Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lord Shonus]

Don't forget that the entire reason the US has birthright citizenship in the first place is because factions right after the ACW wanted to keep the now-free blacks from being citizens.

The amendments were written specifically to avoid this by cutting these factions off at the pass.

[Kagus]

No, wait, I get it now...

This is all about Obama. Trump's pissed that Obama actually has a US birth certificate, which assigns him status as a citizen. Now he wants to make being born in the US not count for citizenship, so he can go back to calling Obama a foreigner despite the certificate!

[Trekkin]

I could not disagree more.

The idea of birthright citizenship is to avoid a long-term dispossessed class of people. There are many people in many countries who've lived in a place - for generations! - without having rights. These people become a sort of permanent stateless underclass who are disenfranchised and live with in perpetual fear. And they always live with the specter of the Jews, or for a modern example, the Rohingya. The specter of the statelessness crisis haunted the 20th century; I would rather that that ghost remain to haunt the past rather than the present.

Jus soli citizenship is also a safeguard against statelessness via poor record-keeping. Jus sanguinis citizenship is fragile; once the line of sanguinary citizenship is broken, it's (by default) broken forever, so if great-grandpa's papers were lost in a fire a century ago, it's entirely possible to run into citizenship problems. By comparison, jus soli has a much smaller risk, since everyone's a citizen in their own right, so to speak.

[Teneb]

"Countries have clearly delineated domains, and if you live there then you must pay the specified taxes. Merely living in, working in, being born in, or paying taxes doesn't make one a citizen. Citizenship, and the rights that go along with it, requires conscientious, willing, and diligent service to that country, in either military or non-military positions."

Naturally, this would lead to most people being nationless non-citizens, but free to live and work where they like granted they follow the laws and pay the taxes of whatever plot of soil they happen to occupy; and then a minority of people that choose to tie themselves to their nation and become citizens, and have the rights that that entails: voting, being electable, etcetera.

That's the logical conclusion that I jumped to, atleast.

Service Guarantees Citizenship!
Would you like to know more?

This was my first thought also.

It always comes back to Rome's Res Publica.

[Folly]

The point of birthplace citizenship is that everyone (or at least the vast majority of people) are born somewhere, and jus solis means that at least some state on this earth will be responsible for them. If people have to apply for their rights like in this unintentional dystopia you've created, there will be many people who have no rights, most likely because a state will say they don't want them. And if the two countries a person grew up in don't want them, then what? You'll say "well there'll be laws to avoid this", to which I say there will be no international legal obligation to make sure that no one falls through the cracks, meaning people will.

So basically, you're saying that an utterly illogical system is the best we can do because a marginally more logical system would be subject to misinterpretation by corrupt politicians.
Yeah...I guess I can accept that reasoning. I don't like it, at all, but it is what it is. c'est la vie.

[Trekkin]

So basically, you're saying that an utterly illogical system is the best we can do because a marginally more logical system would be subject to misinterpretation by corrupt politicians.
Yeah...I guess I can accept that reasoning. I don't like it, at all, but it is what it is. c'est la vie.

What's illogical about it? The majority of people live in the country in which they're born, at least for a while, so as a rule it makes some sense to make the government controlling their life also the one responsible for them.

At its core, it's weird that governments are defined by static borders and rule over mobile people, but given that construction I don't see how dirt rights make less sense than blood rights for the population as a whole.

[Folly]

What's illogical about it? The majority of people live in the country in which they're born, at least for a while, so as a rule it makes some sense to make the government controlling their life also the one responsible for them.

Yes, most people live in the country in which they are born, but not all of them. And when you're talking about an issue that could potential destroy someone's life, getting it right most of the time should not be 'good enough'.

As I pointed out before, being born on one piece of dirt or another does not magically change a person's beliefs or personality. It's all the stuff that comes before and after which shapes who they are. And those are the variables that should be considered to make one eligible for citizenship. Sadly, as misko27 pointed out, we don't have effective methods for accurately measuring those variables, which makes any such evaluation subject to bias; as such, measuring the land a person is born upon is the best we can do for now.

[Rolan7]

Children of citizens are citizens because they raise their children with the same basic respect for American values.  Basic stuff like democracy and vague allegiance to the state.  It'd also have insane implications if citizens weren't sure their children would be citizens.

Physical location at time of birth is... less intuitive.  It, for example, encourages people to come here to give birth, causing a moral dilemma if they have to leave.  Why should the children of visitors be residents?

Well, because it prevents worse problems, but the reasoning is complicated.  And that's what makes this unconstitutional bluff so effective.

[nenjin]

Edit:  And many of the people you are denigrating for their aggressive stance on politics have literally faced danger physically on their doorstep in recent times.  Someone already mentioned the voter suppression of native americans in North Dakota.  This hot on the heels of facing blatant human rights violations and breaking of international treaties at Standing Rock.  This isn't some foreign policy issue.  This is inside our own country.  My state's police forces participated in that.  We are literally at that point, whether it's happening to you personally or not.

Armed occupiers were told to leave, and most did, and the ones that stayed had to be forceably removed. But not before they lit some fires. The way you posed this does not track with what has been reported. I don't doubt there was some violence, but you're making it out like it was state-sponsored pogrom that marched up to people's front doors. It wasn't. They were armed protestors claiming land and were told to leave for their own safety due to potential spring flooding.

The last time nationalism was so prominent on the international stage, staying neutral wasn't an option.

Let me know when the US plans to invade Mexico, Canada or Cuba. And honestly, our American nationalism doesn't even hold a fucking candle to the nationalism present in the rest of the world. See: Ukraine, and the volunteer armies. THAT shit is nationalism at the budding stage of becoming a truly violent movement. That is nationalistic sentiment backed up by weapons and directed by people who are already fighting and killing on a daily basis. What we're seeing here now seems unprecedented, but it's not. It is still people talking, and so far the occasional crackpot doing crackpot things.

There is some sort of block on collective political organization in America, and i just don't know what or why.

Apathy, sheer disillusionment and a political machine that is entrenched. Just had a small talk with my boss about this the other day. The last 4 mayors in my town have all had the same Chief of Staff. He's been running the mayor's office essentially going on 30 years or so. You can't get anything done in this town without his approval. When my boss ran for the School Board, after he'd left a meeting, the chief of staff for the mayor's office turned to his campaign manager and said "It's not your turn. You haven't done your dues." And they're all democrats.

It's shit like that which contributes to the sense of disillusionment. Those in power have the war chests to buy the help they need, while pretty much everyone else has to sacrifice everything to the cause: time, money, personal reputation. It takes a truly grass roots movement to change the tide against the establishment, because that's the only way enough collective resources and political will can be pooled to oppose it.

No, wait, I get it now...

This is all about Obama. Trump's pissed that Obama actually has a US birth certificate, which assigns him status as a citizen. Now he wants to make being born in the US not count for citizenship, so he can go back to calling Obama a foreigner despite the certificate!

It's so stupid and outlandish it rings true. It would fit with the man's colossal ego that he'd change fundamental citizenship laws simply to make something factually incorrect he said years ago factually correct today.

[Doomblade187]

Regarding Standing Rock, the protestors were blocking construction of a pipeline that had the environmental review rushed, would quite likely have ended up contaminating their water supply, gone through their land, and the pipeline company got government forces to shut them down- states cops from a wide radius, and more. The spring floods were an excuse to boot them out, I suspect- they had already made it through a winter. In addition, their protest worked, just not as well as desired. The pipeline did move its course, and iirc the environmental review was being reviewed.

[Max™]

The point of birthplace citizenship is that everyone (or at least the vast majority of people) are born somewhere, and jus solis means that at least some state on this earth will be responsible for them. If people have to apply for their rights like in this unintentional dystopia you've created, there will be many people who have no rights, most likely because a state will say they don't want them. And if the two countries a person grew up in don't want them, then what? You'll say "well there'll be laws to avoid this", to which I say there will be no international legal obligation to make sure that no one falls through the cracks, meaning people will.

So basically, you're saying that an utterly illogical system is the best we can do because a marginally more logical system would be subject to misinterpretation by corrupt politicians.
Yeah...I guess I can accept that reasoning. I don't like it, at all, but it is what it is. c'est la vie.

Does anyone think the fuckers pushing the narrative that "citizenship shouldn't be a birthright" are at any risk of being affected by that change?

We could go ask people without a state what they think about the policies that resulted in their current situation what they think about it... can be hard to get in touch with them though, and understandably they may not be eager to speak up about it in public, as they have no sort of recourse if some nation decides they shouldn't be talking about it.

A nation is a large and powerful entity which exerts control over everything within it's borders to various degrees, is there some sort of global watchdog which sets out to guarantee that this new stateless class being discussed won't be abused or killed? On what basis would this group operate?

I would suppose that they would require the support and backing of something powerful enough to make sure a national entity respects the rights of these noncitizens, right?

Wouldn't that basically require a nation in the first place, to make sure these people without a nation are protected from harm by other nations?

[PTTG??]

First and foremost, the abolition of birthright citizenship is an ethical abomination. It's called birthright citizenship because it's a recognition that one is self-evidently entitled to be a citizen of the place you are born.

In order of importance, there follows is all the other arguments of jurisprudence, ethics, and consequences. For instance, it would create a new class of illegal resident: those who have, through no fault of their own, been born without having filled out paperwork first.

Of least importance is the fact that by making it much harder for people to legally become citizens of the US, the absurd and evil executive order would make the US have many more illegal residents -- note that newborns would not be illegal immigrants because they were literally born here, making them by definition illegal natives.

This is the most fucked up shit I've yet seen out of this white house, and the fact that it's being proclaimed as a victory is a dangerous and horrifying addition.

[Folly]

A nation is a large and powerful entity which exerts control over everything within it's borders to various degrees, is there some sort of global watchdog which sets out to guarantee that this new stateless class being discussed won't be abused or killed?

US cannot accept responsibility for the abuses and killings that happen outside of it's borders, mainly for logistical reasons. There's just an absolutely crazy amount of messed up shit going on out there, and US can't even really keep things in proper order within their borders. Once people are non-citizens outside their borders, it's no longer their problem.

[Telgin]

Out of curiosity, do all Central and South American countries automatically grant citizenship to babies born in the US if their parents were citizens of said countries?  I expect that answer to vary from country to country, but there's an immediate problem there if any of those countries don't grant citizenship automatically since you'd end up with individuals with no citizenship anywhere.

Not that Trump cares, of course.

[Trekkin]

Out of curiosity, do all Central and South American countries automatically grant citizenship to babies born in the US if their parents were citizens of said countries?

Here, have a map:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Courtesy of Wikipedia. Dark blue is yes, medium blue has restrictions, grey is no, lightest blue has repealed it.