The historical perspective:
For many years in Greek times, citizenship was an issue. Typically, citizenship was granted only to those who were descended patrilineally from those who were present in the city at a certain period when citizenship was defined. When cities like Athens grew larger, those whose families had immigrated long ago were still not given citizenship. Instead, they formed a class called the metics. Metics could not earn citizenship, regardless of how long their family had been in a polis. However, like our resident aliens now, they had to pay taxes and serve in the military, but did not have the rights of citizens, including voting, owning property, and setting up shop in the marketplace without paying a tax. This system ultimately caused the Athenian form of citizenship to fail to the greater Roman form of citizenship, which was more freely granted to aliens and conquered peoples. Later, English Common Law established jus soli, and brought about a new, more superior form of citizenship that has worked for hundreds of years in many countries.
What the US would be like if there were no birthright citizenship:
Imagine a United States without birthright citizenship. Surely, some resident aliens would be able to go through with the process of becoming a citizen, but it would be very slow. If such a policy had existed from the nation’s founding, almost no Massachusetts residents (largely descended from Irish and Italian immigrants of the late 1800s and early 1900s) would be citizens. Asians would have no rights. Almost anyone who wasn’t English from colonial times wouldn’t be a citizen. Immigrants made our nation, and without birthright citizenship, America would be a much different place.
The race argument:
While this is the weakest argument against repeal, it is still significant. The citizenship clause was designed to protect the rights of African Americans after the Civil War. It was the clause that ended the Black Codes. Without the clause, there is no Constitutional protection to prevent laws like the Black Codes from being passed again
However, the real question for liberals is this:
<
p>What is it that you support?
<
p>Do you support unlimited immigration with no restrictions?
<
p>Do you support some restrictions by law?
<
p>Do you support enforcing the rule of law today?
<
p>Because as long as you think current immigration law doesn’t matter, then who cares what you think about immigrants hopping the border to give birth?
<
p>Right?
.
I do not support unlimited immigration. And the first thing I’d like to see go is the ‘economic quota’ set aside for the Irish by Ted Kennedy – they’re doing fine now. How about giving that to Haiti instead? Write such a set aside so that it automatically moves to another nation after 5 years time?
<
p>I absolutely support the enforcement of current law, and wish that Patrick hadn’t cancelled the enforcement agreement the state had with ICE as virtually his first act in office.
<
p>I do NOT support abandoning a principle of citizenship going back to the founding of the Republic. It’s like suicide – a permanant solution to a temporary problem.
But you aren’t a liberal. My point is that liberals appear to have no true position on immigration, except for flout the current law.
<
p>You’ll note that I did not endorse ending birthright citizenship.
Liberals strongly suspect that “conservative” opposition to illegal immigration is simply disguised opposition to immigrants, legal and illegal.
<
p>I share that view. Certainly, I am aware of no “conservative” advocate of anti-illegal immigration measures that seems to give two sh-ts about the distinction between legal and illegal immigration, except when engaging in a FOXNews “argument” as you are here.
<
p>As evidence, I note that “conservatives” seem to support with great enthusiasm measures that would effect the harassment of American citizens with dark complexions, without really affecting any of the “conservatives” or their clan, and dismiss that harassment with little more than a shrug. Also, I would note that the “conservative” hero on the issue is Tancredo. I would also throw this new birthright citizenship notion, along with the notion that the 1st Amendment religious freedom only applies to Christians, as reasons that any of these “issues” that float to the surface of the FOXNews playlist should be regarded with extreme skepticism.
<
p>As has been demonstrated in countless other issues, today’s vocal “conservatives” are loudly pro-America, but intensely anti-American.
Because you’re taught to believe that all of American history is nothing but white males kicking the crap out of everyone else, and intellectually lazy enough to straw man your beliefs to eternity.
<
p>I’m sorry that you have such a difficult time with fox news, but you’ll notice that I asked where liberals truly stand, rather than making any particular stand against them. (because after all, where do they stand?)
<
p>You of course dodged the question in favor of your usual anti right media rants. Maybe you should watch less msnbc, huh?
<
p>Ps I think tancredo is an idiot.
I guess I went to a different school than you did.
<
p>My reference to FoxNews is simply because when their DJs put something on the playlist, you wind up dutifully singing along, here, and on your other site.
<
p>Personally, my position is that first, reasonable measures must be taken to stem the flow of incoming illegals. Such measures must be in keeping with our national character, which means that I oppose making Brownsville, TX look like Checkpoint Charlie, and efforts to implement a “papers, please” police state. Instead, I would support increased enforcement of the Reagan era laws that led to employer verification, and improvements to that system. In that regard, I part company from libertarians and conservatives, who oppose then issuance of secure identification on Big Brother Grounds.
<
p>Second, I would advocate the reform of legal immigration. The process should be faster, and should admit far more people. If there is a demand for illegal immigrant labor in the construction trade, there is no reason that that there shouldn’t be legal immigrant labor to fill it. A big reason that we have an illegal immigrant problem is because we have economic demand for their work, which is why the numbers have subsided greatly since the economy tanked. More legal immigrants, fewer illegal immigrants. This also has the benefit of making it easier to deal with existing illegals, as described below. Here, again, I part company with the existing GOP, who seem to advocate fewer people coming in, legally or illegally, a position that I regard as Know Nothingism.
<
p>The thorniest problem is the existing population of illegals, who happen to be well integrated into the fabric of our society. I don’t advocate mass arrests and deportations, because the implementation of this would be (i) ENORMOUSLY expensive for the government, (ii) economically damaging to business; and (iii) would require a near police-state. On the other hand, I don’t advocate outright amnesty, because that isn’t fair to legal immigrants in waiting. There are only bad options, and, in my view, are no improvement over the status quo, in which existing illegals are at risk of deportation if caught.
On what do do now – just stick it to employers and that will be different from what we are now doing… How?
<
p>I don’t necessarily disagree with your second point, but we both run into a 10% unemployment problem. Are you saying none of those folks would fit the job?
<
p>I think you watch more fox news than I do btw. You’ll note that I didn’t start these threads. It’s not unimaginable for someone who believes in the principles of liberty and small govt to take a similar view as others would (eg fox) when the topic is raised. You are so incredibly sensitive to fox that it is taking an effort not to mess with you more about it.
They are the reason the folks are here; they didn’t come to sit on a hammock. I would be content to allow the reasonable costs to be deducted for tax purposes.
<
p>Yup, unemployment is a problem, but isn’t here to stay forever. Yes, increased immigration would decrease wages. So be it. Here I part company from pro-union liberals. Immigration is what created the American Century, and can create another one.
<
p>_________________________________________
<
p>Fair enough about FoxNews, I’ll lay off. FWIW, I cant watch any of those shows, including MSNBC, for even five minutes because they all give me instant high blood pressure.
…you’d know that Central Mass Dad is hardly a kneejerk liberal. He’s just as happy to take the left to task when he feels it’s appropriate. In fact I’ve thought for a long time that if you were to place BMGers on a left-right spectrum CMD would probably come closests to dead center.
we just think you’re a troll?
<
p>Just sayin’
…a complete overhaul of the LEGAL side of immigration to create virtually no incentive to come here illegally. I support expidited review of all cases for those already here, especially for those whose “illegality” derives only from overstaying a previously valid visa. I support focusing border security on the transport of drugs and firearms rather than people whose only “crime” is wanting a better life for themselves and their families. I also support doing what we can to help other countries achieve political liberty and economic opportunity so people don’t have to abandon home to find these things.
Between your position, and “anyone can come here” (existing drug and gun laws aside). Is there a difference?
<
p>If you would prevent or cap immigration in some way, would you then enforce it, or not?
<
p>Will anyone venture an argument as to why we don’t have unlimitedimmigration today, and what that might cause? Or is that really the goal here…
<
p>Unemployment still near 10% hmmm
I am basically of the opinion that anyone not a threat to public health or security should be allowed to come.
No matter how much I might disagree, it’s nice to have a straightforward discussion. Now I’m hoping someone from the left will object to unlimited immigration as you define it, on some grounds. Not holding my breath though!
<
p>Personally I can imagine the impact of say 50 million new immigrants being – difficult… I think that India, for example, has something like 200 million people in poverty that you and I can’t easily imagine. How could they resist the temptation of the free everything that you liberals also espouse? (by everything I mean all the necessities of life )
Would they get worker status, or citizenship? If the former, would it have a timeline or be indefinite? What would be the criteria for losing it (I’m going to guess felony crime)? If worker status, would they have otherwise full protection and rights — drivers licenses, access to state universities at in-state prices, just about everything short of the vote?
There would still be a process for that. People who are otherwise law abiding and not a threat to public health should be allowed to seek employment and otherwise be treated as legal resident aliens. Whether or not they choose to stay permanently and seek full citizenship would be up to them.
argue that goods can move freely, but not people?
<
p>The xenophobic offer many excuses for limiting immigration, jobs among those. We regularly hear of how many jobs, foreigners are taking, but not how many they are creating.
<
p>Without such a study, we can still hypothesize that the majority of immigrants produce more than they consume, that they spend most of what they earn locally. This would certainly contradict widely stated beliefs that immigration is a drain on the economy, not value added.
If you double the size of our population in 1 year with all manner of poverty stricken immigrants, it would be devastating – all the more so the more free stuff you lefties want to dole out.
<
p>If you double the number of tvs for sale, then the worst that can happen is the price goes down.
<
p>Although frankly I don’t really see the connection that you do in the first place, speaking, you know, as someone who is in to freedom.
(Well, sort of)
<
p>I support granting permanent residency to immigrants who have been here illegally for more than a certain number of years. I support this on pragmatic grounds. Suppose every illegal alien did what you say you want and left the country tomorrow. Economic calamity, particularly in agriculture. So if you’re not going to throw these people out of the country, it’s better to regularize their status. By “better”, I mean “better” in practical ways (more taxpayers, better law enforcement, more civic engagement) and in principled ways (we shouldn’t have a permanent underclass).
<
p>In principle, I support continued numeric quotas on immigrants, though in practice, I dod not support strict enforcement other than at the border, because I do not want to live in a police state.
<
p>Like everything else, it’s a question of weighing competing priorities and finding a balance.
<
p>TedF
People can naturalize to become American citizens. You make it seem like being born on the soil is the only way to be a citizen. Americans have American children, just like citizens of every other country in the world have children of their citizenship, no matter where they happen to be when their children are born.
<
p>You aren’t asking about “birthright citizenship”, you are asking about territorial citizenship. Territorial citizenship should be stopped, it’d be a simple executive order.
<
p>How can you say this after the discussion we just had on the other thread, in which you acknowledged that the Fourteenth Amendment, as currently interpreted by the Supreme Court, makes every person born in the United States a citizen at birth regardless of his parents’ citizenship (with the exceptions discussed on the other thread, e.g., certain Native Americans and children of foreign diplomats)?
<
p>TedF
here.
I explained on the other thread that the dissent was the right decision, and that the majority decision should not be binding precedent because it was tainted by the specifics of the case and it should be ignored going forward.
<
p>Other countries are able to revise their citizenship laws, why can’t we? It wouldn’t even require fucking with the Fourteenth, as David said, it’d only require recognizing that “under the jurisdiction of” doesn’t apply to children born of foreign citizens and never did.
<
p>I don’t think the “subject to foreign power” is limited to people working as diplomats, otherwise, what is the meaning of citizenship? If you are a citizen of France, you are a subject of a foreign power and not of the US.
that it is “a bad interpretation” does not mean that it can be waved away by “a simple executive order.” It is the law of the land, and whether you or anyone else (short of five Supreme Court justices) like it or not, it will be the law until changed by Constitutional amendment.
<
p>Is this how you are going to participate in discussions here – ignoring things you’ve previously acknowledged, making blatantly false assertions, setting up straw men that others “must” agree with if they disagree with your ideas? Because if it is, your contributions aren’t worth much.
All it takes is a change in policy, directing how the INS interprets the law. They should simply stop giving citizenship to children of foreign parents, aka, people not under the jurisdiction of the US. If that seems too easy to you, I’d be fine with an act of Congress declaring the new policy.
First, the “INS” (I think you probably mean the USCIS) does not “give” citizenship to anyone. People who are citizens at birth are citizens at birth, regardless whether they have a passport, or even a birth certificate. The government doesn’t “give” citizenship to anyone except people who are citizens by naturalization.
<
p>Second, an unconstitutional executive order is, well, unconstitutional. If what you’re saying is that the President can issue an executive order even though it is unconstitutional and unenforceable, then I guess that’s true, but meaningless. How would this play out: the government, on the strenght of the executive order you say the president could issue, starts arresting children of non-citizens and begins the process to remove (i.e., deport) them. The Immigration Court rules that they are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment, and if not, then an Article III court does.
<
p>Yes, I know, you think that the more than one hundred years of precedent on this issue are wrong–no need to make that point again.
<
p>TedF
That Ark case is not binding precedent on the question of whether people are subjects of a foreign power if their parents were at the time of their birth. If the USCIS stopped the practice of jus soli citizenship, it wouldn’t mean deporting anyone, it would mean that the children had to go home when their parents did, or naturalize when their parents did. I suppose it’d mean more paperwork, since the mere birth certificate wouldn’t be enough to prove citizenhip, unless it also listed the nationality of the parents and the baby on it.
<
p>It hasn’t been 100 years of precedent, it has been 100 years of policy. If we change the policy, there might be a court case and it might go to scotus again, but there is no reason to call that impossible or wrong.
I feel like I’m beating my head against a wall.
<
p>
<
p>I don’t know what you’re trying to say. Wong Kim Ark stands for the proposition that a person born in the United States to non-citizen parents is a citizen of the United State by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Let me help you out a little and raise the following point: in Wong Kim Ark, the key doesn’t seem to be whether the parents were in the United States legally or not. So perhaps one could make an argument distinguishing WKA on the grounds that the rule should be different in the case of parents who are illegally in the United States when the child is born. But that doesn’t seem to be what you are saying. And besides, I think that argument has been foreclosed by Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211(1982), the case about an illegal immigrant child’s right to free public educationwhich tells us that “subject to the jurisdiction” means:
<
p>
<
p>But there I go, again, refering to the actual law rather than my unsupported views of what I feel the law should be.
<
p>
<
p>It’s not deportation when the government says: “You have to leave?” Come on.
<
p>Where are you getting your talking points from?
<
p>TedF
So perhaps one could make an argument distinguishing WKA on the grounds that the rule should be different in the case of parents who are illegally in the United States when the child is born. But that doesn’t seem to be what you are saying.
<
p>Exactly, I don’t think there is a valid distinction between the parents being here legally or illegally. Other countries don’t seem to make that distinction, they either give citizenship to all people born in the country, or they don’t (all countries give citizenship to children of citizens). Maybe some do. One of the interesting things about that list of citizenship laws of other countries is how many of them have relatively recent laws. Countries can change their citizenship rules as their needs change. They aren’t bound by 100 year old court decisions that weren’t even intended to set the precedent they set.
<
p>My argument against Ark as a precedent is that it was tainted by the particulars of the case. He was suing because the law singled out Chinese people, while other children of different foreign citizens were allowed to claim citizenship. And the majority emphasized that his parents had begun the process of naturalization and would have naturalized, along with him, if they had not left the country.
<
p>Well, yes we would deport children born here to foreign parents along with their parents if they are not here legally. I suppose the policy could be interpreted to apply to people already born, even adults, but I don’t think it should be or would have to be. I think it is too well established that children born here are citizens, and we should apply the new policy only going forward, to children born after the change only. They’d have to naturalize along with their parents, just as if they arrived when they were two months old.
<
p>
<
p>Well, he was clearly wrong, because foreign subjects are foreign subjects, even if they are within the US’s jurisdiction they are subjects of a foreign power. I don’t think there is a difference if the person is officially an emissary or merely a tourist, they are both subjects to a foreign power.
Supreme Court Justice Gray, writing for the majority of the Court, “was clearly wrong” because of some irrelevant stuff you dredge up to support your different opinion. Oh, and that Supreme Court decision was not “even intended to set the precedent” it set, because why? Because you’ve examined the issue more thoroughly than the Supreme Court has?
<
p>Your arguments are specious. Answering them is a waste of time. I’m not going to play this game any more.
Yeah, I don’t need to repeat myself again either.
Well, you can lead a fish to water…
<
p>Let me just make one last observation about the list of foreign laws you’ve cited. It’s interesting to me to note the countries that do give citizenship to persons born in their territories, without regard to citizenship. Here are a few:
<
p>Canada
United States
Mexico
Guatemala
Belize
Honduras
El Salvador
<
p>(sensing a pattern yet?)
<
p>Nicaragua
Costa Rica
Panama
Venezuela
Ecuador
Peru
Guyana
Brazil
Bolivia
Paraguay
Uruguay
Chile
Argentina
<
p>Wow! By my count, that’s every counrty in North and South America (except Colombia, for some reason).
<
p>It seems to me that there is a strong case to be made that in the New World, it’s not about who your parents are.
<
p>TedF
That’s funny, because someone upthread said that not giving citizenship to children born in the country was something “banana republics” would do, and wasn’t fitting for an “august” country like ours. So it turns out he had it backwards…
<
p>Those are also countries colonized by the august nations and then taken under the wing of the US by the Monroe Doctrine, so it is not surprising they would all emulate US citizenship law (I mean policy).
The basic premise of our Union and all our laws is that all people are created equal.
This means the purpose of the government and the law is not to set up a 2 tiered system of rights, but to ensure that the Brazillian’s across the way, the Haitians in Boston and you and I are all equal in the eyes of the Creator, the law, and in the eyes of all with truly American values. Their children who are born here have the exact same rights to citizenship as yours and mine.
<
p>[King George III] obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. was one of the listed reasons for the necessity of separating from England.
<
p>If, “We the People of the United States,” isn’t clear enough the Massachusetts Constitution clarified,
<
p>Secondly,
Citizenship was not intended to be regarded as a title as described above to bestow special privileges that are passed down through heredity. To become naturalized, people were required come here to live, (2 years) and profess allegiance to take part in the governance – voting and holding certain offices of governance.
<
p>Perhaps Abraham Lincoln said it best:
Their children who are born here have the exact same rights to citizenship as yours and mine.
<
p>Except that they don’t, because their children also have the right to be Brazilian citizens, whereas yours and mine can only be Americans.
<
p>That preamble refers to people all over the world, not just in American territory. So, that means people are equal even if they aren’t citizens of the US, as long as they are citizens of their parents country. Dual citizenship is what starts to make some people more equal than others, and there is no right to it, it is an oxymoron that no nation should allow, it makes a mockery of citizenship.
<
p>Sounds like you think everyone in the world needs to be a US citizen to be equal, that is rather obnoxious.
As defined by all our historic documents: all inhabitants are equal under the law.
<
p>Decisions affecting the community, (voting and governing) are restricted to members of that community – people domiciled and loyal to that community.
I don’t think the writ of our federal government runs to Brasilia. That is to say, Brazil has the sovereign right to decide who is and who isn’t a citizen, and this decision is beyond the control of the United States. You seem to propose that a US citizenship should be defined negatively as a function of Brazilian policy, which is bizzare.
<
p>I would be content to let our government decide our country’s policy, and that such policy ensure that the people who are subject to our laws be entitled to equal protection thereof.
And she thinks “all people are created equal” means that everyone gets to claim American citizenship no matter where they were born or what loyalty they were raised with.
how the majority of Americans got here, including you.
<
p>You’re theory that being here longer gives you some type of entitlement is ….cute.
It is whether the parents raising you and instilling values in you are American or loyal to some other nationality.
<
p>And it isn’t an entitlement, but a burden, to take on the citizenship of your parents.
Where did she write “everyone”?
<
p>Again, right now: if you are born here, you’re a citizen. If you are born abroad to American parents, you are, except in very limited circumstances, a citizen.
<
p>If you are born abroad to parents who are not American citizens, you are not a citizen.
Sue thinks that “all people are created equal” means that all people must have American citizenship, that it is some God given right to be American citizen and people who aren’t are living in some sort of squalor and shameful deprivation of their humanity. I don’t know if she thinks it’s OK to deny it to people who were born in foreign countries to foreign parents, by her logic. Why deprive anyone just because they were born in a different part of the world?
<
p>I think that “all people are created equal” means that everyone is entitled to citizenship of their parents, no matter where they are born, and there is no God given right to American citizenship for people who aren’t American. The parents are the ones who inculcate a sense of citizenship and identity. They can naturalize, and naturalize their children, or they can retain their nationality and raise their kids that way, and their kids can naturalize on their own.
We do, I think, hold that truth to be self evident.
<
p>But we do not, and have not ever, at least to my knowledge, claimed the right to extend the writ of our government to foreign lands. So I simply don’t understand your contention that Sue here seems to think that all people on the Earth are American citizens. Nobody wrote or implied that anywhere here.
<
p>Which means, that all people that are born here, or are born to parents who have a right to be here, are citizens. That is indeed a maximally inclusive definition, and goes as far as possible without intruding on the sovereignty of other nations.
you need to be a US citizen to be superior!
<
p>But John Prine disagrees;
<
p>
Citizenship was not intended to be regarded as a title as described above to bestow special privileges that are passed down through heredity.
<
p>So you don’t think Americans living abroad should have American children, they should have to naturalize when they get back, and not be eligble to be President?
<
p>Citizenship is something that should be passed down through heredity, because the parents raise their children as their children, with their values and language and loyalty, their children are not claimed by the state and raised to be the state’s children.
<
p>To become naturalized, people were required come here to live, (2 years) and profess allegiance to take part in the governance – voting and holding certain offices of governance.
<
p>And the children they have after they have naturalized would be American citizens and eligible for the Presidency, having lived their whole lives as Americans. The children they have before they have naturalized, wherever they were born, should naturalize along with their parents, and not be eligible to be President, having lived their first few years as subjects of a foreign power, which might cause them to continue to hold allegiance to that country in their hearts. The current system allows a French person who was merely born here while the parents were on vacation but raised in France to be President, but denies it to children of Americans who happened to be born in France. That doesn’t make sense and is certainly not equal.
which makes you wrong.
<
p>Children of American parents traveling abroad are already citizens by birth, subject to some minor ifs, ands, and buts. 8 USC 1401–1410.
<
p>If you’re born here, you’re a citizen. If your mother and father are citizens, you are (with very limited exceptions) a citizen. If your mother OR father is a citizen, you are a citizen if satisfy certain parental prior residency requirement. All of these things are “natural born” citizens, and have no bearing on the child’s ability to seek political office.
Sue thinks that parents should not be able to pass their citizenship on to their children. I think citizenship should be inherited, and only inherited, or else naturalized. It should not be given by virtue of having been in US airspace at the time of birth, even though both parents are French and the raise the baby in France with French values. That baby should not be eligible to be President, that is crazy.
Certainly the tirades of, Beck, Hannity and their like insisting that American citizens are superior to other people has a certain appeal to those who need to find something superior about themselves and their existence. In actuality this is a dangerous philosophy which degrades all of us and diminishes our rights.
<
p>Under this un-American philosophy, the concept of all men are created equal with basic human rights bestowed by their creator is replaced by a new concept that says there exists classes of people based on heredity and their rights are bestowed by the state.
<
p>In order for you to accept your temporary superiority, all you must do is permanently cede your worth as a human being.
Is that the case?
There may always be measures to screen for those with mal intent.
<
p>Throughout history people have been moving freely and live, raise families at the place of their choice. The dignity of the individual means they are not tied to the land where they happened to be born, as feudal peasants, but the place of their own choosing. This is a basic human right – liberty.
.
Tell your theory to a vassal, a serf, a villein. This is a very recent idea, and is still not recognized on many, if not most, nation states on earth.
<
p>Try travelling or working in Mexico without your ‘papers’.
<
p>Interestingly, if a villein could run away and stay in a chartered city for a year and a day, he was then a free man. Sort of like the current discussion about not deporting illegal immigrants who have been here for a period of time.
out of Africa perhaps as far back as 100,000 years ago.
<
p>Where there have been restrictions put on people limiting their choice and liberty, it usually doesn’t work out to the benefit of the individual.
<
p>The US is a country that professes a belief in individual liberty, don’t know about Mexico.
PP is right. “Throughout history” is a vast overstatement–a mis-statement, which is why you had to resort to pre-history below.
<
p>Indeed, history shows that the opposite is true: people were tied to the land where they were born. The abolition of this bond, or at least the establishment of government that does not recognize any such bond, is an American innovation. A break with history.
and to the best of all historian’s knowledge, he lived an awful long time ago.
An exception so notable that they made a movie about it…
Birthright means you are citizen if you are born here – no questions asked.
I know that’s how we do it now, and it is pretty stupid and offensive and disrespectful.
This is a planned distraction by the Republicans since they do not want to deal with actual immigration reform (look over here at the jangling keys!!). I actually have some sympathy for the folks down in Arizona, even though I disagree with their tactics. And I have to give George W. Bush some credit in trying to get some traction on this issue. His Republican brethren would have none of it.
<
p>Two points to make:
<
p>
<
p>It’s all fine and well to argue the meaning of the 14th amendment, but realize you are falling into their trap – they want you to talk about this (either side of the argument) so that you are not talking real reform. And taking away citizenship from certain babies (or not) isn’t going to solve the problem. Instead, we should be hammering the Republicans (and Dems also) on the issues above, moving toward real reform.
tea-bagging Right’s radicalism that it has to rely on talk of constitutional amendments and bizarre interpretations of the 10th Amendment to give its intellectually bankrupt, directionless existence the patina of a plan.
<
p>When was the last time the U.S. amended the Constitution? What does that require again? How easy is that?
<
p>Does the GOP really think it can incite that much nativist fear in a country that is rapidly losing its white majority? Jasiu is right. It doesn’t. The GOP leadership doesn’t just lie to the general public, it lies to its own members to keep voting Republican.
<
p>
I don’t think we need it at this point.
If you are defining attempt as getting the 2/3 of both chambers of Congress for referal to the states then I think you are correct. I believe that amendment had a statute of limitations on state ratification which has long since passed. One amendment that didn’t have such a limit was one of the original 12, ten of which we call the Bill of Rights. It states: “No law varying the compensation of Senators and Representatives shall take effect until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.” It was not ratified with the rest of the Bill of Rights at the time, but the timeframe was left open-ended. By 1992 enough states (3/4 required which of course increased in absolute numbers as the number of states increased) had ratified it, with I want to say Michigan being the one that pushed it over the top. Therefore with little fanfare the amendment was deemed “to have become for all intents and purposes part of this Constitution”. Before that the last successful amendment was the 26th, passed and ratified within a more immediate window in 1971(?) providing for 18-year-old franchise.
As there have been actual attempts in Congress on abortion and flag burning, and perhaps others.
If Mexicans and other Hispanic groups were blonde, blue-eyed, fair-skinned, and spoke English, we wouldn’t be having this idiotic conversation. This isn’t about the law; it’s about bigotry all tarted up in law & order regalia. If the undocumented “Mexicans” were as I described above, we wouldn’t hear a peep out of all the law-respecting folks out there who claim to be concerned about the law and not about brown people. Indeed, many of them would be salivating to cuddle up to, in some fashion or another, someone who looks like s/he stepped off the båten fra Norge eller Sverige.
Just like the Irish. Oh wait…
These days the Other is the Hispanic in America. Were there as many Latinos in the northeastern urban areas as there were Irish when the Irish were discriminated against, the dynamic would have been very different.
<
p>Othering members of a group is a function of human nature. People will find a way to create the “out” group and the “in” group if the group is large enough. Given that there were virtually no people of color to challenge the domination of the white Anglo-Saxons in Boston and other urban areas, the marginalizing of the Irish due to their Catholicism is no surprise at all. But that was then. The Other has brown skin and speaks Spanish today. If Mexicans were as I described above, the Other would be a different subgroup of this population whose culture, skin color, and language were substantially different.
I’m not sure we need massive overhaul.
<
p>It seems to me the following steps would all help reduce the number of non-government-approved immigrants stateside:
<
p>1. Raise legal immigration limits. Let more people come here legally, and fewer will come illegally methinks.
2. Streamline and improve the legal process, so that it’s both faster and more reliable. I’m not arguing that it has to be easier — but the problem now is that lots of folks who are going through the legal process have tremendous uncertainty because the time it takes to process paperwork, give back feedback, etc. is so variable. Fix the process.
3. Improve workplace verification of citizenship/right to work. Make it easier for employers to do, and come down harder on those who don’t.
3a. This includes — perhaps especially — landscapers, contractors, employers of nannies or au pairs, farms, meat processing plants, custodial staffs, etc.
4. Improve the passport process and the border process for US citizens. Really — it’s become a major PITA to drive back from Canada into the USA at the NY/VT/NH/ME border, and that’s dumb.
5. Bend foreign policy a bit so that we focus more of our assistance and foreign aid on Monroe Doctrine locales. The fact is, the higher the quality of life in El Salvador for the poorest 50%, the fewer of them will want to walk to Arizona in search of a better life.
6. Yes, I do think that folks who entered illegally (or extended their stay) should, in some circumstances, have the opportunity to become citizens. I think there’s tremendous opportunity here — the Army is one route, I think a CCC type plan would be another. Back taxes plus penalties, etc. I do think it should come with a fine and a test, but personally I don’t think learning English should be a requirement, as (a) English is not our national language, (b) lots of American citizens speak a different language first [French in Maine and “ish” in Louisiana, Spanish near the Rio Grande and in Puerto Rico and NYC, Chinese or Japanese in Hawai’i and urban areas of California, NY, MA, PA, DC, etc, Native Americans on reservations across the country].
<
p>
<
p>Children of non-gov’t-approved immigrants born in the USA are citizens, so they are no longer part of “the problem”. Their parents will eventually die and also no longer be part of “the problem.” If you reduce the influx of n-g’t-a immigrants, you reduce the problem over time because some will naturalize, others will be deported or move out, and the rest will die. Make it easier to enter legally, make it harder to work in tUSA illegally, make it easier for people to stay in their own country of birth, and make it easier for those who live in America to become citizens, and the problem will be reduced. Not eliminated — it will never be eliminated. But, if we reduced the problem substantially, we will have made real progress without requiring a big ugly single piece of legislation. Each of the bits above can be passed and tweaked as opportunities arise, and each of them will help.
After the verification process has been fixed – and after all, if we can collect parking tickets and excise tax holds from other states, we should be able to provide accurate citizenship status – said employers will be subject to a madatory 30 day misdemeanor jail sentence in addition to other fines and penalties.
<
p>Even Supreme Court nominees.
See what reasonable people can do?
<
p>Oh, what do we do to convince certain people on the “right” that the means to fix the verification process isn’t a trojan horse for the overthrow of our government and our enslavement by the UN black helicopters?
…with the certain people on the ‘left’ who feel that inquiry into citizenship status is a violation of human rights?
A pity that these are the ones who drive our political process.
<
p>As you know, I remain more grumpy at your team than the “blue” team because they have done a better job– even when out of power 2001-2006– at keeping their fringe on the fringe.
<
p>If only conservatives could find a rational, thinking person who could marginalize the crazy conspiracy theorists on the right. Perhaps that person might found a conservative intellectual journal in order to rescue conservatism from foolish populism, racism, and absurd conspiracy theories, and to reject witch hunting while also respecting our institutions and traditions, and would advocate American policy based on confidence rather than fear.
<
p>One could almost imagine that if such a person were to emerge, it could lead to several decades of conservative ascendancy in the battle of ideas, and significant political success.
Undocumented immigrants are good for the economy. They pay taxes and tend to work. They pay Medicare and Social Security, but don’t collect from them.
<
p>As a columnist for that ultra-left publication Reason wrote:
you’re talking about services and immigration and working and paying taxes, but that’s not what citizenship is about. Denying children of foreigners automatic citizenship just because they were born in US territory is not denying people services, whether they are legal or illegal foreigners. They can get services and naturalize along with their parents. The only thing those children will be denied is eligibility for the Presidency.
<
p>We wouldn’t be having this discussion if teapartying wack-jobs weren’t trying to control the immigration issue without really addressing the immigration issue.
prior to 1940 essentially undocumented?
<
p>Are there any statistics on how many jobs immigrants create?
This would seem important to achieve a clear impact of immigration on the economy.
Ellis Island was in operation as a legal gateway to the US for about half a century prior to that.
Down from Canada. Across the Pacific.
<
p>While Ellis Island is an iconic place, it was far from the only portal.
<
p>And my grandmother and dad had doubtful status – although from reading the bill, I MIGHT not have my citizenship rescinded because he DID fight in 2 wars without ever being asked for a birth certificate.
one part of my family back to the Puritans!
<
p>My father’s family came from Canada, so they were illegal, which means he would be illegal under Demolisher’s plan, which means I would be illegal. Much of my mother’s family was from Ireland. Same difference.
<
p>Is it possible to send 7/8 of me back and keep 1/8 of me here? I’m 46! Where would I go? What would I do? Demolisher, say it ain’t so!
<
p>Wait, maybe 7/8 of me could be given amnesty. AFter all, I’m white and of European descent.
Although the process seems to have been quite perfunctory, there was at least some effort at documentation, done by customs officials before the creation of the INS.
<
p>I’m only familiar with the actual documentation at Ellis Island and Castle Garden, through which all of my immigrant ancestors passed, but there was screening for communicable disease, as well as for political ideology. (I have a statement signed by my grandmother in 1922 swearing that she was not (i) a polygamist; (ii) an anarchist; or (iii) an advocate of the violent overthrow of the government of the United States.
<
p>I assume that there must have been similar control at other points of entry (at least the ports) because it led to the 1898 case under the Chinese Exclusion Act that is discussed above.
<
p>In the interest of disclosure, I note that each of my ancestors for whom I have found immigration records indicated an intent to reside in the US temporarily, for a period of not more than 10 years, and then to return to their place of origin. Having reviewed these records extensively during my search for those records, I am confident that nearly all immigrants made a similar representation. It is therefore possible that, if the above proposal were adopted and made retroactive, and because my grandparents and their fellow passengers overstayed their 10 years, that (if the Ellis Island museum has good statistics) around 40% of the population of the US are not citizens, including me and my children.
I’m surprised that with all this debate, particularly that centering on “do you support unlimited immigration” followed with the absurd “how will you feel when 50 million Indians come here” thinly veiled threat, no one has bothered to note the current immigration quotas. I think people would be shocked to find out how low they are.
<
p>From this source, the quotas are:
<
p>226,000 green cards issued that are “family based”.
<
p>140,000 green cards issued that are “employment based”.
<
p>55,000 green cards via lottery.
<
p>90,000 for refugees.
<
p>10,000 for “special immigrant status”, described as “like clergy workers and former employees of international organizations”.
<
p>There are several narrow categories for which the quotas do not apply – for example, spouses of US citizens.
<
p>But add those numbers up and you get 521,000 green cards allowed per year.
<
p>Our country has about 300 million people. We’re letting 0.17% of our population join our party each year.
<
p>I think we can handle a bit more than that, don’t you? And are 50 million people from anywhere really clamoring to come to the USA every year? Somehow I doubt it.
I looked around to see if the number of pending green card applications is reported, but didn’t find it.