Reply Tue 30 Oct, 2018 11:38 am
Birthright citizenship, as enshrined by the 14th amendment, was presumably instituted as a way of recognizing former-slaves as citizens. As a principle, though, it goes beyond that. The idea is that the US is not a nation of people connected by heritage or ethnicity but simply by a common life history of being born in the same area. Arguably, the principle is the opposite of exclusivity in citizenship, i.e. because it includes everyone regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality of their parents, etc. as citizens.

However, in a modern age where people can travel to the US to have children and then leave to live elsewhere, birthright citizenship can be used to facilitate international exploitation of people and their rights. E.g. US citizenship can be used as capital for global interests to send their citizens to the US as agents of whatever goals they are interested in pursuing. Certainly not every US citizen born to other national citizens is subject to such exploitation, but neither can the possibility be discounted in a world where there is competition between nations instead of harmony and cooperation.

In your opinion, which of the following options would be better and why?:

1) eliminate birthright citizenship in the US so that citizenship is conveyed by some other criteria besides birth. This would mean no one's citizenship would be guaranteed just because their parent(s) have US citizenship. It could result in some people having no citizenship whatsoever, if they fail to achieve whatever standards are set for citizenship.

2) change birthright citizenship so that only children with one or more parents with US citizenship are considered US citizens.

3) expand birthright citizenship to other nations so that it becomes a global standard. In this scenario, migrants throughout the world would be granted citizenship wherever they are born, regardless of parental citizenship status.

4) change global citizenship standards so that other standards besides birthplace or parental citizenship are used to determine citizenship. Citizenship tests could become the standard for people to attain citizenship, requiring things like language skills, knowledge of political/legal systems, etc. for people to become citizens of any nation, including the one where they were born or where their parent(s) have citizenship.

5) Eliminate citizenship as a status globally so that everyone effectively becomes a global citizen. If that happened, how would you prevent people throughout the world from discriminating against newcomers/foreigners they perceive as having less local belonging than themselves and their families? Will people suddenly start accepting anyone and everyone in their local communities, no matter what their perceived origins, or will people always struggle to define certain people as foreign/outsiders and treat them as not belonging?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 332 • Replies: 17

 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Oct, 2018 02:05 pm
Oh man, Plump just pukes up his latest idiot idea, and you lap it up.

Despite what his excellency, the Idiot-in-Chief, is said to have claimed in an interview (completed, not yet formally broadcast), he has no authority in the matter. Despite his typical "making it up as I go along" style, Congress has no authority in the matter. That provision of the fourteenth amendment, or the entire amendment, can be repealed by following the process outlined in the constitution. That would require two-thirds of both houses to pass an amendment (to remove that clause from the fourteenth amendment, or to repeal that amendment), which would then go to the states, for which three-quarters would need to ratify. To save you the trouble of doing the math, that would be 38 states. It ain't gonna happen.

The fat boy in the White House is completely irrelevant in the process.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Oct, 2018 02:13 pm
Red meat for true believers.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Oct, 2018 02:25 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Oh man, Plump just pukes up his latest idiot idea, and you lap it up.

Despite what his excellency, the Idiot-in-Chief, is said to have claimed in an interview (completed, not yet formally broadcast), he has no authority in the matter. Despite his typical "making it up as I go along" style, Congress has no authority in the matter. That provision of the fourteenth amendment, or the entire amendment, can be repealed by following the process outlined in the constitution. That would require two-thirds of both houses to pass an amendment (to remove that clause from the fourteenth amendment, or to repeal that amendment), which would then go to the states, for which three-quarters would need to ratify. To save you the trouble of doing the math, that would be 38 states. It ain't gonna happen.

The fat boy in the White House is completely irrelevant in the process.

Engaging in public discussion is not bad. You may have noticed that I framed the discussion in terms of a number of general possibilities for how citizenship should be assigned, around the globe.

By reframing the issue in terms of your view of how the specific US governmental political/legal struggle would play out, you're avoiding addressing the issue of citizenship as a larger, global issue.

Migration is an issue worldwide for various reasons, and we should realize that the 14th amendment comes out of a longer history of colonialism, which included slavery and the slave trade.

We should think about why the US as a nation of immigrants is or isn't legitimate, and likewise, whether it's acceptable for other nations of the world to shirk that role as well.

The real big question is whether humans are ultimately going to be a species of factionalized groups separated into national regions, or whether we will have the liberty as individuals to go and live in various places without restriction, discrimination, oppression, etc.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Oct, 2018 02:40 pm
@livinglava,
Straw man alert--I did not say that engaging in public discussion is bad. I am avoiding nothing. Your fantasy ruminations about citizenship globally do not interest me because of pragmatic considerations. For better or worse, we inhabit a planet dominated by nation states. Rights of entry, passage and citizenship are often contentious, and jealously guarded by the nations of this planet.

Your blathering discloses your historical ignorance. The fourteenth amendment has nothing to do with colonialism. The constitution prohibited interference in "the migration and importation such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit . . ."--prior to 1808. In 1807, Congress duly enacted the enabling legislation to end the slave trade. Earlier acts had prohibited United States citizens from certain types of participation in the slave, culminating in a prohibition on United States citizens engaging in any aspect of the slave trade, before the 1808 prohibition on the slave trade. The United States did not possess any overseas colonies at that time.

You needn't tell me what I should think about; I'll just ignore it any way. I don't think there is any big question here worth consideration, given that the current nation-state configuration of our world. You're not attempting to close the barn door after the horse i gone, you're attempting to set up the barn when there is no horse.
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Oct, 2018 03:47 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Straw man alert--I did not say that engaging in public discussion is bad. I am avoiding nothing. Your fantasy ruminations about citizenship globally do not interest me because of pragmatic considerations. For better or worse, we inhabit a planet dominated by nation states. Rights of entry, passage and citizenship are often contentious, and jealously guarded by the nations of this planet.

I have to put a lot of effort into reading your posts because they are filled with aggressive language. Is it possible for you to tone down your hostility and just say what you have to say without the ego attacks?

Quote:
The fourteenth amendment has nothing to do with colonialism.

What are you talking about? The whole fact of the US as a place where Europeans and Africans came together has everything to do with colonialism.

Quote:
You needn't tell me what I should think about; I'll just ignore it any way. I don't think there is any big question here worth consideration, given that the current nation-state configuration of our world. You're not attempting to close the barn door after the horse i gone, you're attempting to set up the barn when there is no horse.

The question is why Trump shouldn't revoke birthPLACE citizenship if other nations don't have it. In fact, I think they are misusing the term, "birthright," because the whole concept of national citizenship everywhere on Earth is that it is bestowed as a birthright, albeit a birthright of children on the basis of their parents' citizenship.

Why would you avoid a broader discussion about right and wrong in terms of how citizenship is conveyed? You act like you're policing against open public discussion of the issue because of the normalcy of nation-states in the world. So what if it is the status quo. Why can't the global status-quo be questioned and discussed?

0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Oct, 2018 04:20 pm
Tone down the reactionary rhetoric if you don't want it greeted with what are pleased to refer to as hostility, and "ego attacks," whatever that is supposed to mean. The English colonies of North America were not some place where Europeans and Africans came together, as you put it, as though it were some consensus decision. The first African slaves arrived at Jamestown in 1609, when a Dutch slaver, having been blown off course in the middle passage, made landfall and attempted to sell off some of his human cargo. The colonists at Jamestown declined--they could barely feed themselves at that point. The Dutchman, however, landed his least eligible slaves (those in the poorest physical condition), slipped his cable and sailed away. For purely humanitarian reasons, the colonists feed them, as well as they were able. When John Rolfe brought tobacco seed from Trinidad in 1611, there was now a possibility to profitably employ slave labor. The English merchants in London and the Islands encouraged this, and slavery took hold.

None of that is relevant, however, to the United States, which did not then exist, and would not exist for more than a century and a half. Therefore, tediously, I will repeat that the United States possessed no overseas colonies in 1808 when the slave trade was prohibited. The United States would possess no overseas colonies for 90 more years, after the Spanish War.

What you perceive as hostility is merely disgust at your constant attempts to forward a witless and ignorant, reactionary narrative.
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Oct, 2018 04:58 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Tone down the reactionary rhetoric if you don't want it greeted with what are pleased to refer to as hostility, and "ego attacks," whatever that is supposed to mean.

It means that if you find something I say, 'reactionary rhetoric,' whatever that means, you explain your POV and discuss it without hostility and insults.

Quote:
The English colonies of North America were not some place where Europeans and Africans came together, as you put it, as though it were some consensus decision.

I didn't imply that. I just said they came together because of colonialism.

Quote:
The first African slaves arrived at Jamestown in 1609, when a Dutch slaver, having been blown off course in the middle passage, made landfall and attempted to sell off some of his human cargo. The colonists at Jamestown declined--they could barely feed themselves at that point. The Dutchman, however, landed his least eligible slaves (those in the poorest physical condition), slipped his cable and sailed away. For purely humanitarian reasons, the colonists feed them, as well as they were able. When John Rolfe brought tobacco seed from Trinidad in 1611, there was now a possibility to profitably employ slave labor. The English merchants in London and the Islands encouraged this, and slavery took hold.

Assuming this is all true, it is part of a larger history of colonialism more generally.

Quote:
None of that is relevant, however, to the United States, which did not then exist, and would not exist for more than a century and a half. Therefore, tediously, I will repeat that the United States possessed no overseas colonies in 1808 when the slave trade was prohibited. The United States would possess no overseas colonies for 90 more years, after the Spanish War.

The US or other national entity is an institution. Institutions exist as part of history and not as independent entities separate from everything that precedes them or takes place 'outside' of them.

Quote:
What you perceive as hostility is merely disgust at your constant attempts to forward a witless and ignorant, reactionary narrative.

By using the language of hate, you cultivate hate. So when hate comes back to bite you at some point, remember all these seeds you kept sowing and cultivating.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Oct, 2018 10:22 pm
Don't kid yourself, I don't hate you. You aren't that important. I am disgusted by reactionary rhetoric, and by gross ignorance. I'd say get over it, but I doubt that you will.
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Oct, 2018 09:04 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Don't kid yourself, I don't hate you. You aren't that important. I am disgusted by reactionary rhetoric, and by gross ignorance. I'd say get over it, but I doubt that you will.

What I said is that you sow seeds of hate by using the language of hate. Telling people they're "not that important," is an ego-blast, for example. It makes people feel denigrated. Using words like 'disgusted' are also very visceral and mean-sounding. You are spreading a culture of hate, whether or not you actually feel hate for the poster you're responding to.
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Oct, 2018 10:46 am
There's a headline about Trump claiming the 'jurisdiction' provision of the 14th amendment could be invoked to revoke citizenship from citizens born in the US to non-citizen parents.

This is the text in question: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"

Since it says "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," that could be taken to imply that if someone is born or naturalized in the US, but somehow not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, that they could be deemed non-citizens.

I think the implication is that you can revoke the citizenship of people who are not subject to US jurisdiction, not just children of non-citizens; but when is someone no longer subject to US jurisdiction?

I think this gets into the realm of treaties and extradition procedures, because people can be abroad but still be subject to US jurisdiction for various reasons. I don't know that someone is ever fully without or outside any jurisdiction, really, considering that legal/business contracts remain enforceable without regard for the physical location of the person.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 31 Oct, 2018 02:36 pm
@livinglava,
Oh my, what a delicate, sensitive flower you are. Grow up.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Wed 31 Oct, 2018 03:07 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Oh my, what a delicate, sensitive flower you are. Grow up.

I'm about to un-grow up and get immature with you because you provoke it with your persistent insolence. I have a feeling that if I look around on this site, I'm going to find a lot of negativity about you. If you continue talking the kind of trash you can't seem to stop talking, I guess I'll just ignore your posts. Would that be 'grown up' enough for you?
Setanta
 
  4  
Reply Wed 31 Oct, 2018 03:17 pm
@livinglava,
Insolence? Insolence? Who the f*ck are you, the goddamned Queen? Bite me.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Wed 31 Oct, 2018 03:43 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Insolence? Insolence? Who the f*ck are you, the goddamned Queen? Bite me.

Can you boil over any further? Go ahead, try.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 31 Oct, 2018 07:14 pm
Kiss kiss, sweetie pie
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2018 08:22 am
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:
In your opinion, which of the following options would be better and why?:
3) expand birthright citizenship to other nations so that it becomes a global standard. In this scenario, migrants throughout the world would be granted citizenship wherever they are born, regardless of parental citizenship status.
Among the options that you listed, I'd go with #3.

Because America would no longer be a free country without some of the other protections that are enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment. Tampering with the Fourteenth Amendment is just too risky.

Also because I am in favor of immigration.

However, I really don't care if other nations adopt this right. I only care about preserving it in America.
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2018 05:41 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

livinglava wrote:
In your opinion, which of the following options would be better and why?:
3) expand birthright citizenship to other nations so that it becomes a global standard. In this scenario, migrants throughout the world would be granted citizenship wherever they are born, regardless of parental citizenship status.
Among the options that you listed, I'd go with #3.

Because America would no longer be a free country without some of the other protections that are enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment. Tampering with the Fourteenth Amendment is just too risky.

Also because I am in favor of immigration.

However, I really don't care if other nations adopt this right. I only care about preserving it in America.

I'm for migration because I see it as part of liberty. I believe that if individuals should be socially-economically responsible enough to fully contribute to their own welfare wherever they go, and then why shouldn't people be free to migrate, learn new languages, and travel the world sustainably?

When I ask myself whether that is the direction the world is going in, however, the answer doesn't seem to be yes. The world is mostly dominated by corporations that secure wealth/welfare for distribution within their corporate network by competing against other corporations for resources/money. This includes the welfare state governments of the world, who also strive to make money globally, secure/provide welfare benefits for their system's beneficiaries (their citizens), and seek to exclude non-citizens from joining.

So in that context, what is birthPLACE citizenship except a challenge for other states/corporations to gain access to US labor markets? If you send your people to the US to have babies now, for example, in 20 years or so you can send the adult child to the US to make money and remit it to their 'home country.'

Now, if everyone in the world was free to travel, work, take care of themselves WITHOUT social-political pressure to remit money outside the US by people who want to exploit the 'rich Americans,' then I would say people should be free to migrate through the US as they would be everywhere else.

But when you look at a world where border police check your bank statements before giving you a visa and restrict your ability to work and make money wherever you go, then you should realize that the game is to prevent people from making money by taking 'your citizens' jobs' while sending them abroad to make money and bring it back home. It's basically modern colonialism.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Birthright Citizenship
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/24/2019 at 06:33:05