Citizenship Should Remain a Birthright

The latest bad idea about immigration from Arizona

(Page 2 of 2)

Nor are the other alleged freebies very enticing. Most of the few that are available to undocumented foreigners, such as emergency room care and public education for children, don't require them to have a U.S. citizen child. Illegal immigrant parents are ineligible for welfare, Medicaid, food stamps, and the like. They can be deported.

Barring citizenship to their newborn babies wouldn't make these families pack up and go home. It would just put the kids into a legal jeopardy that impedes their assimilation into American society—without appreciably diminishing the number of people going over, under, around or through the border fence.

Punishing innocents without accomplishing anything useful? The opponents of birthright citizenship need an anchor in reality.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Suki||

    Good morning reason!

  • ||

    You are relentless.

    Good morning, Suki!

  • Suki||

    Hi RS! How are you today?

  • ||

    I'll be better when I can watch Brazil v Chile later with a beer.

    panem et circenses!

  • Suki||

    Speaking of 1848, Senator Byrd has died.

  • zoltan||

    He's going to come back from the dead and tell you how shitty your writing endeavors are. And also that the Negroes are getting uppity these days.

  • Suki||

    I can tell by the lack of sales on the one little thing I wrote that I need to stick with my real job, lol.

  • RATFUCKER||

    Good Morning zoltan!

  • ||

    He'll be back . . .as oil . . .

  • Don't squeeze the Charmin||

    "all American parents would, going forward, have to prove the citizenship of their children through a cumbersome bureaucratic process."

    Even the parents that "look" like regular Americans?

  • ||

    Of course not, my brother is in the US illegally and has been for 5 years. He works as a chef in a restaurant and has seen INS 'raid' them twice. In no instance has his status been questioned because he's a honky. Born and raised in Toronto. He has an SSN because he was legal but let his status lapse...retard.

  • ||

    Canadians do not look like us. See South Park for proof.

  • ||

    They do look like you yanks, which is how they're infiltrating.

  • ||

    They do look like you yanks, which is how they're infiltrating.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I've often argued that sons should bear the burden for the sins of the father. In my perfect world, children and parents of felons would be serving the prison sentence right along side their guilty family member.

    It's time we as a nation finally got serious and stopped being soft on crime.

  • JoshINHB||

    So not being a US citizen is a punishment?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Denying citizenship - which currently is automatic to any person born on American soil - solely due to crimes of the parents does seem a tad like a punishment.

  • MWG||

    Seemed obvious to me...

  • ||

    So when I don't give you something you're being punished?

    The solution is to allow them guest worker status until they can go through the naturalization process.

    I have no problem with immigrants being here and working here. But in this welfare state citizenship carries a burden on society, and it's not a 'right' to avail yourself of someone else's resources.

    End the welfare state and I'll be the first to welcome anyone here as a citizen that wants to be.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I'm not talking about the parents. I'm talking about the person who was born in this country, just like you, me and every other U.S. citizen.

    The welfare state is a separate issue. Use the burdensome existence of the welfare state as an excuse to deal with the burdensome existence of the welfare state.

  • ||

    People are not wrong to be concerned new burdens on the welfare state that is supported by their labor.

    When we can opt out of the welfare state then you have a point. Or, if the new entrants are not covered then you have a point.

    As it stands you are asking people to ignore the fact that we're expanding burdens on an already bankrupt system that will fail sooner because of those burdens.

    Some people have been led to rely on the welfare state. To those that are too old to secure resources on their own, new burdens represent an existential threat.

    So yeah, it's related.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Everything is related, but these things must be dealt with separately. We can't use one bad decision to justify another. That is how we get saddled with bad laws and terrible policy. It's how we've built the welfare system up to its unsustainable state.

    Don't deal with the immigration issue by taking away citizenship. Don't give politicians and bureaucrats that much more power. It's just as slippery a slope as letting them devise and implement that welfare state. And it's wrong.

  • ||

    Don't deal with the immigration issue by taking away citizenship.

    You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that they are owed citizenship or have a right to it.

    Explain.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Please re-read my comments.

  • Suki||

    VP Cheney should be released from the hospital today or tomorrow.

  • zoltan||

    Former VP, John.

  • Suki||

    The title follows him for life, just like President Clinton or Senator Byrd.

  • ||

    Actually, the title of office doesn't follow a person for life according to official protocols. But over the years self-aggrandizing politicians have insisted on "keeping" their titles and the compliant mass media have supported the myth - after, a person with a title is a celebrity and the media need "celebrities" for their "news".

    Right here in Rhode Island we have Buddy Cianci who wants everyone to call him "Mayor" even though it was felonious conduct during his term as Mayor of Providence that landed him at Fort Dix for about three years.

    The idea of a permanent honorific title is one of the techniques that the political class uses to assert their innate superiority over ordinary citizens. As such, it should be repudiated by any American of reason. Great honor would go to the retired President, senator or governor who publicly announced that henceforth he would be known as "Mr.", having relinquished the office and rejoined the equal ranks of regular citizens.

  • Suki||

    I didn't know that history. Thank you! I was going off of how it seems to be done. Especially when military people get introduced after they have left the service.

  • Adam||

    Members of the military who retire do get to keep their retiring ranks.

  • ||

    Members of the military who retire are also subject to recall to active duty as a condition of receiving their retirement benefits.

    At this point I take note that we should be thankful there is no such policies towards "retired" politicians. The size of their pensions may gall but at least we can take some comfort in the fact that they are out of power and not likely to return.

  • ||

    The protocol used to be that if there was only one person holding an office at a time (i.e., one President) then they were supposed to give up the honorific when they left office, whereas , if there was more than one person holding and office (i.e., Senator), they the kept the honorific after leaving office. So, in that case, Mayor would still be appropriate, disregarding the felonious conduct.

    Don't know if it is still the same.

  • ||

    The protocol used to be that if there was only one person holding an office at a time (i.e., one President) then they were supposed to give up the honorific when they left office

    You mean like Der Fuhrer.

  • ||

    Don't forget all those "Pulitzer Prize-winning" journalists who have become the mainstay of cable-news punditry. Like Oscar-winners and retired politicians, these celebrities of the press are bestowed by their peers a lifetime of deference and respect, regardless of their current worth.

  • F F S||

    CV, are you saying If George Washington walked into the room you wouldn't call him Mr. President?

  • Angry Sam||

    If he walked into the room, I'd put two in his head. A zombie is a zombie, founding father or not.

  • EMp||

    Ha-haa!!

  • ||

    Then he would take away your pistol, chop off your head with a hatchet and throw it across the Delaware.

    He tended to get a bit irritable when his teeth were hurting, and you gotta figure they're REALLY not fitting too well these days.

  • ||

    Zombiphobic asshole bigot

  • ||

    Stake in the heart just in case he aint one.

  • Biding my time Biden||

    The title follows him for life, just like President Cigar Bill Clinton or Senator Robert KKK Byrd.

  • Suki||

    His name is Richard, not John.

  • zoltan||

    Your name is John, you blithering moron.

  • Suki||

    Did you fill your keyboard up with drool on that one?

  • ||

    "His name is John."

  • everyone else||

    Seriously, Suki et al, you add less to this board than anyone else. I would absolutely rather have another Chad or Dan T. At least they know they're retards and just want to make waves.

  • ||

    yup

  • ||

    I don't know if Suki is a blow-up doll or not.

    But I don't think a blow-up doll would make stupider or more ignorant comments that it does.

  • Some Guy||

    Pearce and his allies say illegal immigrants can be excluded because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

    I had someone argue this to me once. When I explained that if that were true, it would mean that illegals are immune from all criminal laws, too, they gave me a dumb blank look.

  • J_L_B||

    When I explained that if that were true, it would mean that illegals are immune from all criminal laws...

    To some extent they are. If we catch an illegal immigrant robbing a bank, we have the option of trying, convicting, and sentencing them for bank robbery or not doing so and simply deporting them. Our jurisdiction over them is optional.

  • JohnD||

    Seems to me that your arguement is flawed. If we have the option of trying, convicting or deporting, sounds like we have jurisdiction. Doesn't the ability to deport imply some level of jurisdiction?

    Just asking.

  • ||

    If a Mexican commits a capital crime on American soil, then goes back to Mexico, the Mexican government can and does refuse to extradite the miscreant back to the US to stand trial. There have been lots of cases where this happened.

    Clearly that person is not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US if he can depend on the Mexican government to over-ride American law.

  • Miku||

    Well that is also true for an American Citizen. If anyone commits a capital crime in the US and flees to Mexico, it is up to the Mexican government to extradite.

  • ||

    Of course he's not subject to US jurisdiction when he's in Mexico, that's why we have extradition procedures. But while he's on US soil of course he's subject to jurisdiction, illegal immigration doesn't grant diplomatic immunity. Sheesh.

  • ||

    If anyone is going to be submitting legislation to remove that bit of the 14th Amendment about being born on American soil, why not make it a full-blown amendment to the Amendment? The problem of unconstitutionality is solved.

    Yes, the illegal parents of a citizen child can be deported, but it begs the question: how many are actually deported compared to other illegals without citizen children? If it turns out that illegals with citizen children actually have a higher rate of not being deported, then there's an obvious benefit.

    How many of these illegal families wouldn't make the long and arduous journey to our country if they didn't have a child ready to give birth to?

    Another question: should we give citizenship to those born on American soil, regardless of their parent's citizenship? Is there a benefit to that part of the 14th Amendment that still exists?

    I also disagree with this: "To start with, it would call into question the status of every new baby."
    --Why's that? At least one parent should be able to produce their birth certificate, satisfying one of the (remaining, in this thought process) qualifications for the child to be a citizen. Not that hard.

  • tarran||

    How many of these illegal families wouldn't make the long and arduous journey to our country if they didn't have a child ready to give birth to?

    Do you have any idea how physically demanding it it to come to the U.S. sneakily?

    The notion of pregnant women doing it on purpose en masse is one of the stupidest ones I have seen advanced in the immigration debate.

  • ||

    Yes, I do know it's a physically demanding journey; people die doing it. People apparently also do it while pregnant or with plans to become pregnant soon after coming across (easier at 2-3 months than 8-9, I reckon, but I'm no expert).

  • kev||

    Do you think South American immigrants walk all the way to Mexico in order to walk across that border?

    Do you think Caribbean immigrants swim here?

  • ||

    They usually row here in an overcrowded bathtub. Or see Florida and its Cuban population that have a legal sneaking loophole only if they reach the mainland.

  • ||

    I imagine relatively few that come over are pregnant, but they sure as heck get that way soon after. No better way to cement their physical presence here, after all, since our government seems loathe to put the kids into foster care and ship off the parents.

  • ||

    "since our government seems loathe to put the kids into foster care and ship off the parents."

    The basis for this statement is...what...exactly?

    It is standard practice for ICE to deport all illegal aliens they catch, regardless of the citizenship status of their children. Unless the parents have legal family or friends in the US to care for the child the child goes back with the parents to whatever country they're from.

    But you are right on one thing. The government is definitely not going to "put the kids into foster care". They're just going to put the kid on the same boat, bus or plane as the parents.

  • EMp||

    Notice how the term "family-reunification" is said all warm and fuzzy, with doe-eyed innocence by a number of pols from around the country? It's done with nothing less than an eye on the political power prize in the future.

  • ||

    Yes, after they wait eighteen or so years for the kid to reach the age of majority the family can apply for visas with their kid as a sponsor.

    Do you know how motherfucking stupid that sounds.

    I'm pretty sure the number of foreign babies adopted by American couples and brought here and rubber-stamped into citizenship dwarfs the number of "anchor babies" in terms of bringing brown-skinned immigrants to our shores.

  • EMp||

    Over the past 10 or 15 years? My money would be overwhelmingly on the 'anchor-babies'. I live in Houston, and entire neighborhoods have completely changed demographically in that time-span. Heck, Harris county, where Houston is located, has an estimated 300k to 400k illegal immigrants - almost as many as the entire state of Arizona.

  • EMp||

    BTW, Isaac - if I understand you correctly - is the scenario that I mentioned stupid for illegal immigrants to attempt (because they would be trying to game the system and why...that never happens because they could be put in jail or deported!) or do you not hear politicians of certain congressional districts posing that question and pushing for it? Just askin'...

  • ||

    Fair enough, EMp. FWIW, I'd bet that the majority of "anchor babies" are simply the result of poor planning. ie, she got knocked up because that's what tends to happen. The fact that the baby is an "anchor" is more than likely as much an accident as the pregnancy in the first place.

    The notion that people are engaging in this kind of convoluted long range planning strikes me as faintly ridiculous.

    Now, what I'll concede is that some people might believe that having a child will mitigate how ICE treats illegals when they are apprehended, but this has over and over proved to be false.

    As I said above and elsewhere in this thread:

    It is standard practice for ICE to deport all illegal aliens they catch, regardless of the citizenship status of their children. Unless the parents have legal family or friends in the US to care for the child the child goes back with the parents to whatever country they're from.

    I'm perfectly willing to believe that mexican immigrants, legal or not, are having shit tons of babies, but i'll warrant the number planned as "anchor babies" is trivial, and not nearly as much of a benefit to anyone but the kid himself as everyone seems to think.

    BTW, I have brought this up on other threads, but not here. We would probably get far fewer children born here to Mexican illegal immigrants if it were easier for them to return Mexico now and then. A large number of them have no real interest in staying in the US permanently let alone getting citizenship.

    The inconvenience in crossing the border is already making it inconvenient for them to go back to get medical and dental care in border towns at the prices they can afford. Then everyone complains that they're clogging up emergency rooms.

  • EMp||

    I'd believe you over my lyin' eyes, Isaac, if I did not have California to reference and the myriad of formerly sleepy small towns and hamlets that now look like suburbs of Guadalajara. Believe me, I understand the profit motive and the majority of posters here wanting to keep down the labor costs - but ignoring the deleterious effects of open borders and the very real consequences to nation and neighborhood alike will not allow libertarian ideals to flourish when an even more state-dependent, strident populace elects ever more 'Napoleonic' or Castro-esque politicians to the helm. My opinion - and hopefully I am wrong about the whole issue, but the american public has had enough and they feel like the country is being "sold by the pound", with apologies to Genesis.

  • Fluffy||

    Just so you know:

    The minute birthright citizenship goes, I'm coming after YOUR citizenship, too.

    Personally, I'd love for that asshole Tancredo to live long enough for me to strip him of his citizenship and send him to indefinite detention prior to deportation.

  • JohnD||

    Hey Fluffy, you talk big! Come after me you punk ass weasel.

  • JoshINHB||

    If anyone is going to be submitting legislation to remove that bit of the 14th Amendment about being born on American soil, why not make it a full-blown amendment to the Amendment?

    That's so 19th century.

    Now adays all you need to change the consitituition is 5 of 9 old dfs to agree with you.

  • ||

    If anyone is going to be submitting legislation to remove that bit of the 14th Amendment about being born on American soil, why not make it a full-blown amendment to the Amendment?

    Because it's a living document! We don't need no stinking amendment.

  • phryxian houndmaster||

    Once again, a good idea, but proposed for the wrong reason and conscripted into service for a flawed agenda.

    I know it will never happen, but I'd like to see an amendment to eradicate citizenship by birth. Not just for immigrants (legal or illegal) but for all beings. I've always felt that citizenship itself is am implicit agreement to the social contract. How can a newborn be expected to give consent to such? The whole idea of birthright citizenship seems to me like a way to ensure the population grows up with the implicit understanding that it has already accepted the terms of the state and is beholden to the country of its origin. It would be more honest for offspring to have some sort of protectorate/guest status while considering them property of their parents. The parental citizenship or lack thereof would be a non-issue. At the age of majority the children can choose to pledge allegiance or whatever and become citizens or remain under guest visa's.

  • tarran||

    The problem with this paradigm is what is the difference between a resident & a citizen?

    If the resident must live under laws voted for by the citizenry - as in Heinlein's Starship Troopers - then the residents will inevitably be exploited.

    If, on the other hand, the citizenry have no power over non-citizens, then what's the point?

    Which is why I am in favor is immediate citizenry - let anyone who wants to move someplace move there and immediatly become a citizen.

    It would free up massive resources that are lost to enforcing anti-immigration movements, enhance freedom & benefit the economy.

    And, if it causes unsustainable welfare schemes to collapse more swiftly than they otherwise would, it's a bonus!

  • phryxian houndmaster||

    I'm mostly in agreement. I wouldn't go so far as to advocate "immediate" citizenship, but as a rule of thumb it's absurd to try to keep out people who wish to be here. As absurd as trying to prevent customers from entering your business.

    I'm also aware that my idea would only be feasible if the process for becoming a citizen were incredibly simplified. Else the system would collapse under the first wave of 18 year olds. And of course those same standards applied to them would be applied to all immigrants.

  • .||

    ...but as a rule of thumb it's absurd to try to keep out people who wish to be here. As absurd as trying to prevent customers from entering your business.

    Yeah, almost as absurd as trying to force oneself into someplace where one is not wanted.

  • libertytexan||

    And what if I wanted them on my property to work in my business? How is that any of your business?

  • JohnD||

    There are laws and regulations that business is supposed to abide by, moron. It's my business and every other citizens business if you are violating the law.

    Your "property rights" do not allow you to harbor criminals, which is exactly what illegals are!

  • Jake Boone||

    I'm not so impressed by malum prohibitum as compared with malum in se.

    Do you believe that all laws, everywhere, should always be obeyed?

  • .||

    Someone - I don't know who - once said that the best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it.

  • EMp||

    Biggest problem that most here in this forum have with your premise is that the people you hire have to go to a nieghborhood that is more and more changing demographically and deed restrictions, noise ordinances, etc. are constantly being ignored; schools, hospitals, jails, crime stats jump through the roof. Then it becomes everyones' problem.

  • ||

    What's this. Deed restrictions are being ignored. Why, there ought to be some kind of law about that.

  • EMp||

    If new arrivals, drawn here by better wage prospects and standard of living in their own country (but substantially less than the norm here) and winked at by potential employers, and then the new arrivals begin to draw from social services intended for citizens, uh, yeah, I think there is a problem with that, amigo.

  • phryxian houndmaster||

    Apples and oranges really. The first absurdity is a failure of pragmatism. The second is a failure of morality.

    Is it more absurd to burn down your own uninsured home just to watch the pretty flames, or is it more absurd to burn down your neighbor's? How can we compare?

  • Zeb||

    Fortunately, most immigrants seem to be wanted, as demonstrated by the fact that people give them jobs.

  • JoshINHB||

    "I'm mostly in agreement. I wouldn't go so far as to advocate "immediate" citizenship, but as a rule of thumb it's absurd to try to keep out people who wish to be here.

    Great idea,
    allow everyone in the world to mover here and immdeiately allow them to vote themselves your money.

    The republic might last 2 elections cycles under that scheme.

  • phryxian houndmaster||

    How would this be any different from the hundreds of millions of people who are already here trying to vote themselves my money? Either our government is constrained in its ability to redistribute wealth, in which case this is not a valid threat, or it is not constrained, in which case it will eventually collapse anyway.

  • JoshINHB||

    "Either our government is constrained in its ability to redistribute wealth,"

    You haven't been paying attention to politics for the last 50 years have you.

  • phryxian houndmaster||

    " "Either our government is constrained in its ability to redistribute wealth,"

    You haven't been paying attention to politics for the last 50 years have you"

    I've either failed to comprehend your comment or you've failed to comprehend mine. If I were to say, "either 2 + 2 = 5, or it doesn't" would you claim I haven't been paying attention to math for the past few scores of centuries? By stating the existence of an either or situation did I imply I believed the first case to be true? I did not, but it certainly appears that you think I did.

    Either way, the issue of my attention is irrelevant. Government is constrained or it is not.

  • Beltway Liberal-tarian||

    Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, foodstamps, General Assistance Welfare, Public Employee Unions, War on Drugs, American Military Empire, Wickard v Fillburn, Federal Reserve, Obamacare, Etc. Etc. Etc.

    Where the fuck do you see any constraint.

    These assholes can clearly do anything that a majority of congress decides they can do. Yeah SCOTUS puts up an occaisonal temporary roadblock, but that all.

  • ||

    ---Either way, the issue of my attention is irrelevant. Government is constrained or it is not.---
    You haven't been paying attention to politics for the last 50 years have you.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    It WOULD increase the Democrat voter rolls, you know... how many illegals would vote against The Mother Teat?

  • phryxian houndmaster||

    I'm not sure the republican party wouldn't adapt and I'm not sure they haven't already become useless as a foil for government expansion, but it's a valid hypothesis. If so, we're talking about potentially hastening the collapse of a system that deserved to fail, and inevitably would anyway. So while you have a point, I don't see it as a problem.

  • JoshINHB||

    If so, we're talking about potentially hastening the collapse of a system that deserved to fail, and inevitably would anyway. So while you have a point, I don't see it as a problem.

    The difference is how much of your money will get stolen before that collapse.

  • phryxian houndmaster||

    More will be stolen over the long run. The sooner the collapse the less you lose. If you value every future dollar equally you should be cheering for the collapse.

    Not every dollar is equal however. If I expect to die within ten years, the dollars I'll be earning twenty years hence are meaningless to me. I'd be willing to trade thousands of those hypothetical dollars for a few hundred saved next year.

    So whether one sees the imminent collapse of a failed system as worse than a more protracted collapse is dependent on the point of view. Personally, I've bet on my ability to survive in the extreme. So those far off future dollars are valid to me and I'd bet I'll come out ahead in the long run if the system crashes sooner.

    This bet is a personal calculation and yours may vary. The question now before you is, "if it is in your own best interest that a flawed system survives beyond your span, do you protect it from premature collapse out of self-interest, or do you have clashing principles that will not allow you to do so?"

  • JoshINHB||

    I see it some what differently.

    The CA government is headed for collapse.

    I certainly be better off if the collapse happens with the current tax structure, than if it happens after several years of confiscatory income & property taxes.

    Same with the federal government.

  • Ring||

    It's rather like not letting more people on an overcrowded lifeboat. Sure, you could throw your arms in the air and say let them all on and sit back smugly as people clamour onboard till the lifeboat sinks and you all drown proving your point, but you'd still be dead.

  • robc||

    immdeiately allow them to vote themselves your money.

    The constitution would prevent that from happening. In theory.

  • robc||

    You will also note that we actually dont vote for laws (except California), we have representatives who do that, who have to have been in the US for a period of time. Including, for the president, from birth.

  • robc||

    This was put in for exactly that reason.

  • JoshINHB||

    immdeiately allow them to vote themselves for democratic socialist that will give them your money

    Does that make you feel better?

    Either way the result is the same.

  • Roman Empire||

    I agree with this assertion. Instant citizenship with no preconditions, just handing it out like candy. Nothing could go wrong with this!

  • ||

    Have you really thought that through? What would stop large corporations, or foreign entities from paying large voting blocks to temporarily move from place to place to swing new laws in their favor or vote their politicians into office?

  • Tim Robbins||

    and the corporations sit there in their... in their corporation buildings, and... and, and see, they're all corporation-y

  • Zaxxon||

    "And, if it causes unsustainable welfare schemes to collapse more swiftly than they otherwise would, it's a bonus!"

    And what happens after that? That's the problem with you "come one come all" types. You never EVER think things through to the inevitably bitter end. You don't think with the government teat shut off they wouldn't start looking at *your* (potential) teat? Can you buy enough guns and ammo to hold them off?

    You doe eyed, open border optimists seem to never grasp that any human is one small tick away from raving animals given the need.

  • ||

    The answer is for no one to have power over others. If the apparatus for resource distribution had not been created there would be no just or practical reason to deny citizenship.

  • ||

    "Illegal immigrant parents are ineligible for welfare, Medicaid, food stamps, and the like."

    True. But the children (who are US citizens, if born here) are eligible for it, and for food subsidies.

    Also, there is this curious exemption for Medicaid: "NOTE: Medicaid coverage is available, regardless of alien status, if you are pregnant or require treatment for an emergency medical condition. A doctor must certify that you are pregnant or had an emergency, and you must meet all other eligibility requirements."

    I'm pretty sure the "matricula" card the consulates issue give hospitals all the cover they need (i.e. date of birth, id, etc.) to start charging the taxpayers for care for pregnant illegals up to including the fees for delivering the child.

    Source: http://www.health.state.ny.us/...../medicaid/

  • JoshINHB||

    "Illegal immigrant parents are ineligible for welfare, Medicaid, food stamps, and the like."

    In most states the verification for this is entirely voluntary. They ask the applicant if they are legal residents and take whatever answer without question. And don't bother to verify the SS number given even if its obviously fake, like 999-99-9999.

  • Shoeless Chris||

    Hey! Stop posting my Soc!

  • Ray Ray||

    Exactly right. When I was pregnant, I paid out of pocket for a lot less services and got a lot less treatment than all the poor hispanic girls at my job who didn't have insurance and whose credit cards and work IDs and such... didn't match anything. I mean we're talking fake names, fake SS cards, and 4D ultrasounds medicaid paid for.

    Ideally, we just get rid of the welfare state. But reality is, a majority of illegal aliens and their babies use up a lot more state resources than they pay for.

  • JoshINHB||

    But illegals benefit the corps that sponsor reason.com so that makes them great.

  • Jake Boone||

    But reality is, a majority of illegal aliens and their babies use up a lot more state resources than they pay for.


    [Citation needed.]

  • Zaxxon||

    [Citation needed.]

    The data is available if you actually cared enough to seek it out. What "[Citation needed]" really translates to is "I don't give a shit. I have my ideology and I'm sticking to it no matter what the facts are."

  • ||

    Actually, what "citation needed" translates to in this context is that people invariably cite some study comparing taxes paid versus services received -- calling it something like "fiscal deficit" -- as though anything close to a majority of citizens actually pay more in taxes than they get in benefits. The studies of course invariably do not mention actual economic output of illegal aliens -- or the comparative advantage that that output offers native workers -- that more than pay for the modest services received.

  • RATFUCKER||

    But West Virginia Republicans discovered a letter Byrd had written to the imperial wizard of the KKK three years after he said he abandoned the group. In the letter, he wrote: "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia" and "in every state in the Union."

    In a 1947 letter, Byrd vowed never to fight "with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.

    Or as Dave Weigel would say "Senator Byrd was ratfucked by those ratfucking Republicans"

  • RATFUCKER||

    The REAL QUESTION here is who leaked Senator Byrd's private correspondence to the imperial wizard of the KKK?

  • .||

    How can a newborn be expected to give consent to such?

    Why would you think the government cares to give anyone a choice about it?

  • kris||

    What other nation on the planet do children acquire citizenship status solely on the basis of place of birth?

    Not the UK. Mexico? Somehow, I doubt it.

  • Suki||

    Doesn't Italy do that? Not sure.

  • kev||

    The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 to protect the rights of the former slaves, and since the last ex-slaves died in the 1970s, it probably wouldn't be THAT difficult to amend the amendment.

    The public perception is that the 14th is now merely an antiquated loophole protecting anchor babies, when no other country does that.

  • ||

    If every other nation on the planet jumped off a bridge, should we?

    Seriously, the bandwagon argument is one of the most ridiculously retarded arguments possible. Do you think we should imitate Europe in other way, such as a strong safety net? Restricted freedom of speech based on limiting "hate speech"? If "other nations are doing it" is a strong argument, the United States should be doing a lot of things it's not, most of which I suspect you'd disagree with.

    I'm not sure that birth citizenship is a good idea, but seeing the people who are against it, screaming all the while "ANCHOR BABEEEEEZ!", make me want to support it.

  • ||

    I was going to post something similar, grylliade. This argument reminds me of the healthcare debate, and all the screams of "We are the only industrialized nation on earth...".

    Yes, because life is so wonderful in the U.K.

  • Ray Ray||

    I don't think it's about every other nation jumping off a bridge, I think it's just about questioning why we accept this idea of birthright citizenship as an important consitutional concept.

    Honestly, it seems, for the most part, to make natural sense. It's hard to say someone isn't "from" a certain country if they were born there.

    But there's also this ignorance that is going on with the pro-immigration movement. If you haven't had the pleasure of working unskilled grunt work, you may not know that the republicans just AREN'T lying about the fact that a big chunk of our undocumented peeps are involved in criminal activity (not just being illegal, like drugs and gangs and theft) and they use up state resources. It's not a racist lie, and until the pro-immigration camp addresses this, how can anybody take y'all seriously?

    Hey man. I love me some Dog Whisperer, and a lot of people who come over to this country just want to make money, n god bless em. Liberty and the free market is more important than living in a crime free society I guess. And maybe less illegal immigrants would be involved in criminal activity if they were considered legal citizens, but I don't know, because certainly a lot of their children go off and become drug dealers, too, and they have citizenship, since it's their birthright n all. So.

  • Beltway Liberal-tarian||

    Racist
    Racist
    Racist

  • Zaxxon||

    I'm not sure that birth citizenship is a good idea, but seeing the people who are against it, screaming all the while "ANCHOR BABEEEEEZ!", make me want to support it.

    Isn't that a form of logical fallacy?

  • MWG||

    ...and every wealthy country in the world has some sort of universal healthcare... we've seen this tired logic a thousand times before...

  • d||

    Ireland (styling their constitution on ours) *used to* have birthright citizenship, but they amended it in (I think) the early 2000s...because illegals were abusing it.

    North Korea separates triplets at birth (both from each other and from their parents) and places them in orphanages -- due to the superstitions of its Great Leader -- and, as far as I know, no-one else does. Should they keep on doing that, just 'cause...umm...it makes them unique?

    I'm personally divided on unrestricted birthright citizenship, but I thought I'd just throw those facts out there as food for thought.

    Discuss amongst yourselves.

    Also, it's true that the govt can deport illegals whether or not they have anchor babies, but do they really? Especially now when we are focusing so much more on drug-dealin' Mexicans! (Adjust your sarcasm detection settings, if you think I'm being a right-wing populist or a drug warrior here.)

    And as for not being eligible for social benefits, I think we need to look at the social services (writ large) that *actually* get consumed, not just what the Feds say they're eligible for.

    E.g., what do you call 15K per year per kid in public education costs? What about WIC? Food stamps for the *citizen* children? And, as other posters have noted (through, ya know, actually witnessing it), a whole helluva lot of services get consumed when they shouldn't. (Pregnancy, pre-natal care, emergency room care [for non-emergencies], etc.)

  • d||

    Oh, and before you discredit my assertion that illegals can get WIC, I know some people who got it for a time (until the social services folk actually thought to check their immigration status), and these were *documented* immigrants.

    With millions of applicants in CA, TX, etc., I'm not sure that check goes through for all recipients.

    Go on, call me a racist. I can take it.

    And while you're at it, turn that lens on Mexico, which has much more racist and xenophobic immigration policies than we do.

  • Christian louboutin seller||

    I don't think other nation on the palanet do that. Such as UK.

  • ||

    If someone robs a bank and gets away with it for year only to get caught later after having had a child does that child then become beneficiary of the stolen bank money as a birth right? No I didn't think so! If your parents commit an unlawful act you should not be punished for it but likewise you should not be rewarded for it either.

  • JoshINHB||

    Racist!!!

  • Zeb||

    Bad analogy. The bank money belongs to someone else. Illegally entering a country is not analogous to robbing a bank as no one is deprived of anything.

  • phryxian houndmaster||

    An imperfect analogy, but not useless. Perhaps a better one: Entering illegally can be looked at as a form of trespass upon a commons. Perhaps the average trespasser acquires no tangible benefit from such a crime and directly robs no one, but it is not inconceivable that he is now better off at the expense of those maintaining the commons.

  • ||

    Fantastic analogy. Banks are FDIC insured.

  • ||

    Not true. Someone is deprived and that is the problem. If they weren't eligible for receiving resources forcibly confiscated from others you would have a point.

    As it is the persons those resources come from do have a valid reason to be argue against it.

  • Metazoan||

    Except they aren't (necessarily) robbing anyone. I hate the analogy to letting people in your house. It implies that the one arguing owns the US! You may own a lot, but you most certainly do not own my house.

  • phryxian houndmaster||

    How do you feel about the analogy of letting them in a jointly owned house? A house that you own a very small stake in, shared with millions of others.

    My understanding is that in cases of joint ownership, if one owner wishes to invite a guest while another wishes to ban him, the preference of the latter has priority. If so, the majority of the joint owners have clearly expressed their desire to keep strangers out and it would take either a majority or even a unanimous decision to the contrary to change this. As irrational and self-destructive as their collective will may be, it must be respected. Unless you live on the border and can invite an illegal directly into your house without crossing any portion of the communal property, you're out of luck.

  • Mike Laursen||

    Oh, that's ridiculous. Such analogies don't scale up. Any house owned by "millions of others" is going to have some owner or another objecting to every conceivable action proposed.

  • Rich||

    The value of a citizen child is too remote to compete with the other attractions that draw people to come illegally

    Perhaps. But I know of people (from China, FWIW) who have visited the US *legally* for the specific purpose of having an "anchor baby".

  • ||

    Yes, but again, that "anchor baby" is not of any real use until it reaches the age of majority necessary for it to be eligible to apply for green cards for its parents.

    But then the Chinese have a reputation for long range planning and deferment of gratification, don't they?

  • ||

    And they're great at math. /s

  • cynical||

    Birthright citizenship is a fairly ridiculous idea, TBH. Children should have the citizenship of their parents (both, if necessary, until adulthood). We're not going to deport a 2-year-old's parents but keep the toddler in the U.S. (one hopes), so it doesn't actually reflect the way people think things ought to be done.

    The 14th amendment was necessary to give immediate citizenship to slaves and their descendants, but slavery has been dead a long time.

  • iamtheeviltwin||

    ...but the racism and bigotry that the 14th amendment was passed to combat hasn't gone away.

    This whole "anchor baby" argument would not be happening if the common image of the illegal was a white European.

    Ethnicity and class plays a large factor in this debate.

    Very little is said of the masses of college students who overstay their visas and come from the Asian region of the planet. They are as illegal as the poor Mexicans and other Latino immigrants, but they are educated and from ethnic groups that are generally considered in a positive light.

  • ||

    but they are educated and from ethnic groups that are generally considered in a positive light.

    You know, I can't think of any reason why higher education would be seen as a plus in a potential resident / citizen.

  • ||

    That evil twin feller has a point. At least those confounded Mexicans act like darkies are sposta act. So we all know our roles.

    Goddamn uppity slants with all their high-falutin' education make for an odd-shaped football for us honky pols to kick around. I say we start stirring up some ruckus between them and the blacks and Mexicans. Let's see if we can get some dirt on the Sikhs while we're at it.

  • ||

    Evil Twin would have a great point if the US bordered Asia, had govt services devoured by anime artists and if the Triad were killing ranchers on their own property.

  • Zaxxon||

    Yay! The old "people who think differently than me are clearly racists" gambit. Fuck, I haven't seen that one use in at least 75 milliseconds! Youy probably don't even realize that you yourself are being a type of bigot.

  • ||

    This whole "anchor baby" argument would not be happening if the common image of the illegal was a white European.

    Horsehit. It's about the money.

    Let immigrants in as guest workers who can't avail themselves of public resources and watch the resistance go away.

    But you don't want that will you?

  • Mister Paleo||

    WE NEEDS TO CLOSE THE BORDERS!!! THE COUNTRY IS RUNNING OUT OF ROOM!!! REMEMBER THE ALAMO!!! YEEEEE-HAAAWWW!!!

    p.s. How is anchor babby formed?

  • Flash Caveman||

    They need to do way instain mother, because baby can't swim back. i am truely sorry for your lots.

  • Van||

    Senior Paleo no tener miedo de Los Indocumentados. Solo nosotros queremos obtener dinero. Esso dinero enviamos a sus mamacitas. Nosotros volveremos a Mexico quando tenemos bastante dinero construir sus casas a Mexico.

  • Mister Paleo||

    Senior Paleo no tener miedo de Los Indocumentados. Solo nosotros queremos obtener dinero. Esso dinero enviamos a sus mamacitas. Nosotros volveremos a Mexico quando tenemos bastante dinero construir sus casas a Mexico.

    What the hell? Don't give me that brown person oooga-booga speak! If ENGLISH was good enough for JESUS, it's good enough for the USA! YEEEEE-HAAAAWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Van||

    Que graciouso!

    Yo conozco Jesus. El es una Indocumentado, pero no el tiene ancla.

    El habla Ingles muy bien, pero el prefere hablar espanol.

  • Van||

    Traducion para los Gringos.

    How funny!

    I know Jesus. He is one without documents, but he does not have an anchor.

    He speaks English very well, but he prefers to speak Spanish.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    The Nazarenes are flooding into this country and having immaculately-conceived anchor babies in our mangers!!!!

  • Van||

    Hay muchos bambinos de nombre Jesus nacer en Los Estados Unidos.

    There are many babies named Jesus being born in the United States.

  • ||

    Two words: anchor baby.

  • Beltway Liberal-tarian||

    Racist

  • robc||

    Am I the only oddball here who supports open borders and opposes birthright citizenship (although I think the latter in a very minor issue)?

  • phryxian houndmaster||

    I support mostly open borders and oppose citizenship by birth. I don't consider the latter to be a very minor issue though. I think it's intrinsically entangled within the question of just what citizenship is. I don't see any internally justified and consistent solution to the border quandry that fails to acknowledge this.

  • ||

    Nope. You're not the only one.

    Residence, including the crossing of borders, should absolutely be recognized as a fundamental individual right.

    Citizenship, on the other hand, is entirely a construct of government and, as such, its requirements and privileges are inescapably pragmatic.

  • ||

    I should clarify... You're not the only one who thinks birthright citizenship is a minor issue.

    I actually find birthright citizenship to be fine -- and not a problem in today's circumstances. But, as a pragmatic expression of a political construct, I could leave it behind if it actually proves to be seriously harmful.

  • josey||

    I deny the legitimacy of the concept of citizenship. I can support a concept like membership, the implication being that such were strictly (a) opt-in, and (b) opt-out.

  • ||

    No, that's the only logical conclusion given the current state of affairs.

  • Air Jordans online||

    im confident of that In 1848, the discovery of gold brought hordes of prospectors to California. gold!!1

  • Van||

    The ironic thing about all this is Jus soli citizenship is a form of serfdom.

    Its conceptual roots are found in English common law, "...under English common law “a person's status was vested at birth, and based upon place of birth--a person born within the king's dominion owed allegiance to the sovereign,..." "This same principle was adopted by the newly formed United States, as stated by Supreme Court Justice Noah Haynes Swayne: "All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country…since as before the Revolution." United States v. Rhodes, 27 Fed. Cas. 785 (1866)." see ref[1]

    Shouldn't citizenship in a republic be voluntary, and only bestowed on those of legal age?

    If you think your citizenship was a gift, look into what will happen to you if you try to give it up. The Fed will make it very hard for you, so you better stay here and keep your nose down.

    Los Indocumentados and legal immigrants are exchanging one form of serfdom for another. The immigrants (not just Latin) I have spoken to recently are coming here for money, not looking for freedom as such.

    [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.....of_America

  • ||

    Apparently the concept of economic freedom escapes you.

  • Van||

    That's a non sequiter.

    Jus Soli => Economic Freedom? Not.

    Under British common law you became the servant and property of the King by being born on his lands.

  • ||

    The Supreme Court decided badly, in an era of settlement. No other country in the world would welcome my child with open arms should I slip across the border before birthing it. I am hispanic, so are my kids, are we are here legally-ALL of us. The same should be true of all others in this country.

  • Angry Sam||

    Actually, Canada would, as well as most South American countries, a bunch of Caribbean nations, and a few other developing countries.

  • Some dude||

    But that provision was included only to exempt children born to foreign diplomats.

    That may be true, but these days there are millions of undocumented foreign diplomats.

  • ||

    Foreign diplomats are not "subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]"

    They are subject to the laws of their home countries and bound by the various treaties that determine their credentials as diplomats.

    I might point out at this point that consular officials are not actually "diplomats", and are often not accorded the same imminity.

  • Rich B||

    The problem with citizenship at birth is not just the babies born here to undocumented workers, it is also non-residents here legally that want their child to have the benefits of US citizenship even if they grow up somewhere else. Many of these babies are born on the taxpayers dime as well and it is just circumventing the system.

  • Beltway Liberal-tarian||

    Racist

  • ||

    Your arguments, which you seem to use ad infinitum, are quite compelling.
    Idiot.

  • Rich B||

    The problem with citizenship at birth is not just the babies born here to undocumented workers, it is also non-residents here legally that want their child to have the benefits of US citizenship even if they grow up somewhere else. Many of these babies are born on the taxpayers dime as well and it is just circumventing the system.

  • Beltway Liberal-tarian||

    Xenophobe

  • Rich B||

    The problem with citizenship at birth is not just the babies born here to undocumented workers, it is also non-residents here legally that want their child to have the benefits of US citizenship even if they grow up somewhere else. Many of these babies are born on the taxpayers dime as well and it is just circumventing the system.

  • Beltway Liberal-tarian||

    Bigot

  • Angry Sam||

    What part of "dey tuuk arr jehbs" don't you people understand?

  • Beltway Liberal-tarian||

    Racist

  • ||

    Can't we repeal the 14th ammendment? It's original purpose was to guarantee citizenship to former slaves. Since that has been accomplished, why is it necessary? That takes care of the constitutional part of the argument.

  • Beltway Liberal-tarian||

    Xenophobe

  • ||

    You need to work on expanding your vocabulary.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    If that means a crippling fear of warrior-princesses then yes, I am.

  • Angry Sam||

    Yeah, why don't we just abrogate due process rights? Can't be anything wrong with that.

  • Van||

    "What mean WE Kemo Sabe?"
    -- Tanto

    The Fed has a vested interest in keeping you on the plantation. so you can be taxed and conscripted.

    10 point program of Communism

    1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
    2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
    3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

    4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

    5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
    6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
    7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
    8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
    9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
    10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.[8]

    According to the Communist Manifesto, all these were prior conditions for a transition from capitalism to communism, but Marx and Engels later expressed a desire to modernize this passage.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto

  • Van||

    Some clarification.

    The 14th Amendment == 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

  • ||

    "We're not going to deport a 2-year-old's parents but keep the toddler in the U.S. (one hopes), so it doesn't actually reflect the way people think things ought to be done."

    We deport the parents of "anchor babies" on a regular basis. Unless the parents have legal family or friends in the US to care for the child the child goes back with the parents to whatever country they're from.

    Frankly, it's hard to see what an "anchor baby" is anchoring anyone to.

  • JoshINHB||

    Welfare.

  • ||

    How does anyone with an "anchor baby" get anchored to any welfare, if they're deported whether they have one or not?

    As for any of the other services your ilk complain about schools, emergency rooms etc, the citizenship status of the child is not relevant.

  • JoshINHB||

    Because the citizen child has a valid ss number and is eligible for welfare.

    It really benefits the children after all.

  • ||

    How can the fucking child get welfare if it doesn't live in the US of fucking A?

  • ||

    You know, it would really help if some of you fucks would take time to learn something about US immigration and citizenship law.

    And also...DRINK.

    (because most of you need to fucking chill out and take a fucking drink...or a toke.)

  • JoshINHB||

    I'm talking of the ones that live in the US.

    Once you have a kid your eligible for WIC, earned incomed tax credit and other assorted goodies.

  • ||

    Again, then, with all due respect, the problem you have is that the ICE is insufficientlY draconian in hunting down illegal alliens and deporting them and/or that state and local governments are too lenient regarding giving them welfare.

    If you're concerned about the handful that would be left behind living with legal family and friends if ICE were successful at expelling all illegals their take of the total welfare pie with respect to the whole would be about the eqivalent of you taking a piss in the Gulf of Mexico.

    Again to stress, identify your problem. From what you've said, your problem seems to be that the BP doesn't stop all the illegals at the border and that the ICE doesn't round up and deport the ones that do get through.

    None of those things have anything to do with anchor babies.

    If I were sitting on a jury trying this case, at this point I would have to find that there was far more than reasonable doubt that any illegal immigrants beyond a trivial number find that having an anchor baby was a meaningful incentive to their coming here.

    By the way, get back to me when you come up with a way for the BP to stop all the illegals at the border and for the ICE to be able round up and deport the ones that do get through without imposing an intolerable burden to the rest of us in terms of expense and restrictions on freedom to travel etc.

  • JoshINHB||

    "By the way, get back to me when you come up with a way for the BP to stop all the illegals at the border and for the ICE to be able round up and deport the ones that do get through"

    Well since its hard I gues we shouldn't even try.

    While we're at it why enfoce laws against bank robbery, way upside down on cost benefit analysis.

    Ditto counterfitting. The average person is hurt an infintesimal amount by it so why bother.

    Murder? why bother, most murdered people deserve it anyway and murderers have the lowest recidivism rate so they really aren't a threat to society.

    Now that I think about it, law enforcement is hard period. Better off not trying any of it.

  • ||

    That's not an answer.

    In fact I think you've just set a new missing the point record.

  • ||

    And, there's a crucial difference between the real crimes you list and "illegal" immigration.

    The one that just jumps out and kicks you in the nuts is that in those crimes THERE'S A VICTIM of murder, bank robbery etc.

    So far no one has shown to me a victim if a Mexican comes over to mow my lawn or clean my toilet.

    Adios, amigo.

  • ||

    and/or that state and local governments are too lenient regarding giving them welfare.

    In our socialist state you love so well citizenship carries a burden on other citizens. Like it or not people who have paid into the system with some (likely erroneous) expectation of receiving as much back later do have a legitimate complaint against people making a claim who haven't paid in.

    If you are sincere about what you say you want you would not find a problem with decriminalizing everyone here, but denying them public benefits.

    If people on the other side are sincere they would not mind that either.

    But what you want is to flood the voting rolls, and what they want is to 'protect' themselves from fair competition.

  • ||

    With all due respect, you seem to have read a great deal more into any of my comments than I ever wrote there.

    First of all, I do not love "our socialist state", and I challenge you to quote a single word here that comes anywhere near suggesting that I am in favor of the welfare state.

    If you are sincere about what you say you want you would not find a problem with decriminalizing everyone here, but denying them public benefits.

    Actually, that's pretty much exactly what I'm in favor of. And absolutely nothing I've written here could reasonably be interpretted otherwise.

    If people on the other side are sincere they would not mind that either.

    Perhaps.

    But what you want is to flood the voting rolls, and what they want is to 'protect' themselves from fair competition.

    No, I absolutely do not "flood the voting rolls". If anything I'd prefer that fewer citiezens voted.

    Laws promoting easy registration, like "motor-voter" are crazy. I'm all for convenient locations for people who want to to register, but the active recruitment of people who have no interest nor any clear understanding is folly.

    Fact is, I'm in favor of a temporary work status which does not lead to citizenship (except perhaps with the proviso that the holder can apply for permanent resident status after some priod of good behavior).

    This started because I asked Mr JoshINHB some specific questions. He has refused to answer everyone of them, intead choosing to go off onto side issues, and , like you, accusing me of holding positions that I don't.

  • ||

    This started because I asked Mr JoshINHB some specific questions. He has refused to answer everyone of them, intead choosing to go off onto side issues, and , like you, accusing me of holding positions that I don't.

    I only speak for myself. Your lack of comprehension or concern about issues that are patently not side issues did lead me to assume you were consonant with the redistributive state. If such is not the case I stand corrected.

    Nevertheless you're incorrect.

    There are those who are against amnesty because they wish to 'protect' jobs or wages. This is probably the most common, but it's also entirely misguided. If you protect wages you lose jobs. If you try to protect both you have to go into debt.

    There are those who are against amnesty because they are racists. These are very few, but also misguided.

    There are those who are against amnesty (that leads to citizenship) because they will be a burden to an already failing system that they never 'paid into'.

    That is neither misguided nor irrelevant.

  • ||

    In other words, a complaint that ICE is insufficiently draconian in hunting down illegal alliens and deporting them or that state and local governments are too lenient regarding giving them welfare might be logical but complaining about the citizenship status of children is not, since all adult aliens are treated alike when it comes to deportation no matter the citizenship status of their children.

    By the way, since latin Americans tend to be much more culturally conservative on issues like abortion and gay rights, i see absolutely no reason in the world why the republicans aren't cultivating them as a voting bloc.

    OK, my cheek hurts a little from my tongue pressing into it with the last sentence.

  • IceTrey||

    "But that provision was included only to exempt children born to foreign diplomats."

    Wrong. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant subject to the complete jurisdiction which excluded transient aliens.

    "Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant."

    http://federalistblog.us/2007/.....ction.html

  • Helen Thomas||

    Let's revoke everyone's citizenship and send them back to Poland and Germany!

  • Me||

    Finally, a solution.

  • ||

    What if they're Chinese?

  • Van||

    May I be sent to Berlin or Prague Mrs. Thomas? And forcibly resettled with a local woman in her twenties who is skinny, has medium sized boobs, and an ideal waist to hip ratio?

  • ||

    Yeah, but Helen gets to define "skinny", "ideal", and "woman".

  • Van||

    Dang it you are right. We will probably be assigned wives based on the requirements of the state economy and limited to only one child.

    My definitions would be decreed sexist thought crimes.

    I will continue to look for this type on my own, fortunately there are many local girls of German and Dutch ancestry in the vicinity.

  • ||

    I fail to see how specifying that the offspring of people who are not legally present in the United States, are citizens of whatever country the parents are citizens, is a "punishment." However you feel about the United States, children, people so desperate as to run across the border to give birth, etc., this is a hell of a road for a "libertarian" to take: that the failure to give someone something is a "punishment."

    Personally, I have always felt that I should be driving a Ferarri. I don't currently have one. If my parents steal one and give it to me, don't punish ME if I'm caught driving it around with a doctored VIN. It wasn't MY crime.

  • Mike Laursen||

    We don't get to decide whether some other country considers those children a citizen or not. So, there's always the possibility that "anchor baby" to which you don't want to grant citizenship will end up with no home country at all.

  • d||

    Red herring. We can grant citizenship to stateless immigrants. E.g., Iceland even grants citizenship to anti-semitic, Jewish (?) chess masters who are wanted by the FBI under those circumstances. (ICELAND!? I mean c'mon she NEVER puts out!)

    Not a die-hard anti-birthrighter; you just need to gum up the cracks in your argumentation. Just saying...

  • ||

    If that's true (and I doubt it is), how does that automatically make this the problem of the United States of America? Don't we have the UN and other diplomatic channels to work these things out?

    I don't know of any country that doesn't make the offspring of two citizens, citizens, but maybe you do?

  • Mike Laursen||

    And what did you do to earn your right to U.S. citizenship other than happening to have been born here?

  • ||

    If I can have 'no country' and no country can tax me I'd be all for it.

  • ||

    It is a tempting solution. However, we can see the results of this kind of restriction already, and frankly I don't like what I see. I was born in this country and have lived here all my life. Nevertheless, last time I renewed my driver's license I had to produce documentation to prove that I was an American citizen. The ostensible reason for this requirement was to prevent ID fraud. Still, the measure cost me time and money and made me feel like a stranger in my own country. Now, imagine Mom & Dad having to prove their citizenship every time they have a baby, no matter how long they've lived here. THAT's what the proposed Arizon law will do to ALL of us. I know it's not the wild frontier anymore - no more unlimited space for every foreigner and his brother to come and make a new life. But this particular way of controlling the influx of illegal immigrants will impose more of a burden on us than the immigrants themselves do.

  • IceTrey||

    Most first world countries (i.e. England) don't have birthright citizen and don't seem to have much of a problem dealing with it.

  • ||

    But most first world countries do have a problem with illegal immigration.

    This would indicate to me that "anchor babies" are absolutely irrelevant to any larger questions like whether or not a more open immigration policy makes sense.

  • MWG||

    ...and most countries have universal health care. What's your point?

  • IceTrey||

    Are you that dense? My point was that Bugs was saying how hard it would be to deal with the documents to prove your parents were citizens. I pointed out other countries don't seem to have a problem with it so why should we. Moron.

  • ||

    Also, most other first world countries do not have enough a problem with foreigners getting drivers licences that they make a big deal about it, since a driver's license hasn't become the equivalent of a National Identity Card like they have in this country.

    Of course, most of them have a National Identity Card and these are issued at the time you acquire citizenship, at birth or at naturalization, or legal residence status.

    So if you what you want is for the USA to become more like France in order to thwart the scourge of swarthy foreigners, just say so.

  • Van||

    You are mistaken Amigo.

    Jus Soli citizenship has been a feature of British common law for over a thousand years. I know military brats who were born on English soil while their Dads were stationed at U.S. airbases in England. They have dual citizenship which they must report to obtain security clearances.

  • IceTrey||

    Check the British Nationality Act of 1981. Since 1983 children born to non-resident aliens do not receive British citizenship. Now whether they consider US military families residents I don't know, maybe.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    I remember reading something about people being considered 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants under the law in a few European countries. That's to say if someone migrated from France to England, England would consider his grandchildren to be 3rd generation immigrants under the law.

    Does anyone know anything about this or is it B.S.?

  • Van||

    Or maybe the military brats I know have turned into middle aged guys.

    I'm too young to remember the eighties personally.

  • DDavis||

    I've got my birth certificate and social security card, and occasionally I need them for something, like applying for a passport. I get them from my file, show them, put them back, and I'm done.

    What is the big deal? If you wait until the day you need your docs, then you've got a problem, but otherwise, it's just one of many equivalent bureaucratic pains in the ass in a modern society. You do it, you've got your docs, and from then on, you're ready for the rest of your life.

    I recently ordered a copy of my birth certificate online. I faxed in some docs. My birth certificate came in the mail. Easier than getting cable installed.

    I think the constitution is clear on this - you're born here, you're a citizen. But I don't like the dishonest objections.

    Birthright citizen is an inducement for people to have their children in the US, and the paperwork is not a big deal, especially since you need your ID docs and birth certificate anyway. Stop making up excuses.

  • DDavis||

    Chapman makes a big deal about anchor babies, which seems like a red herring.

    The point is the automatic grant of citizen to a baby born here, which is inducement enough. If you were a citizen of a poor country, and could give your child US citizenship, wouldn't you?

  • Mike Laursen||

    Of course you would. I personally know citizens of well-to-do countries that are going to lengths to have children with U.S. citizenship.

  • ||

    "Birthright citizenship" is a misnomer. The alternative theory of citizenship, which applies in most other countries, is that children inherit the citizenship of their parents, at birth. This also applies to children of US citizens when their children are born outside the USA. That's also a form of "birthright citizenship."

    I could see a functional system in which citizenship was distinct from legal residency, legal residents had all the same rights as citizens except for things like voting, serving on juries, etc., and citizenship could not be arbitrarily denied to anyone who qualified for it, but was not automatic. However, it's unlikely that we'll get anything like that anytime soon, as it would take reversing over a century of SCOTUS precedent and a rational political process to do it. Neither is likely.

    BTW, my favorite solution to the immigration problem is: 1) Exempt all immigrants from all tax-funded benefits; 2) Exempt them from all the taxes that pay for those benefits; 3) Allow citizens to apply for the same status.

  • ||

    Tim, your mostly right, but there are circumstances where children born to US citizens do not automatically get citizenship when born abroad.

    However, they can get rubberstamped into citizenship without going through the rigmarole of naturalization.

  • ||

    Tim I like the way you think. Option 3, sign me up!

  • PEarl5||

    I oppose open borders, but welcome it happening so when it utterly fails you dumbasses will finally shut up.

    Well, I also hope the whole fucking country goes bankrupt and D.C. goes down in flames, so I have a pretty high theshold for disaster. :-)

    BTW, my favorite solution to the immigration problem is: 1) Exempt all immigrants from all tax-funded benefits

    Yeah, except when that is tried some judge overturns it, and that was just to exempt *illegal* aliens via careful ID checking. That's the problem with you open border fucks. You have this list of stuff that needs to happen after "1. Open the borders" but it's all stuff that will NEVER happen, so we have open borders but none of your happy happy joy joy mitigating factors from the parallel dimension of unicorns and rainbows.

  • Chad||

    all American parents would, going forward, have to prove the citizenship of their children through a cumbersome bureaucratic process

    Yes, like providing an SS card, green card, or passport. Just like we do for each job we ever have.

    Oh, cry me a god-damned river. That would be such a "bureaucratic burden"! The whole world might collapse.

    Birthright citizenship is an absolute disaster, which is why just about everyone on earth who had such a policy has abandoned it. It invites all sorts of lawlessness.

  • ||

    Fuck off, Chad. As usual a Nazi wannabee displays his love for the phrase, "your papers".

    I'll bet you really love, "vee haff vays to make you talk".

  • Fiscal Meth||

    So you're not a Liberal at all, you're just an anti-libertarian.

    Has there ever been a single issue where you came down on the side of individual choice?
    Can you think of one single thing you don't want to have centrally planned?
    Can I still prefer vertical blinds to mini-blinds or should I fill out a form and wait to hear back from the white house?

    You're a neo-con when it means more laws and a liberal when it means more laws.

  • ||

    Chad's right. For the wrong reason, but right.

    Even so, it's a sad day that I agree with Chad.

  • ||

    The author of this article is wrong when he says the following:
    "Pearce and his allies say illegal immigrants can be excluded because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. But that provision was included only to exempt children born to foreign diplomats."
    All you have to do is go back and read the words of Jacob Howard, the one who argued for the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause during the debates on the 14th Amendment. He said "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/.....;recNum=11

  • ||

    Sorry, you are the one who has it wrong.

    There is no "or" in there anywhere -- the exemption is so that families of diplomats will not be subject to American taxes, conscription, or the other duties of an American citizen.

    Under your interpretation, there would be no "every other class" -- only citizens.

    He could easily has said "it only applies to the children of citizens," instead of all the words he used.

  • ||

    It also doesn't help that Senator Conness of California, arguing in support of this clause, says...

    The proposition before us ... relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation.
    ...
    Here is a simple declaration that a score or a few score of human beings born in the United Sates shall be regarded as citizens of the United States, entitled to civil rights, to the right of equal defense, to the right of equal punishment for crime with other citizens; and that such a provision should be deprecatd by any person having or claiming to have a high humanity passes all my understanding and comprehension.
  • ||

    RESIDENCY should remain a birthright.

    CITIZENSHIP should be EARNED -- no matter where you were born, or whether or not your parents were citizens.

    Once again, Heinlein had it right.

  • Sweettea||

    I will gladly be burdened with showing my papers.

  • ||

    I was born in the U.S, and I had to pass a citizenship test.

  • ||

    The case referred to "United States v. Wong Kim Ark" did not address the issue of immigration status. Mr. Wong's parent were legal permanent residences of this country, and the question simply didn't come up. The 14th amendment passed three years after major hostilities ended in the US Civil war and was meant to define the status of the newly freed slaves. It is utterly absurd to grant natural born citizenship to someone because his or her mother just happened to be in this country at the time of birth.

  • christian louboutin||

    Aishika Chakraborty spends Christian Louboutin Pumps in the enchanting environs of Santiniketan and says its christian louboutin remain undiminished 'Besides the winter fair and spring festival, there is nothing much to see there. Palash and simul trees have just shed their blooms, and the monsoon cloud is nowhere near the christian louboutin sale. Blazing winds will greet you at Jhapater Dhal as the terrain onwards turns parched christian shoes and arid.'

  • christian louboutin||

    Aishika Chakraborty spends Christian Louboutin Pumps in the enchanting environs of Santiniketan and says its christian louboutin remain undiminished 'Besides the winter fair and spring festival, there is nothing much to see there. Palash and simul trees have just shed their blooms, and the monsoon cloud is nowhere near the christian louboutin sale. Blazing winds will greet you at Jhapater Dhal as the terrain onwards turns parched christian shoes and arid.'

  • Me||

    How about making every single person who happens to be in the United States a citizen? If you feel you absolutely have to exclude somebody, then exclude anyone employed by a government, including ours.

  • tiffany and co||

    you got it!

  • ||

    The problem with the libertarian "immigration equation" is that it does not calculate important factors like the relationship of culture to political systems. There are some truly great common aspects in Latin American culture, like a strong sense of family, faith and friendship. But, unfortuantely there are strong traditions of statism and redistributionist politics. That is why political polls show that while most Latin American immigrants are fairly socially conservative, they favor a larger welfare state and government intervention in the economy. So, in spite of all the great things, a sharp increase in the Latin American presence will probably exacerbate the shift away from limited government and free markets that have occured in the United States.

  • ||

    Birthright citizenship rights extended to immigrants has always been available. Extending them to corporations and illegal immigrants has always been the problem that people refuse to recognize. Neither deserve them, and are subject only to regulation to protect the American citizens. Use for any other purpose is illegal and unconstitutional.

    America's problem is that it has forgotten who it is, and deceptively passes laws that ignore its history in favor of special interests with cash that legislators allow to be made into power, and extend the police power of the U.S. and states to enforce. With friends like these.....

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement