politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Ending birthright chitizenship is the quickest way to a starship troopers style citizen/non-citizen class divide you can concoct, which is ironically the specific situation the 14th amendment was written to avoid, because prior to that none of the enslaved people were citizens so all their descendants wouldn’t be either
Exactly. Combine that with Native Americans and how we still have a problem with treating brown skinned folks like immigrants even when their family has been in a place since before it was America, especially in the portions of the country that once were Mexico. And we’ve also got the fact that we utilize long term labor from immigrants en masse.
There’s also the logical consistency thing. We’re the nation of immigrants. If you’re born here and raised here you’re one of us. I’d be willing to change it from birth to x time in childhood but that’s a lot of work for something I just don’t see as an issue. I think the way we’re making ourselves unappealing to immigrant labor is a much bigger problem in this country.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this; we already have this now. There are citizens, and there are non-citizens. The law applies to both equally. Nothing would change.
And making sure that descendants of illegal immigrants are also not citizens is kinda the point. Allowing them to become citizens rewards the parents for illegal immigration, and establishes a "back door" path to citizenship through chain migration. The objective would be to disincentivize illegal immigration by removing one of the rewards for doing it.
I suggest we start with your citizenship first. Which of your parents was rightfully citizens? Can you prove it? How? The only acceptable documents are naturalization paperwork or a lineage that goes back to the revolution. Unless you’re suggesting only DAR members be citizens, a great many people (including almost all Black people) will be denied citizenship.
What on God's green earth are you talking about?
It's simple. Were one or both of the child's parents born on US soil or otherwise lawful permanent residents? Yes? They're a citizen. Nobody's talking about grandparents, or great-grandparents, or what happened in 1776. Nobody's advocating to remove the citizenship of those already here. I'm talking about going forward. Nobody is saying that parents would have to recite their kid's entire lineage to the Great Council or anything.
He's talking about applying the change retroactively, which isn't normally how things are done. There is however some historical precedent. The first part of the 14th amendment was specifically written in response to a supreme court decision in 1857 that ruled that black African Americans and their descendants were not US citizens and therefore not protected by the constitution even though they were born in the US.
He's arguing that this could be used as a wedge to retroactively revoke citizenship, and frankly with the monsters currently in the SCOTUS it's a not entirely unreasonable fear. I could easily see the current crop of Judges ruling by a slim majority that in order for a child to have citizenship they must prove not just that their parents had citizenship, but that they must prove their parents had citizenship not through birthright, which would effectively require finding a descendant that either had naturalization papers or else could trace their lineage back to the revolutionary war. Ironically this would make it easier for immigrants to prove citizenship than it would most "Americans". For this reason if nothing else I don't think this is a particularly likely outcome.
It's probably worth while to look at what this would mean in practice though. The motivation for birthright citizenship was specifically to protect the children of slaves and their descendants who were brought to this country against their will (and arguably should have been considered citizens at the point they entered the country, but that's a whole can of worms I don't want to open right now). Their children who were born here had no choice in being here, but spent their entire lives here and I can think of no good argument for why they shouldn't be considered citizens. Likewise in the case of illegal immigrants, while they chose to be here, their children born here would have no say in being here or not and once again I can see no reasonable argument why someone who was born here and lived their entire life here, shouldn't be considered a citizen.
Imagine for a moment that we didn't have birthright citizenship. You're an illegal immigrant, you're pregnant and about to give birth. What do you do? If you go to a hospital, you'll have your child, but without immigration papers the child won't be a citizen. How would that play out? I think we can all imagine a world in which ICE would be on hand to "arrest" the newborn and the mother and start deportation proceedings. So, as an illegal immigrant you would decide not to give birth in hospitals, but instead at home. Now you've got generational non-citizens. So, you're the child of an illegal immigrant, born and raised in the US. You're pregnant, and now you're faced with the same decision, maybe you give birth at home, maybe you go to a hospital. In either case at some point one of these descendants is going to get caught by ICE, but now we've got a problem. They were born in the US. Maybe even their parents were born in the US. Where exactly do you "deport" them to? They have no citizenship literally anywhere in the world. Do you just go off their name and features and take a wild guess? You think Mexico or China or whoever is going to just accept their new "citizen" just because the US doesn't want to deal with them? How is this even remotely moral either? You're taking someone who lived their entire life here, where this is all they've ever known, and you're going to send them to some random country they've never been to, and probably don't even speak the language of?
There are definitely already people caught in this loop. It's one of the biggest reasons I think we should allow DREAMers to obtain citizenship, too - they've been here in many cases for as much of their life as they can remember, and may not even speak the language of the country they're citizens of. Meanwhile, they're often educated, productive people who would be even more economically useful as citizens instead of having to work under the table. The last thing I ever heard Mike Huckabee say that I agreed with (circa his 2008 campaign) was "we're a better nation than to punish children for the mistakes of their parents". I'm sure he's horribly against the DREAM act or immigration reform now, of course, but I did like that he said that back then.