Republicans want review of birthright citizenship

[eion]

I know, I'm just pointing out the problems to those that seem to think this is a viable solution so whatever problem they perceive.

[General Zod]

If your entire point was over some "interest of fairness", it would help if you used an example that would have an equally sizable impact. Otherwise it's completely meaningless.

So why leave the loophole for tourists open while shutting the door to illegal immigrants? It certainly won't cost us anything.

You're missing the point. It's not even remotely comparable, making your whole bit about "fairness" totally meaningless.

[Pelranius]

I'm talking about logical consistency in the arguments of the birthright citizenship restriction crowd. As I've said already:

And again, if one takes away citizenship from illegal immigrant's children, then isn't the point to restrict birthright citizenship to citizens and legal immigrants who wish to stay in America on a long term basis? That reasoning is the position of the immigration control nuts as I understand it and banning birth tourism along with withholding citizenship from the children of illegal immigrants would be the logically consistent thing to do. Note that I am not advocating doing either.

[General Zod]

I'm talking about logical consistency in the arguments of the birthright citizenship restriction crowd. As I've said already:

And again, if one takes away citizenship from illegal immigrant's children, then isn't the point to restrict birthright citizenship to citizens and legal immigrants who wish to stay in America on a long term basis? That reasoning is the position of the immigration control nuts as I understand it and banning birth tourism along with withholding citizenship from the children of illegal immigrants would be the logically consistent thing to do. Note that I am not advocating doing either.

And I'm saying it's not logically consistent because of the disparity of the impact each group has. You don't seem to be comprehending this.

[Pelranius]

Would you please enlighten me as to why the lack of impact of American born children of birth tourists would be an impediment to restricting them from birthright citizenship?

After all, why would it matter if there are a hundred birth tourists or ten thousand birth tourists a year? To the "ban birthright citizenship for illegals" crowd, one baby born to tourists getting automatic citizenship is probably too much.

[Lusankya]

The number of "birth tourists" is surely so low as to be mostly ignorable. Wealthy people will always find and exploit every loophole in the law. Any law removing birthright citizenship from any class of people will invariable creates a class of stateless people.

China does not practice ius soli, but their law does state that any child born in China who would otherwise be stateless acquires Chinese citizenship automatically. There is nothing preventing a similar clause from entering US immigration law. So there go your "stateless children" fears.

[eion]

The number of "birth tourists" is surely so low as to be mostly ignorable. Wealthy people will always find and exploit every loophole in the law. Any law removing birthright citizenship from any class of people will invariable creates a class of stateless people.

China does not practice ius soli, but their law does state that any child born in China who would otherwise be stateless acquires Chinese citizenship automatically. There is nothing preventing a similar clause from entering US immigration law. So there go your "stateless children" fears.

Yeah, I'm sure the compassion of anti-immigrant groups will drive them to allow otherwise stateless children to attain citizenship.

Because you know, there's never a racist motivation behind immigration laws.

[Lusankya]

I'm only commenting from a point of "how that is not necessarily an issue from a legal standpoint", since if we were actually asking whether or not any reform would be plausible, the answer for any idea that would deviate from the status quo is "no, not even if it's the best immigration policy ever in the whole wide world".

And quite frankly, if there is a significant and influential group of people in your country that actually wants your immigration laws to be tougher than China's, then your society is pretty messed up.

[eion]

And quite frankly, if there is a significant and influential group of people in your country that actually wants your immigration laws to be tougher than China's, then your society is pretty messed up.

No shit, have you seen our Senate in action lately? They denied health care to 9/11 first responders out of spite for the other party and illegal immigrants.

There are no ideals, certainly not in American politics. And I rather think Jus soli is the best immigration policy for the modern world.

[Alyeska]

And again, if one takes away citizenship from illegal immigrant's children, then isn't the point to restrict birthright citizenship to citizens and legal immigrants who wish to stay in America on a long term basis? That reasoning is the position of the immigration control nuts as I understand it and banning birth tourism along with withholding citizenship from the children of illegal immigrants would be the logically consistent thing to do. Note that I am not advocating doing either.

Birth Tourism isn't a problem, period. There are children born to foreigners who are legally in the united states. The overwhelming majority would never be a burden on society because they go back to the home country of their parents.

[Pelranius]

And again, if one takes away citizenship from illegal immigrant's children, then isn't the point to restrict birthright citizenship to citizens and legal immigrants who wish to stay in America on a long term basis? That reasoning is the position of the immigration control nuts as I understand it and banning birth tourism along with withholding citizenship from the children of illegal immigrants would be the logically consistent thing to do. Note that I am not advocating doing either.

Birth Tourism isn't a problem, period. There are children born to foreigners who are legally in the united states. The overwhelming majority would never be a burden on society because they go back to the home country of their parents.

Note that I am pointing out that applying the "immigration control" logic, birth tourism is a problem. It may not be a problem (at least not much) to you or me, but it is an issue to them.

[Cecelia5578]

Yeah I call bullshit on that. Please provide evidence for your claim. If this is as big a problem as you say, the DPRK and PROC wouldn't allow pregnant women to travel, problem solved.

I vaguely learning about this when I was studying Korean at the Defense Language Institute. By vaguely I mean "listening to Korean news stories in Korean about this topic and translating into English."

FWIW (not very much) it does trigger something in the back of my mind, so Pelranius wasn't just pulling it out of his rear end.

The Korean news also regularly report on deaths by sleeping in rooms with fans, so I remain unconvinced by your vague recollections.

The number of "birth tourists" is surely so low as to be mostly ignorable. Wealthy people will always find and exploit every loophole in the law. Any law removing birthright citizenship from any class of people will invariable creates a class of stateless people.

Yes, and we mocked the Koreans mercilessly for their ridiculous belief in fan death, but there's nothing inherently implausible about Koreans evading the draft law by "birth tourism," it may or may not be true, but you seem to think its on the level of bigfoot or aliens at Area 51.

[eion]

No, I just don't think it is as prevalent as people seem to think it is, nor do I think it is at all damaging to the economy or otherwise a burden on society. These are citizens of means who will likely move here permanently, attend university, and contribute much to the national economy.

[Alyeska]

And again, if one takes away citizenship from illegal immigrant's children, then isn't the point to restrict birthright citizenship to citizens and legal immigrants who wish to stay in America on a long term basis? That reasoning is the position of the immigration control nuts as I understand it and banning birth tourism along with withholding citizenship from the children of illegal immigrants would be the logically consistent thing to do. Note that I am not advocating doing either.

Birth Tourism isn't a problem, period. There are children born to foreigners who are legally in the united states. The overwhelming majority would never be a burden on society because they go back to the home country of their parents.

Note that I am pointing out that applying the "immigration control" logic, birth tourism is a problem. It may not be a problem (at least not much) to you or me, but it is an issue to them.

I don't give a flying fuck what the retards think is a problem. I care about what is actually a problem.

[Pelranius]

Oh, it seems like at least I was running off in the wrong direction during our exchange of posts.

Incidentally, what is the implied problem (I assume that you are talking about immigration related issues as opposed to the decline of the manufacturing sector, decaying infrastructure, substandard public schools) Alyeska?

[Zaune]

A much simpler solution for the "birth tourism" problem occurs to me:

If, under the law of that country, [dual nationals] are liable for any obligation (such as military service), the fact they are British nationals does not exempt them from it.

One can argue that exceptions should be made in the case of conscientious objectors, but draft-evasion for purely selfish reasons strikes me as something the United States has no business aiding and abetting.

It also has almost nothing whatsoever to do with the question of immigration, and brining it up in this context seems like an attempt to fudge the issue.

[Patrick Degan]

Well, it was only a matter of time before this campaign would take a particularly paranoid twist. View the spectacle of Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Insane) going nuts on Anderson Cooper about the prospect of "terror babies":



It's not pretty.

[Patroklos]

The number of "birth tourists" is surely so low as to be mostly ignorable. Wealthy people will always find and exploit every loophole in the law. Any law removing birthright citizenship from any class of people will invariable creates a class of stateless people.

In the case of the US this is not the case. Our largest illegal immigrant population by far is from Mexico, and Mexico practices Jus sanguinis (like most countries) through the second generation removed from the parents who immigrated. They are still Mexican citizens.

Since almost all nations practice Jus sanguinis and few Jus soli (and even those have many restrictions on it unlike the US) your fear is unfounded.

[eion]

The number of "birth tourists" is surely so low as to be mostly ignorable. Wealthy people will always find and exploit every loophole in the law. Any law removing birthright citizenship from any class of people will invariable creates a class of stateless people.

In the case of the US this is not the case. Our largest illegal immigrant population by far is from Mexico, and Mexico practices Jus sanguinis (like most countries) through the second generation removed from the parents who immigrated. They are still Mexican citizens.

Since almost all nations practice Jus sanguinis and few Jus soli (and even those have many restrictions on it unlike the US) your fear is unfounded.

Even granting that you have still failed to prove that

a) "birth tourism" is in any way harmful to the U.S. Economy, and
b) that "birth tourism" is a common enough phenomenon to demand the action by the federal government


The problem with these crazy theories about "anchor babies" or any other scheme to use natural-born citizen babies to ferry in an endless stream of dirty illegals is that it takes 21 YEARS TO DO IT! It is literally the slowest way to gain citizenship in this country.

Anchor Babies - Don't work
Terror Babies - Don't exist
Tourist Babies - Don't harm

Are we clear?

[Patroklos]

That is irrelevant to the what you stated concerning stateless populations. A child of a Mexican illegal immigrant in America is still citizens of Mexico. I have no dog in your hunt concerning anchor babies.

[Lonestar]

eion,

Patroklos is pointing out the flaw in your "stateless people" argument, not making an argument about anchor babies one way or the other.

[eion]

noted, thanks to both of you.

Sleep now. Tired boys make bad debators.

[Illuminatus Primus]

McCain, for example, needs this sort of thing. He's even having trouble here, having managed to slip OUT of Senator-for-Life status in a state where every fifth road is named after him. If he's going to stay elected, he needs to look extra super tough on Immigration around here (hence all his "McCain: Fighting for a Secure Border" billboards).

Someone said it best -- if only John McCain had fought for the Presidency in 2008 the way he's fighting for his Senate Seat in 2010....

A white Republican wistfully imagining John McCain campaigning against the Constitution, how droll. Yes, conservatism, because the Constitution is too liberal for us.

The GOP is literally the party of extreme reaction and state violence; why one cannot just use the plain English definition of words is curious.