I got confused about your main point in the last few paragraphs.
You seemed to be arguing for birthright citizenship in the bulk of the article, but then in the last few paragraphs you seemed to be willing to accept very large exceptions (birth tourism and children of illegal immigrants) that would effectively undo birthright citizenship. Together, that is probably about half of all birthright citizenship.
How to our detriment? You assert that but provide no specifics or evidence. I assert the opposite. I claim that American citizens of foreign extraction, no matter how they achieved citizenship, improve our population. They have striver genes. History proves this. In every generation, this country is enriched by the genius and the energy of new blood from abroad. And each time, nativist voices claim that this bunch of outsiders is different, it can’t assimilate, it will ruin the country. It’s always been bullshit, and it is still bullshit. A man with such a foreign name as you have should be ashamed of himself for making the nativist case.
Birth tourists are absolutely taking advantage and it's hurting legitimate immigrants. I know an Indian (raised in the US) whose mother will NEVER become American simply because she was born in India and their immigration queue goes to the moon. She is extremely skilled.
He knows some Indian anchor babies who were born in America but were raised in India. They only come back to the US for college or work. They have no connection to US history or culture at all.
Luckily this fellow was born in Oman and the waitlist goes by country of birth not citizenship so he only needs to wait a few years.
Non Whites were never supposed to be US citizens. The Naturalization Act of 1790 was signed into law by President George Washington on March 26, 1790, it limited eligibility to "free white persons" of "good character" who had resided in the U.S. for at least two years. This is the strongest (and to my mind only legitimate) position for Constitutional originalists to take.
America also had state-level immigration restrictions. Multiple states tried to ban Black people (including Black US citizens) from moving there. Coastal states like New York and Massachusetts passed laws designed to restrict the entry of impoverished immigrants.
The US also saw huge mass migration from southern and eastern Europe during the Ellis Island period which led to a huge anti immigration and isolationist backlash.
If assimilating White Christians was so hard and caused so much resentment why did technocrats in Washington think Hart-Cellar which allowed a flood of non White, non Christians in would go any better? Hart-Cellar wasn't a referendum and you can bet your ass that if it had been, no sane American would've voted for it.
Thoughtful and helpful. I saw in person with people I knew in Thailand the difficulty of withholding citizenship from a group on the basis of ethnicity. Look up the Thai national anthem sometime. The various tribal groups were excluded from citizenship for generations of living in the country. Thailand has similar "immigration" issues and a wide open border with several countries. We need a good policy resolution to deal with the tourists. I don't see how we extend citizenship to tourists. These are much worse than illegal immigrants who are at least living in the country and raising their children here. I don't think a carve out for tourist births not getting citizenship would affect the rest of the good benefits we get from the practice.
Interesting argument. One niggle: as you well know, immigration has been an issue through American history. Alien and sedition acts. Know Nothings. No Irish or dogs. Borders were essentially closed in the 20s. Etc. So while it make technically be true when you say that "illegal" immigration wasn't an issue until the 80s, it's not really true. I do think it's fair to say: the emergence of the social-welfare and regulatory state in the last century does shift the issue quite a bit. People might be fine with immigrants, but not if they are going to be taxed to care for them. Or they might accept that you can't control the border, but when the government was actually powerful enough to control it, they might change their minds.
Please define the 14th Amendment’s sub clause “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...” in the context of your blanket definition that there is an “unconditional” right to citizenship, notwithstanding such inconvenient facts such as there being border billboards inviting prospective citizens to pay a $4000 fee to come and pop their baby on Americans soil.
In Norway, your "place of birth" is not the geographical location of your mother when you were born, but the legal residence of your mother. Thus a friend of mine who has dual Norwegian Canadian citizenship has a Norwegian passport that says that she was born in Oslo while her Canadian one says she was born in Vancouver. (She was born prematurely while her parents were visiting some relatives of her Canadian but Norwegian resident father.) Changing the meaning of "place of birth" may be an easier fix than others proposed.
I really appreciate your nuanced view. Immigration is the ONE issue that we will need to address as a nation (everything else should be resolvable locally/regionally under a framework of radical federalism). My views on this issue have shifted... driven not by xenophobia (I teach mostly immigrant kids, my two best friends are immigrants, formerly undocumented, my ex-fiance was an illegal immigrant) but, as with so many other issues, progressive extremism.
We cannot have a permanent illegal underclass in this country, and our priority should be on integrating or deporting (depending on the circumstances) the ones who are already here. American citizenship isn't a luxury good. It has a deep spiritual meaning... even if the Blob can't understand such things.
There is another meaning to “anchor babies” that many may not take into account. Somebody should look at welfare rolls and other public assistance programs - American born kids receive all kind of benefits, and they are usually sufficient to house and feed their illegal immigrants parents as well. The more kids, the easier for the family to survive. We have recently heard about an unfortunate killing of a Mexican immigrant who lived illegally in the US. for 35 years. All his children graduated from college. I am sure they had scholarships and used other public assistance programs while we incur substantial debt to put our kids through college. Just another point to consider.
The original intent mindset of the previous rule makers and enforcers related to birthright citizenship was that the country needed people to settle the vast lands.
I got confused about your main point in the last few paragraphs.
You seemed to be arguing for birthright citizenship in the bulk of the article, but then in the last few paragraphs you seemed to be willing to accept very large exceptions (birth tourism and children of illegal immigrants) that would effectively undo birthright citizenship. Together, that is probably about half of all birthright citizenship.
I support birthright but we have to be honest about the fact that some are taking advantage of the system, to our detriment.
How to our detriment? You assert that but provide no specifics or evidence. I assert the opposite. I claim that American citizens of foreign extraction, no matter how they achieved citizenship, improve our population. They have striver genes. History proves this. In every generation, this country is enriched by the genius and the energy of new blood from abroad. And each time, nativist voices claim that this bunch of outsiders is different, it can’t assimilate, it will ruin the country. It’s always been bullshit, and it is still bullshit. A man with such a foreign name as you have should be ashamed of himself for making the nativist case.
Birth tourists are absolutely taking advantage and it's hurting legitimate immigrants. I know an Indian (raised in the US) whose mother will NEVER become American simply because she was born in India and their immigration queue goes to the moon. She is extremely skilled.
He knows some Indian anchor babies who were born in America but were raised in India. They only come back to the US for college or work. They have no connection to US history or culture at all.
Luckily this fellow was born in Oman and the waitlist goes by country of birth not citizenship so he only needs to wait a few years.
This article is hilariously wrong.
Non Whites were never supposed to be US citizens. The Naturalization Act of 1790 was signed into law by President George Washington on March 26, 1790, it limited eligibility to "free white persons" of "good character" who had resided in the U.S. for at least two years. This is the strongest (and to my mind only legitimate) position for Constitutional originalists to take.
America also had state-level immigration restrictions. Multiple states tried to ban Black people (including Black US citizens) from moving there. Coastal states like New York and Massachusetts passed laws designed to restrict the entry of impoverished immigrants.
The US also saw huge mass migration from southern and eastern Europe during the Ellis Island period which led to a huge anti immigration and isolationist backlash.
If assimilating White Christians was so hard and caused so much resentment why did technocrats in Washington think Hart-Cellar which allowed a flood of non White, non Christians in would go any better? Hart-Cellar wasn't a referendum and you can bet your ass that if it had been, no sane American would've voted for it.
Thoughtful and helpful. I saw in person with people I knew in Thailand the difficulty of withholding citizenship from a group on the basis of ethnicity. Look up the Thai national anthem sometime. The various tribal groups were excluded from citizenship for generations of living in the country. Thailand has similar "immigration" issues and a wide open border with several countries. We need a good policy resolution to deal with the tourists. I don't see how we extend citizenship to tourists. These are much worse than illegal immigrants who are at least living in the country and raising their children here. I don't think a carve out for tourist births not getting citizenship would affect the rest of the good benefits we get from the practice.
Interesting argument. One niggle: as you well know, immigration has been an issue through American history. Alien and sedition acts. Know Nothings. No Irish or dogs. Borders were essentially closed in the 20s. Etc. So while it make technically be true when you say that "illegal" immigration wasn't an issue until the 80s, it's not really true. I do think it's fair to say: the emergence of the social-welfare and regulatory state in the last century does shift the issue quite a bit. People might be fine with immigrants, but not if they are going to be taxed to care for them. Or they might accept that you can't control the border, but when the government was actually powerful enough to control it, they might change their minds.
Please define the 14th Amendment’s sub clause “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...” in the context of your blanket definition that there is an “unconditional” right to citizenship, notwithstanding such inconvenient facts such as there being border billboards inviting prospective citizens to pay a $4000 fee to come and pop their baby on Americans soil.
In Norway, your "place of birth" is not the geographical location of your mother when you were born, but the legal residence of your mother. Thus a friend of mine who has dual Norwegian Canadian citizenship has a Norwegian passport that says that she was born in Oslo while her Canadian one says she was born in Vancouver. (She was born prematurely while her parents were visiting some relatives of her Canadian but Norwegian resident father.) Changing the meaning of "place of birth" may be an easier fix than others proposed.
I really appreciate your nuanced view. Immigration is the ONE issue that we will need to address as a nation (everything else should be resolvable locally/regionally under a framework of radical federalism). My views on this issue have shifted... driven not by xenophobia (I teach mostly immigrant kids, my two best friends are immigrants, formerly undocumented, my ex-fiance was an illegal immigrant) but, as with so many other issues, progressive extremism.
We cannot have a permanent illegal underclass in this country, and our priority should be on integrating or deporting (depending on the circumstances) the ones who are already here. American citizenship isn't a luxury good. It has a deep spiritual meaning... even if the Blob can't understand such things.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/a-declaration-of-independence
There is another meaning to “anchor babies” that many may not take into account. Somebody should look at welfare rolls and other public assistance programs - American born kids receive all kind of benefits, and they are usually sufficient to house and feed their illegal immigrants parents as well. The more kids, the easier for the family to survive. We have recently heard about an unfortunate killing of a Mexican immigrant who lived illegally in the US. for 35 years. All his children graduated from college. I am sure they had scholarships and used other public assistance programs while we incur substantial debt to put our kids through college. Just another point to consider.
The original intent mindset of the previous rule makers and enforcers related to birthright citizenship was that the country needed people to settle the vast lands.
That intent should have stopped 40 years ago.