Citizenship at Birth

[Professor S]

An increasing issue at the center of the US citizenship debate is the 14th amendment that grants citizenship to anyone born within the borders of the United States. The US is one of the few developed countries that offers this benefit of location (other notable nations include Canada, Brazil and Romania) and many believe that it encourages neighbor citizens (mainly Mexican) to cross the border to give birth, an unintended consequence of the amendment (initially intended to guarantee the rights of freed slaves). This leads to many complications in managing immigration, creating what some call "Anchor Babies".

What are your thoughts on potentially repealing this amendment? Before rushing to judgement on what you think my opinion is or my motivations in posting this, I'm undecided. At the very most I think this is the least important part of immigration debate.

[manasecret]

Originally Posted by Professor S

At the very most I think this is the least important part of immigration debate.

This is my opinion. This isn't the root problem. Fix illegal immigration, and the issue all but disappears.

Question: If citizenship isn't granted simply when you're born here, what are the criteria?

[Typhoid]

The entire problem is with illegal immigration.
If you stop people from illegally entering your country, then you wouldn't need to fix the birth right.

It just seems like a shitty solution. A very shitty solution.

"We still have many people coming into our country illegally, giving birth to a child [whether intentional or not] and that child is a US citizen. How can we fix this?"

"Well...we can make it so that anyone born here isn't a citizen."

"Even children of people who are citizens, or legally move here?"

"Yes. That'll get those damn Mexicans to stop coming here."

"Wait, why can't we just fix immigration instead of removing everyones right to be a citizen because of a handful [in the scheme of things] of people?"


If you don't want people going illegally to the country, stop them from entering. Don't remove 1 of the incentives.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

If you don't want people going illegally to the country, stop them from entering. Don't remove 1 of the incentives.

How are we supposed to stop it though? I agree that stopping them is a bigger problem, but it's not as easy as removing incentives. We're a huge county bordering two other huge countries with two huge coastlines. There is no way that every single inch of the border can be watched 24/7. So no matter how you slice it, illegals ARE going to get in. So how things are managed on our land once they get here is just as important as trying to stop them.

[Typhoid]

There is no way that every single inch of the border can be watched 24/7.

I'd argue that all that needs to be watched is obviously the southern US. I mean, that's honestly all this is about - Mexicans and Cubans getting into the US illegally. No [not many, at least] Canadians would be illegally defecting to the US to have a child in order for American healthcare. I think your northern border is essentially safe in that aspect.

I'd also argue no illegal immigrants should be coming from Asia, or overseas by large boat or crate. If they are - that's up to the port authority to check each shipment to make sure that A) There are no people inside it for whatever reason and B) He's doing his job. Shipments should be checked.

This just leaves us with the border directly above Mexico, and the coastal waters of the gulf.

Now, It wouldn't be hard for the US to establish cameras, stations, and employ people to watch that border. Afterall, it does create more jobs, aswell. Two birds.

Then that leaves us with people who float over from Cuba, which I will agree, would be hard to deal with.

I just think in principle it's stupid to remove the citizenship to a person born there. Regardless if the parents got there illegally, the child had nothing to do with that. The child was born inside of your borders, therefore being the only place that child has ever been, making that child [in this case] American.

"How do we stop people from illegally trafficiking cocaine into the US without actually having to put in effort to catch the people committing the crimes?"
"Uhh...make it....legal to traffick?"

[Professor S]

I don't think anyone is talking about removing citizenship, only stopping the practices of granting it to non-citizen born children because they were born in the US. And I have to agree that there is no way to watch or protect the US border 24/7.

I used to be a proponent of amnesty, but with how minimum wage has become a living wage and continued expansion of welfare benefits/entitlements I don't think its realistic anymore if we don't want the system to collapse on itself once 15 million illegals are given citizenship and guaranteed those entitlements.

In the end, that leaves a guest worker option as the only real solution. and that is just a modern version of a class based labor system. Ugh.

[TheGame]

It's not like the US hasn't been trying for ages to stop people from crossing that border.. And they have been trying to do it by force without getting rid of any of the incentives for someone to come across that line. I'm open to a different approach.

Also, even if there was some new berlin wall built down there with a millitary post every half mile to stop people from going over the border by land, people WILL find a way to go by sea. Where there's a will, there's a way.

[manasecret]

The root cause is the wealth gradient at the border. Borders are to wealth gradients like diodes are to voltage. Little wealth gradient, and it's only a trickle flow. Large wealth gradient, and all of a sudden it's an avalanche.

How do you solve a problem like Mexico?

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by manasecret

The root cause is the wealth gradient at the border. Borders are to wealth gradients like diodes are to voltage. Little wealth gradient, and it's only a trickle flow. Large wealth gradient, and all of a sudden it's an avalanche.

How do you solve a problem like Mexico?

You make a list of reasons why mexicans would rather live here illegally then live in mexico legaly, then try to tip the scale back in Mexico's favor by making the penalty for coming here (or environment when you are here) illegally worse then staying there. Or if possible, tip the scale back by making the environment over there better.

I'm not saying that the idea in the original post will resolve everything, but I think the idea is a step in the right direction vs the "more guys with guns, bigger fences, and more racial profiling" ideas that seem to be put into action.

[manasecret]

Sounds fair, but getting into the nitty gritty, what are the criteria for being born a citizen? One parent must be a citizen? Two? That sounds awfully harsh to legal immigrants here.

Maybe one or both of your parents must be at least legal residents? In that case, forgery would I guess be an easy workaround.

What is the solution that is fair to legal residents but also has any teeth to keep illegal immigrants from figuring out how to illegally game the system? They're already illegally here, I can't imagine illegally forging documents to get citizenship for their kid would be a big hindrance. Then, once a kid has citizenship by forged documents, would it be right to take away that citizenship because of the parents doing wrong?

What do other countries do?

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by manasecret

What do other countries do?

It's complicated, but generally most countries grant citezenship to the following people:

1) People who have at least one parent who is a citizen
2) If the child is adopted by a citizen (sometimes has an age restriction)
3) Registration (which is the most complicated, because you may not be able to register depending on where you're from. And registration usually consists of some type of test that asks country specific questions.)
4) What's called "naturalization" which is pretty much the government of the country simply making you a citezen for one reason or another. Usually a special circumstance.

America is one of very few countries that make citezenship a birth right based on where you're born, while ignoring the status of your parents.

[Typhoid]

Game, why don't you address the other parts of his question to you?

I'll re-pose it to you, for him.

but getting into the nitty gritty, what are the criteria for being born a citizen? One parent must be a citizen? Two? That sounds awfully harsh to legal immigrants here.

Maybe one or both of your parents must be at least legal residents? In that case, forgery would I guess be an easy workaround.

What is the solution that is fair to legal residents but also has any teeth to keep illegal immigrants from figuring out how to illegally game the system? They're already illegally here, I can't imagine illegally forging documents to get citizenship for their kid would be a big hindrance. Then, once a kid has citizenship by forged documents, would it be right to take away that citizenship because of the parents doing wrong?

Anyways, I'll re-iterate that I think it's stupid because it's not solving a problem. It's not even trying to fix the problem. It's just removing a reason. The problem isn't people birthing children in the country. The problem is people getting into your country illegally. This will still occur after removing the citizenship incentive. People don't just move to new countries to pound off some new kids. All this will do is also deter legal migrants from wanting to go there to have a family.

And you're acting like if they remove the incentive there is no way to circumvent it.

"1) People who have at least one parent who is a citizen"

That will just spark a bunch of people getting married for green cards, essentially. Which already happens. Fake marriages to people from out-of country so their kids are accepted. That happens already. It will happen much more. It's not hard to pay some dude from Alabama to pretend to be married to some Spanish chick so she can have a kid in the country.

"America is one of very few countries that make citizenship a birth right based on where you're born, while ignoring the status of your parents."

But why should the status of your parents matter? That's the thing. Are you your parents? I'm sure not my parents. To detain, punish, deter, harm, hurt, or hinder a child solely because of the parents, is wrong. How can you not admit to that, or see that. Why not just throw kids born to criminal parents in prison? Because it would be retarded to punish an infant for a parent.
I wholeheartedly agree with the "birth right of country" thing. Maybe because I'm Canadian and it's like that here, and we're right above the US - and it's like that there. Maybe because I find it ridiculous to expect a child to do a citizenship exam despite being born in a country.

[Professor S]

Typh, I'm not sure why you are equating citizenship with child punishment. Lets say that a vacationing French couple, of means, is vacationing in the US and gives birth while here. Does that make that child a US citizen even though they plan on going back to France? Is the child not a French citizen, because he/she was born outside of their country? The more I think about it, the more the parental argument makes more sense than location.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Typh, I'm not sure why you are equating citizenship with child punishment. Lets say that a vacationing French couple, of means, is vacationing in the US and gives birth while here. Does that make that child a US citizen even though they plan on going back to France? Is the child not a French citizen, because he/she was born outside of their country? The more I think about it, the more the parental argument makes more sense than location.

That child would be American, until going back to France and becoming a dual citizen on the basis his parents are French, yet he was born in another country. When he becomes a dual citizen, he can totally omit being American.

But for example, one of my sisters has 3 kids.
My sister was born in Canada, lived in England, Germany and Cyprus.
My brother-in-law lived in England, Germany, and Cyprus.

They had a child when they were in England. He is English.
They had a child when they were in Cyprus. He is Cypriot.
They had another child when they were in England - so he is too, English.
The Cypriot child is a dual citizen of England and Cyprus, because his residence is England, yet he was born in Cyprus.

I stand firm on my "You are where you're born" statement. It's probably pretty clear I won't budge on that.
If you started existing in Country A, even though your parents are from Country B, or C - you are country A. Country A is all you've ever been, seen, heard and smelled. You were born there, and you are it.


Edit: The reason I'm talking so much on the topic, is because A) there are easy ways to circumvent the not being born a citizen thing, and B) It's not solving the problem of people getting in illegally. If people break into your house you should want to stop them, not remove items of value so they have no reason to get in.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Game, why don't you address the other parts of his question to you?

What question did I not answer?

The only thing I didn't directly address is the question about forged documents, but he followed that up with asking how other countries handle it.. It's possible that in that situation it would fall under naturalization or the child should definently be elgible for registration. But that wouldn't change the fact that they're not a citizen.

As for the rest of your arguement, you're not giving any realistic resolution. You just keep re-enforcing that changing this method is bad, even though more then 90% of countries out there, and most countries in the free world force you to have at least one parent who is a citezen to be one from birth. (Including England, so unless your sister or brother is an English citizen, the kids had to have been registered or went through the naturalization process.)

Nobody is saying that removing this one incentive is the end-all be-all answer for immigration. Of course there's gonna be other reasons for them to want to come, and possibly ways made to bend the rules eventually... but I think it addresses the real problem, which is the incentive to move. Because once they have no good reason to step onto this land illegally, then the problem resolves itself.