Citizenship at Birth

[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.

[manasecret]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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.

Hmmm... I wonder what issues arise for them, then, if they have any big issues at all. France would I imagine be a good example, since they have immigration issues as well.

Like I said, I believe the wealth gradient at the border is the root cause of illegal immigration. Everything else is just half-measures. Mexico needs to be brought into the 1st-world, which would stop the avalanche of illegal immigration and would I imagine end a lot of suffering of destitute Mexicans who have no better option than to risk life and limb to cross the border.

Obviously that's no easy task, especially since we're not Mexico. I wouldn't even know where to start.

[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.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

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.

I don't think this is a fair comparision for a couple reasons.

1) People do avoid keeping things that are TOO valuable in their house. That's what Banks are made for.

2) The measures of protection you can take on a single house (in america) is a lot more harsh then you could ever do for a country... I mean, yeal lets gate off all the borders and the beaches with barbed wire tips, and put guard dogs at every corner. And if someone happens to jump over, lets shoot and kill them on the spot. Especially the pregnant lady who tries to come in, that'll teach em.

I mean, like I said... unless you want us to be a country of Arizonas. I just think there are other ways to slow the bleeding.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by manasecret

Hmmm... I wonder what issues arise for them, then, if they have any big issues at all. France would I imagine be a good example, since they have immigration issues as well.

Like I said, I believe the wealth gradient at the border is the root cause of illegal immigration. Everything else is just half-measures. Mexico needs to be brought into the 1st-world, which would stop the avalanche of illegal immigration and would I imagine end a lot of suffering of destitute Mexicans who have no better option than to risk life and limb to cross the border.

Obviously that's no easy task, especially since we're not Mexico. I wouldn't even know where to start.

I agree that is the biggest part of the problem. And there's no easy way to resolve it. As far as gaurding the borders and trying to handle it by force, I think we're at the limit that's acceptable in my opinion. I think nows the time to start looking at other ideas.

The problem I see though, is that eventually there's going to be some type of ID tags injected into americans at birth to prove they're citizens. Or there is going to be some type of north american union formed, which is only going to make the problem worse to start.

[Typhoid]

1) People do avoid keeping things that are TOO valuable in their house. That's what Banks are made for.

I don't keep my guitar, truck, phone, TV, console and subsequent games, computer, watches/chains, rings, sunglasses, and various other items in the bank. I keep money in there.

2) The measures of protection you can take on a single house (in america) is a lot more harsh then you could ever do for a country

Yeah - this is why the house was a metaphor.

And if someone happens to jump over, lets shoot and kill them on the spot. Especially the pregnant lady who tries to come in, that'll teach em.

Wow - so you go from one extreme of me saying I love illegal immigrants, to insinuating that now I think the pregnant women should be shot on sight after crossing the border. What will you tell me I think next? The anticipation is killing me. Not literally, of course. I didn't cross a border or anything.

I just think there are other ways to slow the bleeding.

If you get stabbed, do you want to just 'slow the bleeding', or fix the wound?

The problem I see though, is that eventually there's going to be some type of ID tags injected into americans at birth to prove they're citizens. Or there is going to be some type of north american union formed, which is only going to make the problem worse to start.

This paragraph in itself is just...odd.
You jump from ID tags for Americans to a North American union which somehow will make it worse, in practically one thought.

First off, being that Mexico and most subsequent countries that are the subject of this topic - are in North America.
And I'm fairly certain that if Canada, the US, Mexico, Cuba [etc.] were part of a union - that would in no way stop a Mexican family from leaving their country to go to a better place to raise their child. I also don't see how this would make more people leave their countries and flood into yours.

Secondly, about the ID tags. How would that stop them, exactly? If the tags are implanted at birth - this wouldn't deter anyone from wanting to birth a child in the US - if anything it would make more people want to do it illegally, because then they'd have 100% proof that their child is an American.

The fact is, it's ridiculous. Yes, a child of the US can get the parents a green card [after reaching the age of 21, and filing the proper paper work in the US, and their original country, which usually have wait times, for this exact scenario]. The 14th amendment was brought forth so slaves [and their children] would be US citizens, despite being slaves. Now, even knocking that aside, the 14th amendment stands for the fact that regardless of religion, sexuality, gender, skin colour - everyone is equal. Everyone. If you are born there, you are just as equal as the baby laying next to you that was also born that day. You deserve every right as that other child.

Now just imagine, if the amendment never existed. How many black Americans wouldn't be classified as citizens today because they 'illegally' entered the country [being that their parents technically were not American]. History is a fascinating thing.

[TheGame]

Typhoid, once again, you're not offering ANY ideas for how to "resolve" the problem. You're just saying "fix it" but you seem to be closed minded to anything that isn't the status quo. If things stay the same, the problem will not be fixed. So what do you think needs to be CHANGED to fix the problem?

Since you haven't answered that question directly, I have been jumping to different extemes based off of your objections to everything. You seem to both object to trying to remove incentives, and also appear to reject trying to increase security by force. So what do you propose we do?

And if you give a bullshit answer again citing no direct ideas and just saying "fix it", then I assume you don't think illegal immigration is an issue and like the status quo.

[Typhoid]

Since you haven't answered that question directly

I'm pretty sure I've said things like it several times. Maybe you're just choosing not to comprehend that part of my posts for the sake of your argument.

I said:

Get some bouncers to watch my doors and windows. If they start coming through the chimney, put some bouncers on the roof. Especially if the people who are inside my house need work to do, I'd put them to work watching my doors.

Which in the metaphor of the house being the USA, the doors and all openings into it are obviously borders.

Not to mention being that I've said numerous times "The problem isn't people having babies in your country, it's people getting in illegally" I was fairly sure that gave across a "Stop them from getting in illegally" type of thing.

From my first post:

"If you stop people from illegally entering your country, then you wouldn't need to fix the birth right."

From my second post, specifically addressing you:

"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."

You seem to both object to trying to remove incentives, and also appear to reject trying to increase security by force.

What in the blue hell are you flapping your face about?
When have I appeared to reject increasing security by force? When you suggested they shoot pregnant mothers, you mean? When I said I don't agree with you on murdering pregnant women?
Or are you saying I'm against them using force because I haven't said I want them to shoot Mexicans, opposed to just increasing border patrol and security.

So what do you propose we do?

For probably the 4th time - increase border patrol. Is it hard to do? In some ways. Is it impossible? Hell no. Increase security along the US-Mexico border. Does this involve super high fences of barbed wire, missiles, guns, and hunting dogs? No. All it requires at most is a fence, and security towers with guards watching cameras. Do they need a shoot-first mentality? No. No they do not.

And if you give a bullshit answer again citing no direct ideas and just saying "fix it", then I assume you don't think illegal immigration is an issue and like the status quo.

Well, hopefully this time you read all of my post - and not just the parts that you feel like arguing with.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

For probably the 4th time - increase border patrol. Is it hard to do? In some ways. Is it impossible? Hell no. Increase security along the US-Mexico border.

You did not even say that once before, you only used the bouncer metaphor. But we can put that to rest.

So you think that throwing more people on the border will resolve the problem? How many people do we need to put there? It's not like people can just walk across the border as it is now. And even if the way by land is blocked (as it very much is now), people can stil make it over by sea and via under ground tunnels.

I personally don't think that resolves the problem, because that's exactly what we have been trying to do and failing at for years,