Birthright Citizenship

U.S. Constitution has guaranteed U.S. citizenship to people born on United States soil, regardless of their parents’ nationality, since the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868. The amendment was designed to make sure that Americans of African ancestry were guaranteed U.S. citizenship — and attendant rights — after the Civil War and to reverse the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford Supreme Court decision of 1857, which declared that no American blacks, slave or free, had U.S. citizenship or the right to fight for their freedom in U.S. courts. The 14th Amendment’s first sentence reads, “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.”

There are obviously a large group of people who feel that the qualifying phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has never been treated properly by the courts. Nevertheless , according to our constitution such interpretation is determined by the judicial branch. In 1898 the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, that everyone born in the United States is an American citizen.

According to Yahoo all of the Democratic candidates support birthright citizenship, but the following Republican candidates are against birthright citizenship

1. Donald Trump, real estate magnate/reality TV star
2. Ben Carson, retired neurosurgeon
3. Bobby Jindal, Louisiana governor
4. Scott Walker, Wisconsin governor
5. Lindsey Graham, U.S. senator from South Carolina
6. Rick Santorum, former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania
7. Rand Paul, U.S. senator from Kentucky

• Chris Christie, New Jersey governor: Birthright citizenship needs to be reexamined
• Ted Cruz, U.S. senator from Texas: Position unclear

My opinion is that this issue is cheap rabble rousing. It is not a presidential decision, and short of packing the supreme court, there is very little the president can do about it.

Quote: Pacomartin

My opinion is that this issue is cheap rabble rousing. It is not a presidential decision, and short of packing the supreme court, there is very little the president can do about it.

Actually it's very expensive rabble-rousing.

Birthright citizenship is common in this hemisphere. Mexico's constitution, for example, grants Mexican citizenship not only to people born inside Mexico but also born in Mexican territories, Mexican-flagged vessels or aircraft(!), and even Mexican embassies. I've no idea how common the latter two are, and properly speaking there are no Mexican territories anymore (the last were made states by mid-XX Century). Added to this there is also blood citizenship. Anyone born of at least one Mexican parent, regardless of place of birth, is also a Mexican citizen.

Europe tends more towards blood citizenship. A few years back I found I can claim Polish citizenship because my maternal grandmother was Polish. That strikes me, frankly, as ridiculous. I know little about Poland and don't speak a word of Polish. Yet with a few thousand Euros and a few forms, I can be a citizen of Poland. If I travelled frequently to Europe, I would do it, as Poland is part of the EU.

Back on topic, though, the notion is to prevent so-called anchor babies. This alongside the Berlin Wall at the southern border, and many other ideas will only do the exact opposite of what is intended: drive "illegal" immigration down. Every single measure undertaken since 1964 to prevent immigration, has driven up illegal immigration.

I won't go into the economics of immigration, but there is a very high demand to get into the US. For her part, America has a large demand for immigrant labor. If this were not the case, all immigrants, legal or not, would be parasites on the state by a very large margin, rather than gainfully employed as most are. There being demand for immigrants and a large amount of people willing or eager to immigrate, it's completely irrational to try to restrict immigration.

Now, immigrating legally to the US is a complex, expensive and nearly impossible process. The two easiest ways are 1) Invest 1 million $ in the US, and 2) marry a US citizen. Anything else is so excruciatingly difficult and expensive, that telling a farm worker to "just get back in line" is tantamount to saying "Let them eat cake." And it's just as ignorant.

So, sure, go through the motions of amending the Constitution to undo birthright citizenship. How much does a Constitutional amendment costs? If it ever gets passed, you'll find it drives up either illegal immigration, or a large, multi-generation population of illegal immigrants. That's what the nascent Berlin Wall and increased enforcement did at the southern border. Impose draconian penalties or hiring illegals, and you'll see a bunch of businesses go under.

The GOP would do well to stop trying to regulate the labor market with a ferocity that would make even rabid socialists blush.

Here's an idea for quick reform: allow unlimited numbers of legal immigrants who can pass a criminal/terrorist background check, do not carry a contagious disease, and pay a $10,000-$20,000 fee per person.

Quote: Nareed

A few years back I found I can claim Polish citizenship because my maternal grandmother was Polish. That strikes me, frankly, as ridiculous. I know little about Poland and don't speak a word of Polish. Yet with a few thousand Euros and a few forms, I can be a citizen of Poland. If I travelled frequently to Europe, I would do it, as Poland is part of the EU.

My paternal grandfather is Spanish (born in Spain), and my paternal grandmother's parents are born in Hungary.There are an estimated 10 million Polish Americans. What are the deciding factors for you? Must it be grandparents or parents, and does your Mexican citizenship (as opposed to USA) have anything to do with it?

I know that the Wizard talked about getting EU citizenship a while back.

Quote: Nareed

Back on topic, though, the notion is to prevent so-called anchor babies.

Forbes, a well known socialist rag, published last year: SEP 22, 2014 The Myth Of The 'Anchor Baby'

He makes the case that having a baby who is a US citizen is not an argument against deportation. The baby can return to the US as a citizen once reaching their majority, but in the overall scheme of things this king of legal immigration is very small percentage of the overall migration (legal or illegal). Basically, it is a red herring.

Quote: Pacomartin

What are the deciding factors for you? Must it be grandparents or parents, and does your Mexican citizenship (as opposed to USA) have anything to do with it?

I don't really know. Some relatives descended from my grandmother's sisters have gotten it. I tried to research it online, but it's very complicated. That's where the few thousand Euros come in. You need to hire someone who knows what they're doing to help you.

As to my family tree, my maternal grandmother was Polish, but I don't know where my maternal grandfather was born. He died when I was 8 or so, and my family tends to avoid speaking about dead relatives for some reason.

On the paternal side, I do know both grandparents came from Lithuania.

Maternal descent tends to count more officially.

Quote:

[..]but in the overall scheme of things this king of legal immigration is very small percentage of the overall migration (legal or illegal). Basically, it is a red herring.

Of course it is.

Have you ever known a politician who does not reach for low-hanging fruit, while acting as though he's plucking the Moon off the sky?

say what you will, my opinion is that this needs to be changed to eliminate non-citizens from having babies born here just for the benefit of it, without any intent of residence; but also to eliminate the problem of illegal immigrants getting a mixed family citizenship willy-nilly.

how to fix it is pretty clear, but it should be by constitutional amendment IMO - even though that takes a long time.

Quote: odiousgambit

say what you will, my opinion is that this needs to be changed

Possibly. But it can only be changed by (1) the Supreme Court changing their interpretation of the amendment which has been consistent since 1898, (2) a constitutional amendment. It's not a law that congress can pass. Either way has huge challenges. Even within the issue of immigration, "anchor babies" are a small part of the issue.

IMHO, immigration is not a core topic, and "anchor babies" even less so.

We are all being played.

The planet is occupied by groups, mostly populated by those that just want to perform their functions as they are hard wired to do through eons of evolution. Of course these groups are "led" by those that would seek to control and extract their own sustenance through coercion or force.

The only national border that really exists is the one that our governments can convince its people to defend through taxes or violence. The borders exist to keep rulers on their thrones. To keep the governments support mechanisms, from finding out that people...are just people. With the same needs and wants as everyone else.

The US gov. and the Mexican gov. keep the "border" in play for mutual benefit. Back when the US had sovereignty and used a gold standard, [latin American was silver?] there were reasons to protect our money. Every country that now uses fiat or central banking is undivideably linked, and the populations are just tools of the moneyed interests. Any borders were permanently erased by the signing of the NAFTA treaty.

Race division is a tool of the oligarchs.

The illegals that come to America to work, represent what America once was better than basement dwelling, EBT receiving, Obama phone talkin, gang bang pants wearing, student loan payment avoiding Americans do. Non citizen visiting Latinos got more cahones than a whole park full of [infiltrated] Occupy protesters IMO.

How about if the US just takes Mexico and central America as far south as the Panama Canal [eliminate need for fence] by any means necessary, and see if Canada will accept us all in? [jk] No mas discutir?

Quote: petroglyph

Back when the US had sovereignty and used a gold standard, [latin American was silver?] there were reasons to protect our money. Every country that now uses fiat or central banking is undivideably linked, and the populations are just tools of the moneyed interests.

The US accepted the silver standard based on silver Spanish Real (8 bits to a dollar) even before the Articles of Confederation or the constitution. They struggled to create a combined gold and silver standard shortly after forming a country, but usually it was not very successful.

Finally in 1857 the government removed legal tender status from foreign coinage. That same year the final crisis of the free banking era began as American banks suspended payment in silver. Due to the inflationary finance measures undertaken to help pay for the US Civil War, the government found it difficult to pay its obligations in gold or silver and suspended payments of obligations not legally specified in specie (gold bonds); this led banks to suspend the conversion of bank liabilities (bank notes and deposits) into specie.

In 1862 paper money was made legal tender. It was a fiat money (not convertible on demand at a fixed rate into specie). These notes came to be called "greenbacks".

Quote: petroglyph

How about if the US just takes Mexico and central America as far south as the Panama Canal [eliminate need for fence] by any means necessary, and see if Canada will accept us all in? [jk] No mas discutir?

Sin más discusión! Means no more discussion! Son el alguna pregunta? Means are there any questions? I am not quite sure what question you are translating.

Interesting comment. Puerto Rico has been a territory for more than a century, and they are full American citizens. The number of people who identify as Puerto Rican on the mainland increases by 125K per year. Puerto Rico itself is 3.5 million people with a very low fertility rate. Republicans are terrified of giving Puerto Ricans on the island the right to vote for President.

Presuming that you want to conquer the Caribbean as well, that would be 200 million conquered people who will now be part of the US economy and have the right to vote.

Quote: Pacomartin

Son el alguna pregunta? Means are there any questions?

Actually it literally means "These the is some question?" or "They the is some question." Slightly less literally I'd go with "These is the some question," which fails to improve the semantic situation.

Turning the English back to Spanish yields: ¿Hay alguna pregunta?" which literally means "Is there any question?" but actually means "Are there any questions?" You could go more clear and say "¿Hay más preguntas?"

Here's the "illegal immigration" problem in brief:

Until 1964 there was a guest worker program in effect, known as the "Bracero Program." This allowed a number of Mexican laborers to legally enter the US for seasonal work. typically they spent a few months there and then returned home.

The program ended with the passage of an immigration law, but the demand for seasonal labor, naturally, did not. Additionally this law imposed a cap on immigration for the Western Hemisphere.

So now you have a demand for seasonal labor in America, plus a supply of Mexican laborers eager to do it, and no means for employer and employees to connect legally. Are you surprised these laborers started crossing illegally?

The next big idea came in the mid-80s. By then there was a sizeable presence of undocumented immigrants, but still many did not stay in America year-round. The big idea this time was to step up enforcement at the border. This made getting in harder, which prompted many illegals to stay in the US once they made it through. And that led to a permanent "illegal" population to grow. That is, those who stayed married and had children, plus newcomers also stayed.

So, the first law to limit immigration led to illegal immigration. The law to limit illegal immigration led to a large and growing undocumented immigrant population. Meantime there is still demand for seasonal work. Further, the fact that millions of "illegal" aliens now live, work and study in the US proves they've been successfully integrated into the American economy.

My question is as follows: why build an augmented copy of the Berlin Wall at the border? Will that extinguish the demand for seasonal labor?