in the current illegal immigration issue – Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador – though their emigrants are often seeking asylum, not necessarily immigration in the usual sense – all offer birthright citizenship.
Me neither, but the search for ‘birthright citizenship’ finds that article.
This is exactly right. It is for the courts to rule on the meaning of constitutional provisions, and there is well-established precedent that the 14th amendment does in fact grant birthright citizenship-- so changing it would require a constitutional amendment (or a politicized court with contempt for precedent, which we are well on the way to having.)
I agree with the general comments, birthright citizenship is consistent with the American brand, and “the give us on your tired huddle masses” inscribed on statue of liberty.
But I’d also point out the practical value to the country. Pretty much every corporate website/annual report has words to the effect “our greatest asset is our people”. Which is true, Apple iPhone, Google’s search engine, and Boeing airplanes were all created by people.
Immigrants of all types high skill legal and even low skill illegal are net economic benefit to the country. Their children are more a benefit to the country, having learned the language and culture of America, while retaining the work ethic of their parents.
In the medium term, we have a demographic problem with us aging boomer at or approaching retirement and a birth rate that is below replacement levels. Even if you’re 40 now that only way you are getting your medicare and social security paid for is babies born to immigrants.
Long term, our biggest competitor China has 4 times our population in a nation that’s almost exactly our size. The USA ranks about 200 on the most densely populated country. The only developed countries with lower densities are place like Canada, Russia, and Sweden with huge swathes of frozen wastelands.
The US can easily accommodate a billion people and we aren’t getting there by native born’s screwing each other.
For a view of what this future looks like, you can look at the demographics of Japan. They’re…not good.
I don’t mean to come off like I’m hounding you, Scuzz, but you’re still not articulating what the problem is you’re trying to solve. What are the concrete problems that require a constitutional amendment, and how would the change solve it?
Just to be clear, I’m trying to get to the meat of the issue, not trying to be argumentative on the internet.
Probably because the concept of ignoring the 14th Amendment was created by racists for racist reasons.
That doesn’t make you racist for considering the position in the abstract, but that is the origin of the discussion. It’s going to come up. Just like when people talk about refusing service to protected classes or whatever. You can have a non-racist opinion on it, but everyone knows the origin of the dissent to the norm.
Also using your system would I even be an American? My mother would be Canadian. My father was American, but would that matter? Hell, would they even have met in the first place if she wasn’t a citizen? Unlikely. Same for… her entire side of the family really.
Edit: Also the main point of “What do we gain by doing it?” is a very valid one. We gain nothing and lose a bunch. Having some random kid from Mexico be a citizen matters how? Cause it doesn’t. If anything that random kid is net gain for us across the board.
Honestly I don’t see why we should limit this to children of immigrants. We should consider revoking the citizenship of all native-born children whose parents don’t make a sufficient contribution to society. Imagine how much better this country could be if we expropriated and deported the children of the unproductive.
Pretty sure Native Americans had some laws or rules or whatever, too. But Scuzz gets to win the lottery.
Imagine how much better this country could be if we expropriated and deported the children of the unproductive.
But then who would be left to post on P&R?