Joun_Lord wrote:The article says "the resident population has also avoided automatic U.S. citizenship" so more then likely either the people don't care enough to do anything about it or don't want it. Considering they have elected a government and non-voting representative that have both said American Samoans don't want to be American citizens I'm leaning towards the population itself not wanting to be citizens though I can't find any polls or whatever to confirm.
I'd like something a bit more definite to go on. Going off the article, the wording is somewhat ambiguous. And as to the representatives' position- maybe, but it wouldn't be the first time representatives failed to faithfully represent their constituents.
But let's say, for the sake of argument, that the majority of American Samoans are not merely indifferent to, but actively oppose birthright citizenship. Let's look at that, and I'll do my best to consider all sides fairly.
Well, it is obviously possible for people of any race or nationality to act against their own interests (see every voter, including every working class white man, voting for Donald Trump), but yes, of course, the average American Samoan has a much better understanding of what their needs and wishes are than I do. And if your argument is "respect the will of the people", I can't disagree with you.
However... there are definitely some American Samoans who do want birthright citizenship. A right they would have if they were born anywhere else in American territory. So, how far do you justify shafting a minority, to respect the wishes of a larger minority?
There's also the larger issue of the implications it has for America as a whole, and the rights of all Americans, if we retain outdated, racist laws that give some citizens fewer rights than others.
So, this is looking like a situation with no apparent good answer, unless the majority of American Samoans willingly choose statehood and birthright citizenship. Either we place some of our people above others based on birth, or we risk going against the wishes of the people of American Samoa, or American Samoa leaves the US (and I do not want to set precedents encouraging separatism, because the last time we played with that fire it ended really, really badly).
So we have three problematic options. I tend to lean towards birthright citizenship and statehood as the least shitty, as I said, but I would consider it reasonable to put the issue to a referendum. At least then all sides could campaign for their positions, and the peoples' voice could be heard in a less ambiguous manner.
And that ain't me implying you are pro-racism and colonialism, because clearly you are not, but I think you are have an almost paternalistic viewpoint on this where you forget to think about the wants of the people in the case in your zeal for what you believe is right. That don't mean you are racist or anything and I'm certainly not trying to insult you by saying what I said, typed, but you did fail to think of the children.....I mean the American Samoans wants. Only what you wanted for them.
You say you're not calling me racist and colonialist, yet you accuse me of arguing a racist and colonialist position and of, essentially, viewing myself as superior to/more mature than American Samoans.
The former we could argue back and forth all day, but the latter certainly is not the case. I might disagree with someone, or be baffled by their choices, but that does not mean that I believe myself to be smarter than or superior to them, and if I gave a different impression, I apologize.
Thats kinda how democracies work. Thats why I referenced Stumble the Texas Stranger Danger totally not racist, totally all about corruption I swear its not about having black Democrat president want to be have Texas secede from the US. Clearly a majority of people in Texas do not want to leave the country. And unlike Texas, or more precisely unlike what some Texans believe, Texas is not its own country. In many ways American Samoa is. Its not a state and while its part of the US its seperate too, so it has different rules. It has more of a right to determine its own destiny.
To a point, yes, democracy means that you don't always get your way, that the majority can override a minority. To a point.
The question, then, is where we draw that line. Personally, I consider the fundamental legal equality of those who are born on US territory to be one of the points that should not be compromised, both on principle and because when we've compromised on that point in the past, really bad shit has happened.
And just to be clear, I'm not saying that this court decision means we're about to go back to segregation or something. But it is, on some level, reinforcing some very dangerous and damaging ideas, and every step down that road, however small, is one that we'll have to fight to undo some day.
I think its best to go with the 3rd option, one you listed, let them decide their own fate. If they want to be American citizens or not they can vote. But what happens if its still the same as it is now, that there is still some people part of America but without equal rights?
Do you force rights on people that don't want it to satisfy few? Do you ignore the will of a people? I don't think there is an easy answer that will satisfy everyone.
No, probably not.
I'm not without sympathy for arguments of self-determination, certainly.
But I think that the status quo is intolerable for a number of reasons, which I hope I have made clear.
Apparently for them to become US citizens they have to after three months of residency in the US pass a test in English and civics, and take an oath of allegiance to the United States.
That's... not too bad, but still, in my opinion, an undue burden considering the circumstances.
And at the end of the day, you have equal rights or you don't.
I ain't saying you are a Colonial master or someone who just plays one on tv, just some of your reasoning is dangerously cheesy close to the same rational employed by them. You are acting as if you know better then the actual people of American Samoa. You know, the people who DO know what is best for American Samoa. And you are not even doing it because you are racist or really really love tricorne hats. You clearly aren't those things. But you also are clearly disregarding the wants of a people.
My initial posts were rather one-sided and not well-explained, I'll acknowledge, but I'm not indifferent to the complexities of the issue. I hope that by elaborating, I have made the reasons for my position more clear.
Its a different situation for individuals where they are already US citizens. But I'd be down with the possibility of those groups doing such though its not really my choice of course. They are part of a distinct nation and it seems like it should be their right to say "no fuck you US, you go to hell, you go to hell and you die" in their best Mr Garrison impression to say they no longer want to be US citizens, to just be US nationals or hwatever. I think those in the tribes who want to remain citizens should be allowed to do and I'd want it the same as I'd want it for American Samoa where it would be incredibly easy for people born later who do want to be American citizens to become so too.
Well, at least you're being consistent here.
One thing I will say- if you want to make a self-determination argument against birthright citizenship, fine. But that is, at best, only part of the reasoning behind this court decision. While I'm not saying that the judges are racist, or that their specific arguments are racist, I am nonetheless deeply skeptical of any decision that cites the Insular Cases, much as I would be of a ruling that cited Dred Scott or Plessy vs Ferguson.
If you want to make a self-determination argument, then the appropriate course of action, it seems to me, would be to put the issue to a referendum, unless their is
unambiguous proof that the majority opposes even considering the issue.