The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: Ron Scott on January 22, 2025, 06:36:59 AM
-
The birthright citizenship debate centers around the 14th Amendment, which states in part that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
Those who support birthright citizenship argue:
1. The 14th Amendment's language is clear and provides citizenship to all people born on U.S. soil
2. This interpretation has been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court
3. Birthright reflects American values of equality and opportunity
4. Changing this policy would create a permanent underclass of non-citizens and pose significant administrative challenges
Those who oppose birthright citizenship argue:
1. The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was meant to exclude children of non-citizens, especially those in the country without authorization. (So crossing the border just to give birth to an American—“birth tourism”—should not be an automatic back door.)
2. Most other developed nations have moved away from this route to citizenship
3. The original intent of the 14th Amendment was to guarantee citizenship to former slaves and their descendants, not to all foreign nationals giving birth in the U.S.
Like everything else in our precious free press this is divisive/political and the media is selling toothpaste by getting us to express anger rather than have a real debate. Can we not do this for them?
What’s your opinion?
-
It seems to me like your summary is conflating two issues:
1. Whether we want to have birthright citizenship
2. Whether the constitution guarantees birthright citizenship
Personally, I'm undecided on the first question - there are valid arguments on both sides. But I am 100% opposed to president's trying to override the constitution by executive order.
-
I am not an attorney. Take this with grain of salt.
I think it is going to come down to the legal philosophy of SCOTUS members. There are theories that the Constitution and its Amendments should be viewed under Strict Constructionism. Others think you should view things in their historical context or try to ascertain the framers legal 'intent'. Even another theory says it is a 'living document' and interpretation should change with the times. I get a little (ok a lot) irritated at the judges who are clearly (neo)Conservative first and dedicated to their professed legal philosophy second. I get less irritated at the Liberals who do the same and that makes me sort of a hypocrite. But I'm aware of it and trying to better myself on that point.
I personally think it is pretty clear the intent was to make all freed slaves and their descendants full citizens. The birth tourism is an abuse. The Dreamers should clearly be citizens to me. Which creates a thorny issue of where do you apply the test? If someone's parents were here, legally or not, for a year is that child a citizen? What about 6 months, or 3 months, or 3 weeks? And why were they here? Were they running drugs or picking strawberries? I prefer to let the abuse continue rather than disallow citizenship to even one who is deserving.
Beyond legal arguments is the matter of what is Right/Wrong. The French gave us a nice statue with an inscription that speaks to America welcoming the world's tired and weary and oppressed with open arms. I prefer an America that remains welcoming. I also think the new isolationism is mostly thinly veiled racism. People were totally different about it in the Ellis Island days when most of the immigrants were white and Protestant. Some historical resistance to Catholics, Irish, and Jews existed. I'll raise hell if the 'test', should one be enacted, includes quotas by race/ethnicity/religion/etc.
-
Well, we know the current SCOTUS has no qualms about throwing out decades of settled legal (including prior SCOTUS) precedent. So it probably makes sense to analyze the arguments on the merits, without regard to history (beyond original intent, for those justices who believe that that matters).
[Disclaimer: IANAL, YMMV, etc.]
To me, the key question is who is considered "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?
In the past that phrase was interpreted as a fairly narrow carve-out for foreign diplomats and the like, who fall under foreign jurisdiction and enjoy a degree of legal immunity here. But again, stare decisis need not apply for this court, so let's look at other interpretations...
One argument that anti-birthright folks may advance is that the phrase would not apply to foreign invaders. This seems reasonable on its face. But then they may try to argue that those who immigrate without legal permission are effectively "invading" the US, and thus fall under the same potential exclusion.
The key difference I see between these scenarios is that invaders are typically seeking to impose their own jurisdiction over the territories that they occupy. Undocumented immigrants generally have no such aims; indeed, it's the conditions provided by US rule of law that make living here desirable for them.
I would further argue that the situation of undocumented immigrants more closely resembles that of the originally intended targets of this clause, namely freed slaves in the US. They too lacked any prior citizenship or residency status in the US (having been previously considered as property rather than people), while currently residing within its borders.
-
It seems to me like your summary is conflating two issues:
1. Whether we want to have birthright citizenship
2. Whether the constitution guarantees birthright citizenship
Personally, I'm undecided on the first question - there are valid arguments on both sides. But I am 100% opposed to president's trying to override the constitution by executive order.
I'm alarmed that an XO is being used. I'm fearful it will be made retro-active and millions of my neighbors will lose their rights (and I will have a harder time getting decent tacos.) But I don't know that I'm opposed. What other mechanism exists to force the hand of the SCOTUS to do its job to make a final clarifying decision on what the words literally mean in a modern legal context?
-
I feel citizenship should be earned---
1) either being born to a parent that is already a US citizen,
2) automatically becoming a citizen at age 18 after living in the US your entire life, or
3) gaining citizenship through the green card pathway. I also believe more green cards should be available and citizenship should be easier to attain. Same with refugees and asylum seekers.
Almost all the countries that have birthright citizenship are located in North and South America. The rest of the world does not have such a generous policy. I don't understand why ending it is such a controversial or partisan topic.
Working at a university, my wife (foreign born and gained US citizenship) and I have encountered a number of international students that make sure to have a baby here. In one particular case, taking a leave of absence from school to get married and pregnant, coming back to the university for a semester to give birth, avoiding all hospital bill collection attempts (despite being from a wealthy family) and then flying back home as soon as physically possible.
Birth tourism is real and I don't think it's unreasonable to want to stop those abusing the system, though an executive order is not the way to do so.
-
Don't be suckers --> this is just more culture war bullshit.
The Center for Immigration Studies estimates (2017) that 33000 babies are born in the USA as products of "birth tourism."
In 2023, 3591328 babies were born in the US. So we are talking about 0.918% of new births. Fine, round it up to 1.0%.
Who cares? This is just another way to rile up the rubes.
-------
In addition, this has been settled law for over 150 years. It would be tragic if the current SCOTUS decides to wave their hands and change this.
-
It seems to me like your summary is conflating two issues:
1. Whether we want to have birthright citizenship
2. Whether the constitution guarantees birthright citizenship
Personally, I'm undecided on the first question - there are valid arguments on both sides. But I am 100% opposed to president's trying to override the constitution by executive order.
I'm alarmed that an XO is being used.
I assume SCOTUS’ MO behind his XO is to move the decision to the SC.
-
The legal interpretation will come, and be argued.
To me, it's a very practical topic, with very practical consequences.
The US through its history has grown its population into its land mass by being welcoming to immigrants. At some point, all immigrants (meaning, nearly all of our ancestors) were the "other," or unwanted. So, they came here. We ignore this history at our peril.
In current times, all industrialized nations, including China, are seeing their birth rates fall below replacement level. This is going to eventually show up in a number of factors: unsustainable pension and health care costs, declining real estate prices, increasing labor costs and inflation, reduced cultural relevance, etc.
In the long run, whichever advanced economy opens up to immigration, when the others are against it, is going to win. What "win" means depends on the country: economically thrive, dominate militarily, whatever. There will be a cost to this: immigration changes culture. It seems that what underlies most resistance to immigration is a fear of this change in culture, however it is packaged.
As a personal note: I invest in individual stocks. Successfully. Part of doing that is understanding you need to bet against the crowd at times; usually, when the crowd is loudest. The "move rightward" of so many societies, not just the US and Europe, but China, too, is quite a crowd, all yelling similar things.
-
While I think that keeping birthright citizenship is the sensible/logical thing to do . . . I also support ending it. But I only support ending it if it is FULLY retroactive. So every person in America who can't trace their ancestry to native people loses citizenship.
Fair is fair, right?
In addition, this has been settled law for over 150 years. It would be tragic if the current SCOTUS decides to wave their hands and change this.
This supreme court has shown itself to be completely uninterested in legal precedent and happy to radically reinterpret long settled law to meet conservative political agenda. So tragic yes, expected . . . also yes.
-
I love Google searches!
Additional Protections Mandated by the 14th Amendment:
1. It guarantees equal protection under the law for all citizens. ---> Tell that to the current felon president who has used legal [i.e. financial] means to delay, obfuscate, and eventually avoid consequences for most of his (proven) illegal actions.
2. The 14th Amendment prohibited states from denying citizens the right to vote. ---> The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed a couple generations ago to actually put this right into practice.... and then was severely watered down by the SCOTUS in the 2010's (citation>), allowing states to "self regulate" again.
3. It also banned public officials who participated in insurrection or rebellion from holding office. ---> The inauguration just happened, eh?
-
In current times, all industrialized nations, including China, are seeing their birth rates fall below replacement level. This is going to eventually show up in a number of factors: unsustainable pension and health care costs, declining real estate prices, increasing labor costs and inflation, reduced cultural relevance, etc.
In the long run, whichever advanced economy opens up to immigration, when the others are against it, is going to win. What "win" means depends on the country: economically thrive, dominate militarily, whatever.
Some comments:
1. China has one of the most restrictive immigration policies in the world while it is also probably stuck in the middle income trap (too few HS grads). There heads are way up there on this issue.
2. So far, we’ve relied on people to increase productivity and handle the problems you describe with declining birth rates. We don’t know how AI and Robotics will change this but chances are good they will help.
3. A subset of those who are generally anti-immigration in the US favor allowing those with the most important skills and education to come on H-1Bs. It’s not an all-or-nothing objection to immigration in their eyes. They say our attractive position allows us to be selective.
-
Birthright citizenship should only be when one parent is a citizen. It shouldn't matter where on the globe you are born. It should be who you are born from.
-
It seems to me like your summary is conflating two issues:
1. Whether we want to have birthright citizenship
2. Whether the constitution guarantees birthright citizenship
Personally, I'm undecided on the first question - there are valid arguments on both sides. But I am 100% opposed to president's trying to override the constitution by executive order.
I'm alarmed that an XO is being used. I'm fearful it will be made retro-active and millions of my neighbors will lose their rights (and I will have a harder time getting decent tacos.) But I don't know that I'm opposed. What other mechanism exists to force the hand of the SCOTUS to do its job to make a final clarifying decision on what the words literally mean in a modern legal context?
But why is a "final clarifying decision" needed, when the case law is already clear? If Trump wants to get rid of birthright citizenship, he can pursue a constitutional amendment (which he obviously knows wouldn't pass).
I see this more as a loyalty test for the conservative members of the SC than as a legitimately unsettled issue.
-
I do not like this at all. It's especially ominous when combined with talk of extending the death penalty to more crimes if they are committed by "non-citizens". It's a slippery slope into apartheid or worse. Leave the 14th alone.
-
Birthright citizenship should only be when one parent is a citizen. It shouldn't matter where on the globe you are born. It should be who you are born from.
Why?
-
With the proliferation of new subjects maybe we need a new section of the forum dedicated to the Orange Man.
-
The Center for Immigration Studies estimates (2017) that 33000 babies are born in the USA as products of "birth tourism."
In 2023, 3591328 babies were born in the US. So we are talking about 0.918% of new births. Fine, round it up to 1.0%.
From 2018 statistics, about 6% of births in the US are from illegal immigrants. Yes, birth tourism is a smaller part, which just happened to be a detail I focused on.
edited to add--- If 7% of all US births would be affected, I think its a big enough issue to address. That's a lot of people- 300,000 each year.
-
I do not like this at all. It's especially ominous when combined with talk of extending the death penalty to more crimes if they are committed by "non-citizens". It's a slippery slope into apartheid or worse. Leave the 14th alone.
The topic at hand is about getting the US to be more in line with most other developed countries' policies. It is does not have to be anti-immigrant, though I am afraid that is the main motivation for those pushing for it. It should be commonsense legislation, much like universal healthcare, which nearly all developed countries participate in.
-
The beauty of the current situation is its simplicity: born here=citizen.
Trump and his cronies want to introduce chaos. Out of chaos they want to pick and choose citizens.
It's all so ironic since this question is being "settled" BY IMMIGRANTS.
I love to point out the hypocrisy to my Trump loving MIL. Her response: "We won it fair and square". Laughable.
-
Birthright citizenship should only be when one parent is a citizen. It shouldn't matter where on the globe you are born. It should be who you are born from.
I guess all of us with two citizen parents are screwed.
-
Birthright citizenship should only be when one parent is a citizen. It shouldn't matter where on the globe you are born. It should be who you are born from.
I guess all of us with two citizen parents are screwed.
This could get very silly after a few generations with some people being a citizen of 16 countries
-
While I think that keeping birthright citizenship is the sensible/logical thing to do . . . I also support ending it. But I only support ending it if it is FULLY retroactive. So every person in America who can't trace their ancestry to native people loses citizenship.
Fair is fair, right?
Since you're Canadian, and Canada also has birthright citizenship, I'm curious how other people feel in your country. Birth tourism is an industry in Canada as well. One of my wife's labmate's spouse had their baby specifically in Canada for this purpose. Has discussion about this topic come up? If yes, is it only because of Trump?
-
While I think that keeping birthright citizenship is the sensible/logical thing to do . . . I also support ending it. But I only support ending it if it is FULLY retroactive. So every person in America who can't trace their ancestry to native people loses citizenship.
Fair is fair, right?
Since you're Canadian, and Canada also has birthright citizenship, I'm curious how other people feel in your country. Birth tourism is an industry in Canada as well. One of my wife's labmate's spouse had their baby specifically in Canada for this purpose. Has discussion about this topic come up? If yes, is it only because of Trump?
While I'm sure it's discussed somewhere, I don't think I've ever heard anyone mention it to be honest. Now that Trump has brought it up though, it's likely to make it's way into our Conservative driven conversations . . . they seem to go for all the Trump stuff but just a few years later.
-
While I think that keeping birthright citizenship is the sensible/logical thing to do . . . I also support ending it. But I only support ending it if it is FULLY retroactive. So every person in America who can't trace their ancestry to native people loses citizenship.
Fair is fair, right?
Since you're Canadian, and Canada also has birthright citizenship, I'm curious how other people feel in your country. Birth tourism is an industry in Canada as well. One of my wife's labmate's spouse had their baby specifically in Canada for this purpose. Has discussion about this topic come up? If yes, is it only because of Trump?
While I'm sure it's discussed somewhere, I don't think I've ever heard anyone mention it to be honest. Now that Trump has brought it up though, it's likely to make it's way into our Conservative driven conversations . . . they seem to go for all the Trump stuff but just a few years later.
TBF a lot of ours are just Brazil's from five years ago.
-
While I think that keeping birthright citizenship is the sensible/logical thing to do . . . I also support ending it. But I only support ending it if it is FULLY retroactive. So every person in America who can't trace their ancestry to native people loses citizenship.
Fair is fair, right?
Since you're Canadian, and Canada also has birthright citizenship, I'm curious how other people feel in your country. Birth tourism is an industry in Canada as well. One of my wife's labmate's spouse had their baby specifically in Canada for this purpose. Has discussion about this topic come up? If yes, is it only because of Trump?
It's come up, but mostly just in the fever swamps of racist echo chambers. So yes, echoing the stupidest of topics across the border.
My read on the citizenship stuff in the US is that it is quite obviously thinly veiled racist dog whistling. They aren't getting upset about Scottish or German immigrants, they are quite specifically worried about Latin, African and Asian immigrants.
Among other things, what about people who are on the Green Card track for citizenship - what if they have kids? Are those kids forbidden from working until they can become adults and apply for their own Green Cards? What a needlessly complicated mess the racists are making for you all.
-
While I think that keeping birthright citizenship is the sensible/logical thing to do . . . I also support ending it. But I only support ending it if it is FULLY retroactive. So every person in America who can't trace their ancestry to native people loses citizenship.
Fair is fair, right?
Since you're Canadian, and Canada also has birthright citizenship, I'm curious how other people feel in your country. Birth tourism is an industry in Canada as well. One of my wife's labmate's spouse had their baby specifically in Canada for this purpose. Has discussion about this topic come up? If yes, is it only because of Trump?
It's come up, but mostly just in the fever swamps of racist echo chambers. So yes, echoing the stupidest of topics across the border.
My read on the citizenship stuff in the US is that it is quite obviously thinly veiled racist dog whistling. They aren't getting upset about Scottish or German immigrants, they are quite specifically worried about Latin, African and Asian immigrants.
Among other things, what about people who are on the Green Card track for citizenship - what if they have kids? Are those kids forbidden from working until they can become adults and apply for their own Green Cards? What a needlessly complicated mess the racists are making for you all.
It would be nice to separate the racism from actual policy. I'm completely against Trump and this possible implementation, but have always felt birthright citizenship should be changed in US law. It's really only the Americas that have birthright citizenship. Not Europe, not Asia, not Africa. Are they all racist/xenophobic?
Changing this aspect of citizenship law doesn't mean people can't become citizens. It also means we can have legal immigration. We can look to nearly any other country for guidance as to how they handle the path to citizenship. This is mainly a controversial topic because of the person proposing it and what the downstream affects will likely be because of this administration.
Is it possible to have an actual conversation here about the pros/cons of birthright citizenship?
-
Cons:
Inefficient, requiring new paperwork and enforcement
Encourages sexual coercion
Discriminatory and unAmerican
Discourages immigration and thereby hurts USA economy
-
In real estate, you are subject to the jurisdiction of a place if the land you are standing on is part of it. Are you standing on land in town? You're inside the jurisdiction of the town. Police operate the same way. Municipal police, county police, state police all know the exact end of their jurisdiction. It seems stupidly simple to me. Are you standing on land that is part of the US? Then you are subject to our jurisdiction. The 14th amendment therefore says those born here are citizens.
Claiming I can be somewhere while not subject to their jurisdiction creates a black hole of legal problems. I can then argue that jurisdiction no longer applies by simply being there. Those town laws don't apply to me because SCOTUS has ruled that jurisdiction has nothing to do with where I'm standing.
-
The 14th amendment therefore says those born here are citizens.
Conservative re-interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has shown that it doesn't matter what the constitution says. If they don't like it, they just keep re-interpreting until it works for them.
-
The constitution seems quite clear to me and trying to override it with an XO is scary and I hope it fails.
That said, I wouldn't be entirely opposed to a new amendment that changed this policy, although I recognize that those most enthusiastic about that change would be coming from a place of racism and xenophobia.
I'm also not sure that having fewer Americans would be a good thing, given our population numbers. We'd need to drastically increase the numbers (and speed the process) of people we allow to become citizens if we closed off this tap, if we changed birthright citizenship.
-
Whether you love her, hate her, or don't care either way, it seems that Hilary Clinton was right on target when she predicted what he would do during their debates back in the day. What a short memory we have!
-
The Constitutional right to birthright citizenship is very much settled law. I hate that this doesn't seem to matter anymore.
My personal opinion on the issue has long been that traveling to a place of one's choosing, seeking employment in that place, and staying there as long as your resources permit should be generally recognized as basic rights. I tend to support policies that move us in that general direction and I tend to oppose policies that make migration more difficult.
Now, that doesn't necessarily mean I think "birthright citizenship" is the ideal policy. If someone spent the first year of their life here but then spent the next 30 years elsewhere, I don't see a strong justification for treating them much differently than their younger sibling who spent the full first 31 years of their life in another country. Ideally both people would have a straightforward path to immigrate if they want, and would have the opportunity to gain citizenship after several years of residing in the country.
I do think that a child should generally be allowed to live wherever their parents are living, and that if someone spends most/all of their childhood in a place they should generally be allowed to remain there indefinitely. The executive order doesn't necessarily seem to respect those principles. Right now the child of two H1-B holders becomes a US citizen at birth and is allowed to remain in the US with their parents on that basis. In a month...who knows? Will the parents need to apply for a special visa for their newborn? Can that visa application be denied even if the parents are otherwise here in good standing? What's the fee involved? If the child remains in the US until adulthood while their parents are legal workers but the parents never become citizens, can the kid stick around after they graduate, or will they need to "go back" to a country where they've never lived? A lot that's unclear about it, and this lack of clarity is sure to discourage even legal immigration.
-
I mean, if you're agonizing all the time about the "crisis" of falling birth rates, you should in theory be all for birthright citizenship since we get more babies in our population. I'd rather get more babies that way with willing participants than by forcing women to have babies by eliminating their/our choices. I suppose I can see some arguments for either side, but I tend to view immigration as a net win, I'm not big on completely ignoring precedent, and as someone upthread pointed out, abuses of this through birth tourism are a pretty small percentage of overall births so idk if it's worth the cost and effort to try to get rid of this.
-
Cons:
Inefficient, requiring new paperwork and enforcement
Encourages sexual coercion
Discriminatory and unAmerican
Discourages immigration and thereby hurts USA economy
It's not particularly complicated, and might be the same amount of paperwork as my tax return. This isn't setting new precedent, as it's the norm in most of the world.
I think there's already a market (mail order brides, 90 day fiancé, etc) for sexual coercion to gain entry into the US. However, that benefits the person doing the coercion. I'm getting stuck thinking through how one's possible future offspring not automatically being a US citizen will encourage sexual coercion. Do you have an example to illustrate what you mean?
Discriminatory and anti-American? I imagine you think that because it's been law for 150 years in this country. There are plenty of other old laws I'm sure you're glad were repealed. If we never had birthright citizenship, I think the general mindset of Americans would be more congratulatory towards those that earn citizenship. Suppose it followed my proposal below. When a child turns 18, they'd be legal adults as well as citizens of the US. How patriotic! They've shown their devotion to the USA by sticking around until adulthood and likely will continue their lives here. What I see as anti-American is to reject refugees, asylum seekers, and hard working immigrants from this country. We should accept these people and let them become citizens in a reasonable amount of time.
I don't think birthright citizenship is a main issue for people's decision whether to immigrate here. For birth tourism, that's not a factor at all, and most people would agree they shouldn't be US citizens. In the case of illegal immigrants having kids as quickly as possible to secure themselves in the US, there are more effective ways to deal with the root problem, and I think its more prudent to focus on that. This country should allow for easier immigration, such as more visas and green cards, more timely processing, etc. Ideally, children born of foreign parents would receive something like a US green card upon birth.
I'm going to quote myself here. A rational US congress could pass the following (ways to become a US citizen) if they wanted to eliminate birthright citizenship with immigration reform. I'm sure it would get bipartisan support.
1) either being born to a parent that is already a US citizen,
2) automatically becoming a citizen at age 18 after living in the US your entire life, or
3) gaining citizenship through the green card pathway. I also believe more green cards should be available and citizenship should be easier to attain. Same with refugees and asylum seekers.
-
I mean, if you're agonizing all the time about the "crisis" of falling birth rates, you should in theory be all for birthright citizenship since we get more babies in our population. I'd rather get more babies that way with willing participants than by forcing women to have babies by eliminating their/our choices. I suppose I can see some arguments for either side, but I tend to view immigration as a net win, I'm not big on completely ignoring precedent, and as someone upthread pointed out, abuses of this through birth tourism are a pretty small percentage of overall births so idk if it's worth the cost and effort to try to get rid of this.
I would love to keep the birth rate discussion in another thread where it belongs. Eliminating birthright citizenship doesn't have to mean immigration would decrease. There's some sort of conflation problem going on with your statements.
-
Cons:
Inefficient, requiring new paperwork and enforcement
Encourages sexual coercion
Discriminatory and unAmerican
Discourages immigration and thereby hurts USA economy
It's not particularly complicated, and might be the same amount of paperwork as my tax return. This isn't setting new precedent, as it's the norm in most of the world.
I think there's already a market (mail order brides, 90 day fiancé, etc) for sexual coercion to gain entry into the US. However, that benefits the person doing the coercion. I'm getting stuck thinking through how one's possible future offspring not automatically being a US citizen will encourage sexual coercion. Do you have an example to illustrate what you mean?
Discriminatory and anti-American? I imagine you think that because it's been law for 150 years in this country. There are plenty of other old laws I'm sure you're glad were repealed. If we never had birthright citizenship, I think the general mindset of Americans would be more congratulatory towards those that earn citizenship. Suppose it followed my proposal below. When a child turns 18, they'd be legal adults as well as citizens of the US. How patriotic! They've shown their devotion to the USA by sticking around until adulthood and likely will continue their lives here. What I see as anti-American is to reject refugees, asylum seekers, and hard working immigrants from this country. We should accept these people and let them become citizens in a reasonable amount of time.
I don't think birthright citizenship is a main issue for people's decision whether to immigrate here. For birth tourism, that's not a factor at all, and most people would agree they shouldn't be US citizens. In the case of illegal immigrants having kids as quickly as possible to secure themselves in the US, there are more effective ways to deal with the root problem, and I think its more prudent to focus on that. This country should allow for easier immigration, such as more visas and green cards, more timely processing, etc. Ideally, children born of foreign parents would receive something like a US green card upon birth.
I'm going to quote myself here. A rational US congress could pass the following (ways to become a US citizen) if they wanted to eliminate birthright citizenship with immigration reform. I'm sure it would get bipartisan support.
1) either being born to a parent that is already a US citizen,
2) automatically becoming a citizen at age 18 after living in the US your entire life, or
3) gaining citizenship through the green card pathway. I also believe more green cards should be available and citizenship should be easier to attain. Same with refugees and asylum seekers.
Except Congress can't make an unconstitutional policy, which this currently would be. We need an amendment to change an amendment and given how divided is our nation, that chances of that happening anytime soon are pretty much nil.
-
Congress can't make an unconstitutional policy, which this currently would be. We need an amendment to change an amendment and given how divided is our nation, that chances of that happening anytime soon are pretty much nil.
Not true at all.
It only requires a reinterpretation of the constitution by the Supreme Court. Remember before the '90s when everyone who was remotely reasonable read the 2nd amendment and saw that it clearly stated that owning a firearm was inextricably linked to the need to be able to form a militia? Changing the interpretation of that rule to ignore all that inconvenient stuff about militias completely changed the meaning of the amendment to it's current form of 'GUNS FOR ALL, ALL THE TIME'. No need for an amendment - so it's certainly not a matter of changing the constitution. We know that Trump's Supreme Court will bow to whatever he wants to pass . . . so the question is only 'How will they completely change the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to get what they want?'.
My guess - The 14th amendment has always had a war exception for the children of invaders born on US soil. In Texas, Greg Abbott has put forward the argument that his state is under invasion by illegal immigrants, and therefore at war with them. That would allow denial of citizenship to all children of illegal immigrants and seems like a slam dunk and easy to push reinterpretation given the current makeup of the SC.
No need to change an amendment when you can just do a complete end run around it. Very neat.
-
Cons:
Inefficient, requiring new paperwork and enforcement
Encourages sexual coercion
Discriminatory and unAmerican
Discourages immigration and thereby hurts USA economy
It's not particularly complicated, and might be the same amount of paperwork as my tax return. This isn't setting new precedent, as it's the norm in most of the world.
I think there's already a market (mail order brides, 90 day fiancé, etc) for sexual coercion to gain entry into the US. However, that benefits the person doing the coercion. I'm getting stuck thinking through how one's possible future offspring not automatically being a US citizen will encourage sexual coercion. Do you have an example to illustrate what you mean?
Discriminatory and anti-American? I imagine you think that because it's been law for 150 years in this country. There are plenty of other old laws I'm sure you're glad were repealed. If we never had birthright citizenship, I think the general mindset of Americans would be more congratulatory towards those that earn citizenship. Suppose it followed my proposal below. When a child turns 18, they'd be legal adults as well as citizens of the US. How patriotic! They've shown their devotion to the USA by sticking around until adulthood and likely will continue their lives here. What I see as anti-American is to reject refugees, asylum seekers, and hard working immigrants from this country. We should accept these people and let them become citizens in a reasonable amount of time.
I don't think birthright citizenship is a main issue for people's decision whether to immigrate here. For birth tourism, that's not a factor at all, and most people would agree they shouldn't be US citizens. In the case of illegal immigrants having kids as quickly as possible to secure themselves in the US, there are more effective ways to deal with the root problem, and I think its more prudent to focus on that. This country should allow for easier immigration, such as more visas and green cards, more timely processing, etc. Ideally, children born of foreign parents would receive something like a US green card upon birth.
I'm going to quote myself here. A rational US congress could pass the following (ways to become a US citizen) if they wanted to eliminate birthright citizenship with immigration reform. I'm sure it would get bipartisan support.
1) either being born to a parent that is already a US citizen,
2) automatically becoming a citizen at age 18 after living in the US your entire life, or
3) gaining citizenship through the green card pathway. I also believe more green cards should be available and citizenship should be easier to attain. Same with refugees and asylum seekers.
Except Congress can't make an unconstitutional policy, which this currently would be. We need an amendment to change an amendment and given how divided is our nation, that chances of that happening anytime soon are pretty much nil.
Certainly. I thought it was clear all this was just fantasy, except for Trump. I was just trying to discuss the theoretical of birthright citizenship without the reality of the current situation. I think this was the original intent of the thread.
-
Birth Tourism happens in other places besides the US and is also done by US citizens.
The host of one of the podcasts I listen to is a proponent of it and at least one of his kids was born elsewhere for this purpose. The idea is that having another country of citizenship gives you more options.
Personally, I would have liked my kid to have had the chance to have a second citizenship.
-
Birth Tourism happens in other places besides the US and is also done by US citizens.
The host of one of the podcasts I listen to is a proponent of it and at least one of his kids was born elsewhere for this purpose. The idea is that having another country of citizenship gives you more options.
Personally, I would have liked my kid to have had the chance to have a second citizenship.
Does the general population of those particular countries welcome it? There's an amount of elitism involved to have a lifestyle such that someone can afford international travel and vacation for a a few months.
-
Congress can't make an unconstitutional policy, which this currently would be. We need an amendment to change an amendment and given how divided is our nation, that chances of that happening anytime soon are pretty much nil.
Not true at all.
It only requires a reinterpretation of the constitution by the Supreme Court. Remember before the '90s when everyone who was remotely reasonable read the 2nd amendment and saw that it clearly stated that owning a firearm was inextricably linked to the need to be able to form a militia? Changing the interpretation of that rule to ignore all that inconvenient stuff about militias completely changed the meaning of the amendment to it's current form of 'GUNS FOR ALL, ALL THE TIME'. No need for an amendment - so it's certainly not a matter of changing the constitution. We know that Trump's Supreme Court will bow to whatever he wants to pass . . . so the question is only 'How will they completely change the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to get what they want?'.
My guess - The 14th amendment has always had a war exception for the children of invaders born on US soil. In Texas, Greg Abbott has put forward the argument that his state is under invasion by illegal immigrants, and therefore at war with them. That would allow denial of citizenship to all children of illegal immigrants and seems like a slam dunk and easy to push reinterpretation given the current makeup of the SC.
No need to change an amendment when you can just do a complete end run around it. Very neat.
It's certainly true that Congress can't make an unconstitutional amendment. Sure, SCOTUS could get wonky with deciding what is unconstitutional even in the face of pretty clear wording and established precedent--it wouldn't be the first time--but I'm talking about how things should work when our democracy is functioning properly.
-
Birth Tourism happens in other places besides the US and is also done by US citizens.
The host of one of the podcasts I listen to is a proponent of it and at least one of his kids was born elsewhere for this purpose. The idea is that having another country of citizenship gives you more options.
Personally, I would have liked my kid to have had the chance to have a second citizenship.
Does the general population of those particular countries welcome it? There's an amount of elitism involved to have a lifestyle such that someone can afford international travel and vacation for a a few months.
I dont know how the general population feels about it in the various countries that allow it. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
My point is that the US isn't/wasn't the only country that allows citizenship by birth. Most of the western hemisphere does so and a few countries in the eastern hemisphere. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
Yes, having enough wealth to go to another country long enough to have a birth then just fly home isn't common I would guess as just remaining there. So I would hazard a guess that most citizenship by birth means the families/mother are still in the country (as immigrants legal or otherwise) where the child was born.
-
Congress can't make an unconstitutional policy, which this currently would be. We need an amendment to change an amendment and given how divided is our nation, that chances of that happening anytime soon are pretty much nil.
Not true at all.
It only requires a reinterpretation of the constitution by the Supreme Court. Remember before the '90s when everyone who was remotely reasonable read the 2nd amendment and saw that it clearly stated that owning a firearm was inextricably linked to the need to be able to form a militia? Changing the interpretation of that rule to ignore all that inconvenient stuff about militias completely changed the meaning of the amendment to it's current form of 'GUNS FOR ALL, ALL THE TIME'. No need for an amendment - so it's certainly not a matter of changing the constitution. We know that Trump's Supreme Court will bow to whatever he wants to pass . . . so the question is only 'How will they completely change the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to get what they want?'.
My guess - The 14th amendment has always had a war exception for the children of invaders born on US soil. In Texas, Greg Abbott has put forward the argument that his state is under invasion by illegal immigrants, and therefore at war with them. That would allow denial of citizenship to all children of illegal immigrants and seems like a slam dunk and easy to push reinterpretation given the current makeup of the SC.
No need to change an amendment when you can just do a complete end run around it. Very neat.
It's certainly true that Congress can't make an unconstitutional amendment. Sure, SCOTUS could get wonky with deciding what is unconstitutional even in the face of pretty clear wording and established precedent--it wouldn't be the first time--but I'm talking about how things should work when our democracy is functioning properly.
I don't buy it at all. People like to think of the constitution as being set in stone and decreeing The Way That Things Shall Be . . . but interpretation of it changes all the time, and all the folks in charge of that interpretation have indicated that they're incredibly partisan right now. It's not safe to assume that US democracy is functioning properly any more.
-
Technical point of confusion—
There is a legal argument that a clause in a law needs to have meaning and that if your interpretation of the law is identical with or without the clause, you're not interpreting it correctly. I think it’s called "the doctrine of superfluity" or the "doctrine of surplusage."
In other words:
1. Every clause within a law is presumed to have a specific purpose and effect.
2. Legislators typically do not include unnecessary or redundant language.
3. Courts strive to interpret laws in a way that gives meaning and effect to every clause. If a particular clause appears to have no impact on the overall outcome under a specific interpretation, that interpretation may be considered flawed.
The 14th Amendment states in part that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
What is the meaning of the clause in bold above, and why is it additive (“and subject to…) the subject clause “all persons born or naturalized in the US”?
-
From 2018 statistics, about 6% of births in the US are from illegal immigrants. Yes, birth tourism is a smaller part, which just happened to be a detail I focused on.
edited to add--- If 7% of all US births would be affected, I think its a big enough issue to address. That's a lot of people- 300,000 each year.
In my view, the real question should be "is this a problem?" For all the rhetoric I haven't heard much evidence this causes any real issues.
Since no one is talking about the problems (if any) it is safe to conclude they just don't people with brown skin.
-
What is the meaning of the clause in bold above, and why is it additive (“and subject to…) the subject clause “all persons born or naturalized in the US”?
The purpose is to exclude children born to foreign diplomats who have diplomatic immunity and therefore are not subject to the laws of the United States.
-
What is the meaning of the clause in bold above, and why is it additive (“and subject to…) the subject clause “all persons born or naturalized in the US”?
The purpose is to exclude children born to foreign diplomats who have diplomatic immunity and therefore are not subject to the laws of the United States.
Yes, I think you’re right…and others have included enemy combatants and, at the time of its passage, American Indians.
If a court WERE looking to use this clause however to exclude of the products of birth tourism, it might conclude that the child’s allegiance is not necessarily to the US, using similar logic it originally did for the Indians, who had stronger tribal ties. In those days—from what I can tell—Indians COULD be convicted and sentenced for crime that involved a non-Indian victim or took place outside tribal territory. So there does seem to be a relationship here that could be used by a court looking to do so.
While your answer is correct, it may not be sufficient.
-
What is the meaning of the clause in bold above, and why is it additive (“and subject to…) the subject clause “all persons born or naturalized in the US”?
The purpose is to exclude children born to foreign diplomats who have diplomatic immunity and therefore are not subject to the laws of the United States.
Yes, I think you’re right…and others have included enemy combatants and, at the time of its passage, American Indians.
If a court WERE looking to use this clause however to exclude of the products of birth tourism, it might conclude that the child’s allegiance is not necessarily to the US, using similar logic it originally did for the Indians, who had stronger tribal ties. In those days—from what I can tell—Indians COULD be convicted and sentenced for crime that involved a non-Indian victim or took place outside tribal territory. So there does seem to be a relationship here that could be used by a court looking to do so.
While your answer is correct, it may not be sufficient.
Not according to legal precedent:
In a majority opinion delivered by Justice Gray, the Court first noted that there is no statutory definition of a citizen, except the inclusionary clause in the Fourteenth Amendment stating that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. The Court therefore relied on common law to interpret this and other clauses concerning citizenship. The main principle that the Court chose to draw was from Calvin’s Case , a 17th century English common law case that held a person born within the territory of a King owes him allegiance, and is therefore the King’s subject. The Court then referenced a series of commentaries and cases in both English and U.S. common law that showed subsequent decisions since Calvin’s Case have been consistent with this principle. Persons born within the United States have always been in general assumed to be British subjects, and later U.S. citizens. In particular, this treatment was applied equally to those born to non-citizen parents, except in cases where a child was born in territory occupied by a foreign invasion or where the parents are foreign diplomats or officials.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/united_states_v._wong_kim_ark (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/united_states_v._wong_kim_ark)
But this current SC doesn't give a flying fuck about legal precedent, so it's all kinda up in the air.
-
What is the meaning of the clause in bold above, and why is it additive (“and subject to…) the subject clause “all persons born or naturalized in the US”?
The purpose is to exclude children born to foreign diplomats who have diplomatic immunity and therefore are not subject to the laws of the United States.
Diplomats, yes, and also any other group of people who would not reasonably expect the US government to apply penalties for lawbreaking. The authority to enact justice is literally the meaning of the word "jurisdiction."
In addition to families of diplomats, people not under US jurisdiction includes invading armies (though it would certainly be unusual for soldiers to bring their pregnant wives along to have a baby during the invasion). It also historically included members of native tribes, as tribes have their own courts with jurisdiction over their members. Congress passed a law a century ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) to give indigenous people birthright citizenship anyway, but they went 50 years after the passage of the 14th Amendment without that right. I suppose one could easily argue kids born on reservations are still not covered by the 14th Amendment at all and Congress could repeal that law any time.
-
Well, there we go. Looks like this malarkey was (at least temporarily) slapped down by a Reagan-appointed federal judge:
“Frankly, I have difficulty understanding how a member of the Bar could state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order,” the judge said of Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order.
“It just boggles my mind.”
https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-blocked-b2685329.html
-
Is this going to be retroactive? My people have only been here 4-5 generations.
Will I be put on a reservation or just put on a plane for Scandinavia (99.2% white northern European, aka Viking, lol)?
-
I actually think that some form of ending birthright citizenship is something that could work across the political spectrum. However, instead of building consensus and doing the hard work to get something like that done, Trump is doing it in the laziest dumbest way possible by issuing a blatently unconstitutional EO and then probably blaming woke judges for stopping it.
-
Congress can't make an unconstitutional policy, which this currently would be. We need an amendment to change an amendment and given how divided is our nation, that chances of that happening anytime soon are pretty much nil.
Not true at all.
It only requires a reinterpretation of the constitution by the Supreme Court. Remember before the '90s when everyone who was remotely reasonable read the 2nd amendment and saw that it clearly stated that owning a firearm was inextricably linked to the need to be able to form a militia? Changing the interpretation of that rule to ignore all that inconvenient stuff about militias completely changed the meaning of the amendment to it's current form of 'GUNS FOR ALL, ALL THE TIME'. No need for an amendment - so it's certainly not a matter of changing the constitution. We know that Trump's Supreme Court will bow to whatever he wants to pass . . . so the question is only 'How will they completely change the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to get what they want?'.
My guess - The 14th amendment has always had a war exception for the children of invaders born on US soil. In Texas, Greg Abbott has put forward the argument that his state is under invasion by illegal immigrants, and therefore at war with them. That would allow denial of citizenship to all children of illegal immigrants and seems like a slam dunk and easy to push reinterpretation given the current makeup of the SC.
No need to change an amendment when you can just do a complete end run around it. Very neat.
It's certainly true that Congress can't make an unconstitutional amendment. Sure, SCOTUS could get wonky with deciding what is unconstitutional even in the face of pretty clear wording and established precedent--it wouldn't be the first time--but I'm talking about how things should work when our democracy is functioning properly.
I don't buy it at all. People like to think of the constitution as being set in stone and decreeing The Way That Things Shall Be . . . but interpretation of it changes all the time, and all the folks in charge of that interpretation have indicated that they're incredibly partisan right now. It's not safe to assume that US democracy is functioning properly any more.
I agree, which is why I included that qualifier specifically. I guess that wasn't clear.
-
If a court WERE looking to use this clause however to exclude of the products of birth tourism, it might conclude that the child’s allegiance is not necessarily to the US, using similar logic it originally did for the Indians, who had stronger tribal ties. In those days—from what I can tell—Indians COULD be convicted and sentenced for crime that involved a non-Indian victim or took place outside tribal territory. So there does seem to be a relationship here that could be used by a court looking to do so.
While your answer is correct, it may not be sufficient.
It is sufficient. These questions were asked and answered a long, long time ago.
-
Is this going to be retroactive? My people have only been here 4-5 generations.
Will I be put on a reservation or just put on a plane for Scandinavia (99.2% white northern European, aka Viking, lol)?
Damn - what will happen to my family? We are from all over? With they divide us up and send one of us to each of our origin countries or ???
-
The 14th Amendment states in part that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
What is the meaning of the clause in bold above, and why is it additive (“and subject to…) the subject clause “all persons born or naturalized in the US”?
The purpose is to exclude children born to foreign diplomats who have diplomatic immunity and therefore are not subject to the laws of the United States.
Yes, I think you’re right…and others have included enemy combatants and, at the time of its passage, American Indians.
If a court WERE looking to use this clause however to exclude of the products of birth tourism, it might conclude that the child’s allegiance is not necessarily to the US, using similar logic it originally did for the Indians, who had stronger tribal ties. In those days—from what I can tell—Indians COULD be convicted and sentenced for crime that involved a non-Indian victim or took place outside tribal territory. So there does seem to be a relationship here that could be used by a court looking to do so.
While your answer is correct, it may not be sufficient.
Not according to legal precedent:
In a majority opinion delivered by Justice Gray, the Court first noted that there is no statutory definition of a citizen, except the inclusionary clause in the Fourteenth Amendment stating that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. The Court therefore relied on common law to interpret this and other clauses concerning citizenship. The main principle that the Court chose to draw was from Calvin’s Case , a 17th century English common law case that held a person born within the territory of a King owes him allegiance, and is therefore the King’s subject. The Court then referenced a series of commentaries and cases in both English and U.S. common law that showed subsequent decisions since Calvin’s Case have been consistent with this principle. Persons born within the United States have always been in general assumed to be British subjects, and later U.S. citizens. In particular, this treatment was applied equally to those born to non-citizen parents, except in cases where a child was born in territory occupied by a foreign invasion or where the parents are foreign diplomats or officials.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/united_states_v._wong_kim_ark (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/united_states_v._wong_kim_ark)
But this current SC doesn't give a flying fuck about legal precedent, so it's all kinda up in the air.
LOL, I’m gonna say given the current crop of Supremes and comparing the circumstances of the Americans Indians to infants born in England in the 1600s, anything can happen.
Gotta say tho—I’m both sympathetic and critical to the general birth tourism approach—people who come here BECAUSE of the law that today seems to present a loophole. Part of me—yeah my heart goes out. But another part really wants us to at least be a little more thoughtful about citizenship and less cavalier than granting it based on where the mother happens to be that day. What is so special about the fact you happened to be in the US when you were born that gives you the right to citizenship over someone who was born the day before she crossed the border? This is not a blood-and-soil kind of country…
-
I mean, if you're agonizing all the time about the "crisis" of falling birth rates, you should in theory be all for birthright citizenship since we get more babies in our population. I'd rather get more babies that way with willing participants than by forcing women to have babies by eliminating their/our choices. I suppose I can see some arguments for either side, but I tend to view immigration as a net win, I'm not big on completely ignoring precedent, and as someone upthread pointed out, abuses of this through birth tourism are a pretty small percentage of overall births so idk if it's worth the cost and effort to try to get rid of this.
I would love to keep the birth rate discussion in another thread where it belongs. Eliminating birthright citizenship doesn't have to mean immigration would decrease. There's some sort of conflation problem going on with your statements.
I don't see it as a conflation at all. Given the bent of being pro-business / pro-economy of the current administration, this policy will have an economic impact: in the short term, negatively affecting industries that rely on immigrant labor, as well as driving up inflation; and in the long term, reducing our population growth to balance an aging population.
You yourself said 6% of births are from illegal immigrants. This isn't "tourism," in a sense of short-term stays. But it is a goal of those immigrants to have children who are US citizens. The difference is a matter of duration, not intent. And a 6% decline in births would be a devastating drop.
-
I mean, if you're agonizing all the time about the "crisis" of falling birth rates, you should in theory be all for birthright citizenship since we get more babies in our population. I'd rather get more babies that way with willing participants than by forcing women to have babies by eliminating their/our choices. I suppose I can see some arguments for either side, but I tend to view immigration as a net win, I'm not big on completely ignoring precedent, and as someone upthread pointed out, abuses of this through birth tourism are a pretty small percentage of overall births so idk if it's worth the cost and effort to try to get rid of this.
I would love to keep the birth rate discussion in another thread where it belongs. Eliminating birthright citizenship doesn't have to mean immigration would decrease. There's some sort of conflation problem going on with your statements.
I don't see it as a conflation at all. Given the bent of being pro-business / pro-economy of the current administration, this policy will have an economic impact: in the short term, negatively affecting industries that rely on immigrant labor, as well as driving up inflation; and in the long term, reducing our population growth to balance an aging population.
You yourself said 6% of births are from illegal immigrants. This isn't "tourism," in a sense of short-term stays. But it is a goal of those immigrants to have children who are US citizens. The difference is a matter of duration, not intent. And a 6% decline in births would be a devastating drop.
Wouldn’t it be better for the economy if the US had specific criteria in terms of skill sets to help determine eligibility? I mean if the US published its criteria and invited anyone who met them to apply for citizenship I’m guessing we’d get the numbers we wanted. We could do this in a way that handled both short-term and longer-term needs.
-
I mean, if you're agonizing all the time about the "crisis" of falling birth rates, you should in theory be all for birthright citizenship since we get more babies in our population. I'd rather get more babies that way with willing participants than by forcing women to have babies by eliminating their/our choices. I suppose I can see some arguments for either side, but I tend to view immigration as a net win, I'm not big on completely ignoring precedent, and as someone upthread pointed out, abuses of this through birth tourism are a pretty small percentage of overall births so idk if it's worth the cost and effort to try to get rid of this.
I would love to keep the birth rate discussion in another thread where it belongs. Eliminating birthright citizenship doesn't have to mean immigration would decrease. There's some sort of conflation problem going on with your statements.
I don't see it as a conflation at all. Given the bent of being pro-business / pro-economy of the current administration, this policy will have an economic impact: in the short term, negatively affecting industries that rely on immigrant labor, as well as driving up inflation; and in the long term, reducing our population growth to balance an aging population.
You yourself said 6% of births are from illegal immigrants. This isn't "tourism," in a sense of short-term stays. But it is a goal of those immigrants to have children who are US citizens. The difference is a matter of duration, not intent. And a 6% decline in births would be a devastating drop.
Wouldn’t it be better for the economy if the US had specific criteria in terms of skill sets to help determine eligibility? I mean if the US published its criteria and invited anyone who met them to apply for citizenship I’m guessing we’d get the numbers we wanted. We could do this in a way that handled both short-term and longer-term needs.
This is ableist, although I know of some countries that do it. How would it even work for keeping families together? Say you have 2 kids and one is disabled. Would just the temporarily abled one get to stay? What if he's in an accident 2 years later and can no longer work? Would he be kicked back to your country of origin where he may not even speak the language or have any living relatives?
-
Wouldn’t it be better for the economy if the US had specific criteria in terms of skill sets to help determine eligibility? I mean if the US published its criteria and invited anyone who met them to apply for citizenship I’m guessing we’d get the numbers we wanted. We could do this in a way that handled both short-term and longer-term needs.
This is ableist, although I know of some countries that do it.
The US has been doing this since the 1950s. About a third of immigration visa are set aside for highly skilled/valuable workers.
-
I mean, if you're agonizing all the time about the "crisis" of falling birth rates, you should in theory be all for birthright citizenship since we get more babies in our population. I'd rather get more babies that way with willing participants than by forcing women to have babies by eliminating their/our choices. I suppose I can see some arguments for either side, but I tend to view immigration as a net win, I'm not big on completely ignoring precedent, and as someone upthread pointed out, abuses of this through birth tourism are a pretty small percentage of overall births so idk if it's worth the cost and effort to try to get rid of this.
I would love to keep the birth rate discussion in another thread where it belongs. Eliminating birthright citizenship doesn't have to mean immigration would decrease. There's some sort of conflation problem going on with your statements.
I don't see it as a conflation at all. Given the bent of being pro-business / pro-economy of the current administration, this policy will have an economic impact: in the short term, negatively affecting industries that rely on immigrant labor, as well as driving up inflation; and in the long term, reducing our population growth to balance an aging population.
You yourself said 6% of births are from illegal immigrants. This isn't "tourism," in a sense of short-term stays. But it is a goal of those immigrants to have children who are US citizens. The difference is a matter of duration, not intent. And a 6% decline in births would be a devastating drop.
Wouldn’t it be better for the economy if the US had specific criteria in terms of skill sets to help determine eligibility? I mean if the US published its criteria and invited anyone who met them to apply for citizenship I’m guessing we’d get the numbers we wanted. We could do this in a way that handled both short-term and longer-term needs.
How would you characterize the skills criteria for the largest categories of jobs immigrants fill? Ability to pick crops? Clean rooms? Process animals for meat? General construction labor? Mow the lawn?
These are entry-level jobs, and no prior training is expected, of anyone applying. We love PhD's, too, but the threat to the economy is no veg or meat in the grocery stores. Groceries was what won Trump the election, right?
-
I have birth right citizenship in the UK where I was born to non-UK citizens (one was American and one a naturalized German-American). So I have dual citizenship US and UK ...Maybe Germany too but not sure. The UK changed this in 1983 and now there must be at least one parent who is a citizen. However they left in place many backdoor loophole ways to become a citizen such as living in the UK until 10 years old, etc. So other nations did have this but have changed their stance over the years. Now my only concern is being deported back to that hellhole UK where everyone is eating horrible food and I cant speak the language ;-).
"Children born in the UK before January 1, 1983 were automatically granted British citizenship, regardless of their parents' nationalities. This is known as the British Nationality Act 1981."
-
I have birth right citizenship in the UK where I was born to non-UK citizens (one was American and one a naturalized German-American). So I have dual citizenship US and UK ...Maybe Germany too but not sure. The UK changed this in 1983 and now there must be at least one parent who is a citizen. However they left in place many backdoor loophole ways to become a citizen such as living in the UK until 10 years old, etc. So other nations did have this but have changed their stance over the years. Now my only concern is being deported back to that hellhole UK where everyone is eating horrible food and I cant speak the language ;-).
"Children born in the UK before January 1, 1983 were automatically granted British citizenship, regardless of their parents' nationalities. This is known as the British Nationality Act 1981."
Hey cool. I have the same but one UK parent and one US parent. I looked up the citizenship by descent rules snd it looks like I can claim it for my kids no matter where they are born (and may need to at some point) but my brother who was born in the US cannot unless they are born in the UK.
-
You yourself said 6% of births are from illegal immigrants. This isn't "tourism," in a sense of short-term stays. But it is a goal of those immigrants to have children who are US citizens. The difference is a matter of duration, not intent. And a 6% decline in births would be a devastating drop.
Birth tourism is roughly 1%, according to estimates of U.S. births vs birth tourism. That reduces the impact slightly, since those citizens don't stay in the U.S. (and likely many renounce citizenship later, when they learn they have to pay U.S. taxes regardless of where they live).
"CIS estimates that birth tourism results in 33,000 births to women on tourist visas annually. We estimate that hundreds of thousands more are born to mothers who are illegal aliens or present on temporary visas."
https://cis.org/CIS/Birth-Tourism-Facts-and-Recommendations
-
Wow, so now ICE is actually detaining Navajos! Where are they going to deport them to?? https://azmirror.com/2025/01/24/reports-of-navajo-people-being-detained-in-immigration-sweeps-sparks-concern-from-tribal-leaders/
For example, the Trump administration openly questioned the U.S. citizenship of Indigenous peoples as part of its defense of Trump’s executive order to suspend birthright citizenship in the U.S.
Trump signed the executive order shortly after he was sworn into office this week. It would end birthright citizenship for babies born to a mother and father who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.
A federal judge in Seattle on Thursday temporarily blocked the executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, calling Trump’s action “blatantly unconstitutional.”
In defending the constitutionality of the executive order, the U.S. Department of Justice erroneously argued in court that Indigenous people didn’t have birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment because they were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, so neither should the children of noncitizen immigrants.
“The United States’ connection with the children of illegal aliens and temporary visitors is weaker than its connection with members of Indian tribes,” DOJ argued in a filing. “If the latter link is insufficient for birthright citizenship, the former certainly is,” the Trump administration argued.”
The DOJ cited an 1884 U.S. Supreme Court case, Elk v. Wilkins, in which the high court decided that “because members of Indian tribes owe ‘immediate allegiance’ to their tribes, they are not ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States and are not constitutionally entitled to Citizenship.”
But the DOJ ignored congressional action, the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, that explicitly gave Indigenous people U.S. birthright citizenship and effectively ended the rejection of citizenship that the Supreme Court had upheld four decades earlier.
-
I have birth right citizenship in the UK where I was born to non-UK citizens (one was American and one a naturalized German-American). So I have dual citizenship US and UK ...Maybe Germany too but not sure. The UK changed this in 1983 and now there must be at least one parent who is a citizen. However they left in place many backdoor loophole ways to become a citizen such as living in the UK until 10 years old, etc. So other nations did have this but have changed their stance over the years. Now my only concern is being deported back to that hellhole UK where everyone is eating horrible food and I cant speak the language ;-).
"Children born in the UK before January 1, 1983 were automatically granted British citizenship, regardless of their parents' nationalities. This is known as the British Nationality Act 1981."
Hey cool. I have the same but one UK parent and one US parent. I looked up the citizenship by descent rules snd it looks like I can claim it for my kids no matter where they are born (and may need to at some point) but my brother who was born in the US cannot unless they are born in the UK.
I have a British and a US passport. You can check online or at a consulate and they'll give you all the info you need. I looked and found out I can't evoke German citizenship since my mom was a naturalized US citizen. I don't think it matters in any case but I do plan to hide my britich passport that says I was born in the UK when the jack booted Proud Boys show up to check "papers".
-
Birth Tourism happens in other places besides the US and is also done by US citizens.
The host of one of the podcasts I listen to is a proponent of it and at least one of his kids was born elsewhere for this purpose. The idea is that having another country of citizenship gives you more options.
Personally, I would have liked my kid to have had the chance to have a second citizenship.
Does the general population of those particular countries welcome it? There's an amount of elitism involved to have a lifestyle such that someone can afford international travel and vacation for a a few months.
I dont know how the general population feels about it in the various countries that allow it. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
My point is that the US isn't/wasn't the only country that allows citizenship by birth. Most of the western hemisphere does so and a few countries in the eastern hemisphere. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
Yes, having enough wealth to go to another country long enough to have a birth then just fly home isn't common I would guess as just remaining there. So I would hazard a guess that most citizenship by birth means the families/mother are still in the country (as immigrants legal or otherwise) where the child was born.
I've mentioned a couple of times in this thread already that it is mostly the countries of the Americas with birthright citizenship. That makes 33 out of 193 in the world--- only 17%. We're very much in the minority. I don't know when everyone else decided on it, but I would guess it was at a time when international travel was not so common as now. I feel the law is outdated. If these countries were to have to make the decision again, whether to give citizenship by birth, I think it's most likely they would not. The quote below sums up my feelings pretty well.
...another part really wants us to at least be a little more thoughtful about citizenship and less cavalier than granting it based on where the mother happens to be that day.
I mean, if you're agonizing all the time about the "crisis" of falling birth rates, you should in theory be all for birthright citizenship since we get more babies in our population. I'd rather get more babies that way with willing participants than by forcing women to have babies by eliminating their/our choices. I suppose I can see some arguments for either side, but I tend to view immigration as a net win, I'm not big on completely ignoring precedent, and as someone upthread pointed out, abuses of this through birth tourism are a pretty small percentage of overall births so idk if it's worth the cost and effort to try to get rid of this.
I would love to keep the birth rate discussion in another thread where it belongs. Eliminating birthright citizenship doesn't have to mean immigration would decrease. There's some sort of conflation problem going on with your statements.
I don't see it as a conflation at all. Given the bent of being pro-business / pro-economy of the current administration, this policy will have an economic impact: in the short term, negatively affecting industries that rely on immigrant labor, as well as driving up inflation; and in the long term, reducing our population growth to balance an aging population.
You yourself said 6% of births are from illegal immigrants. This isn't "tourism," in a sense of short-term stays. But it is a goal of those immigrants to have children who are US citizens. The difference is a matter of duration, not intent. And a 6% decline in births would be a devastating drop.
I've really been trying to separate the Trump administration's views from myself. I am in no way supporting any of his policies. I only think birthright citizenship is an issue that should be changed, by congress, at a time in the future (I realize this is just a fantasy) when lawmakers can speak rationally with each other. I believe it can feasibly be part of a broader immigration reform. This reform would include a path to citizenship, many more visas and green cards, refugees, and asylum seekers. In my fantasy world, the number of immigrants to this country would be greater than they are now and they would happily have kids here, knowing they don't have to fear deportation. Even though their kids wouldn't be citizens, they would have some other legal status--- a green card or visa, until such time as they can apply for citizenship.
-
I've mentioned a couple of times in this thread already that it is mostly the countries of the Americas with birthright citizenship. That makes 33 out of 193 in the world--- only 17%. We're very much in the minority. I don't know when everyone else decided on it, but I would guess it was at a time when international travel was not so common as now. I feel the law is outdated. If these countries were to have to make the decision again, whether to give citizenship by birth, I think it's most likely they would not. The quote below sums up my feelings pretty well.
I think it is fair, reasonable, and prudent to revisit the birthright citizenship issue and see if it still makes sense in today's world. Indeed it is fair, reasonable, and prudent to revisit all of our laws and see if they still make sense.
I've never heard--literally never--what actual problem birthright citizenship causes. In other words, if we ended it, what problem gets fixed? When proponents are asked, they give hand waving answers that don't address the question.
Since there doesn't seem to be a real problem as far as I can tell, this seems to be related to xenophobia and racism.
-
Wow, so now ICE is actually detaining Navajos! Where are they going to deport them to?? https://azmirror.com/2025/01/24/reports-of-navajo-people-being-detained-in-immigration-sweeps-sparks-concern-from-tribal-leaders/
For example, the Trump administration openly questioned the U.S. citizenship of Indigenous peoples as part of its defense of Trump’s executive order to suspend birthright citizenship in the U.S.
Trump signed the executive order shortly after he was sworn into office this week. It would end birthright citizenship for babies born to a mother and father who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.
A federal judge in Seattle on Thursday temporarily blocked the executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, calling Trump’s action “blatantly unconstitutional.”
In defending the constitutionality of the executive order, the U.S. Department of Justice erroneously argued in court that Indigenous people didn’t have birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment because they were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, so neither should the children of noncitizen immigrants.
“The United States’ connection with the children of illegal aliens and temporary visitors is weaker than its connection with members of Indian tribes,” DOJ argued in a filing. “If the latter link is insufficient for birthright citizenship, the former certainly is,” the Trump administration argued.”
The DOJ cited an 1884 U.S. Supreme Court case, Elk v. Wilkins, in which the high court decided that “because members of Indian tribes owe ‘immediate allegiance’ to their tribes, they are not ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States and are not constitutionally entitled to Citizenship.”
But the DOJ ignored congressional action, the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, that explicitly gave Indigenous people U.S. birthright citizenship and effectively ended the rejection of citizenship that the Supreme Court had upheld four decades earlier.
Send those Indians back to India! :S
-
Most 19th century immigrants were never officially naturalized, so the vast majority of us aren't citizens if we decide that birthright citizenship isn't a thing anymore.
-W
-
I've mentioned a couple of times in this thread already that it is mostly the countries of the Americas with birthright citizenship. That makes 33 out of 193 in the world--- only 17%. We're very much in the minority. I don't know when everyone else decided on it, but I would guess it was at a time when international travel was not so common as now. I feel the law is outdated. If these countries were to have to make the decision again, whether to give citizenship by birth, I think it's most likely they would not. The quote below sums up my feelings pretty well.
I think it is fair, reasonable, and prudent to revisit the birthright citizenship issue and see if it still makes sense in today's world. Indeed it is fair, reasonable, and prudent to revisit all of our laws and see if they still make sense.
I've never heard--literally never--what actual problem birthright citizenship causes. In other words, if we ended it, what problem gets fixed? When proponents are asked, they give hand waving answers that don't address the question.
Since there doesn't seem to be a real problem as far as I can tell, this seems to be related to xenophobia and racism.
Birth tourism is where women visit the U.S. while pregnant, overstay if needed, and give birth to an American citizen. It was discussed earlier in this thread.
You yourself said 6% of births are from illegal immigrants. This isn't "tourism," in a sense of short-term stays. But it is a goal of those immigrants to have children who are US citizens. The difference is a matter of duration, not intent. And a 6% decline in births would be a devastating drop.
Birth tourism is roughly 1%, according to estimates of U.S. births vs birth tourism. That reduces the impact slightly, since those citizens don't stay in the U.S. (and likely many renounce citizenship later, when they learn they have to pay U.S. taxes regardless of where they live).
"CIS estimates that birth tourism results in 33,000 births to women on tourist visas annually. We estimate that hundreds of thousands more are born to mothers who are illegal aliens or present on temporary visas."
https://cis.org/CIS/Birth-Tourism-Facts-and-Recommendations
-
Birth tourism is where women visit the U.S. while pregnant, overstay if needed, and give birth to an American citizen. It was discussed earlier in this thread.
Yes, but what's the problem with this?
-
Birth tourism is where women visit the U.S. while pregnant, overstay if needed, and give birth to an American citizen. It was discussed earlier in this thread.
Yes, but what's the problem with this?
Given the way the US taxes a citizen no matter where they live or where they earn their income, it is as much a negative as a positive. Even if the actual tax paid doesn't change, the paperwork is not fun.
-
Birth tourism is where women visit the U.S. while pregnant, overstay if needed, and give birth to an American citizen. It was discussed earlier in this thread.
Yes, but what's the problem with this?
It's illegal. Ending birth citizenship would remove the incentive. But again, none of this matters because Congress won't create an amendment to the constitution over it.
"A California woman was sentenced Monday to more than three years in prison in a long-running case over a business that helped pregnant Chinese women travel to the United States to deliver babies who automatically became American citizens."
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/27/us/woman-sentenced-chinese-birth-tourism-intl-hnk/index.html
-
Birth tourism is where women visit the U.S. while pregnant, overstay if needed, and give birth to an American citizen. It was discussed earlier in this thread.
Yes, but what's the problem with this?
It's illegal.
I thought we were talking about tourists here legally, giving birth while they were here. Sorry for the confusion.
-
Birth tourism is where women visit the U.S. while pregnant, overstay if needed, and give birth to an American citizen. It was discussed earlier in this thread.
Yes, but what's the problem with this?
It's illegal.
I thought we were talking about tourists here legally, giving birth while they were here. Sorry for the confusion.
"Tourists here legally" who lie on their visa application?
"Birth tourism (travel for the primary purpose of giving birth in the United States to obtain U.S. citizenship for their child) is not permissible on a visitor visa."
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/tourism-visit/visitor.html/visa
-
I think the better way to go about things is that nobody born in the US gets citizenship, regardless of the parental status. You earn citizenship through 2 years of military service or an equivalent non-combat government program that is of societal benefit.
-
I think the better way to go about things is that nobody born in the US gets citizenship, regardless of the parental status. You earn citizenship through 2 years of military service or an equivalent non-combat government program that is of societal benefit.
I can think of all sorts of ways this could be abused (e.g., to deny citizenship to "undesirable" classes of people), and/or lead to terrible outcomes.
-
I think the better way to go about things is that nobody born in the US gets citizenship, regardless of the parental status. You earn citizenship through 2 years of military service or an equivalent non-combat government program that is of societal benefit.
I can think of all sorts of ways this could be abused (e.g., to deny citizenship to "undesirable" classes of people), and/or lead to terrible outcomes.
The ideas seems to come from Starship Troopers (a satirical movie about fascism):
Starship Troopers
In the future, Earth is governed by the United Citizen Federation, a stratocratic regime founded generations earlier by "veterans" after democracy and social scientists brought civilization to the brink of ruin. Citizenship is exclusively earned through federal service, which grants rights—like voting and procreation—that are withheld from ordinary civilians. Humans, who are now capable of interstellar travel, conduct colonization missions throughout the galaxy, bringing them into conflict with a race of highly evolved insectoid creatures dubbed "Arachnids" or, derisively, "bugs".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers_(film)
-
I think the better way to go about things is that nobody born in the US gets citizenship, regardless of the parental status. You earn citizenship through 2 years of military service or an equivalent non-combat government program that is of societal benefit.
I can think of all sorts of ways this could be abused (e.g., to deny citizenship to "undesirable" classes of people), and/or lead to terrible outcomes.
The ideas seems to come from Starship Troopers (a satirical movie about fascism):
Starship Troopers
In the future, Earth is governed by the United Citizen Federation, a stratocratic regime founded generations earlier by "veterans" after democracy and social scientists brought civilization to the brink of ruin. Citizenship is exclusively earned through federal service, which grants rights—like voting and procreation—that are withheld from ordinary civilians. Humans, who are now capable of interstellar travel, conduct colonization missions throughout the galaxy, bringing them into conflict with a race of highly evolved insectoid creatures dubbed "Arachnids" or, derisively, "bugs".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers_(film)
It originally came from Starship Troopers the book, where it was presented as a non-satirical idea and part of Heinlein's philosophical musings at the time. (I'd also argue that fascism in the original book is not Heinlein's intent at all, quite different from the movie where it was overtly and explicitly part of the plot.)
-
I think the better way to go about things is that nobody born in the US gets citizenship, regardless of the parental status. You earn citizenship through 2 years of military service or an equivalent non-combat government program that is of societal benefit.
I can think of all sorts of ways this could be abused (e.g., to deny citizenship to "undesirable" classes of people), and/or lead to terrible outcomes.
The ideas seems to come from Starship Troopers (a satirical movie about fascism):
Starship Troopers
In the future, Earth is governed by the United Citizen Federation, a stratocratic regime founded generations earlier by "veterans" after democracy and social scientists brought civilization to the brink of ruin. Citizenship is exclusively earned through federal service, which grants rights—like voting and procreation—that are withheld from ordinary civilians. Humans, who are now capable of interstellar travel, conduct colonization missions throughout the galaxy, bringing them into conflict with a race of highly evolved insectoid creatures dubbed "Arachnids" or, derisively, "bugs".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers_(film)
Yep. And I've always worried that that film strays too close to Poe's Law territory, especially given the original (US) marketing (which depicted it as a straight-up action film, with no hint of irony or subtext)
-
I think the better way to go about things is that nobody born in the US gets citizenship, regardless of the parental status. You earn citizenship through 2 years of military service or an equivalent non-combat government program that is of societal benefit.
I can think of all sorts of ways this could be abused (e.g., to deny citizenship to "undesirable" classes of people), and/or lead to terrible outcomes.
The ideas seems to come from Starship Troopers (a satirical movie about fascism):
Starship Troopers
In the future, Earth is governed by the United Citizen Federation, a stratocratic regime founded generations earlier by "veterans" after democracy and social scientists brought civilization to the brink of ruin. Citizenship is exclusively earned through federal service, which grants rights—like voting and procreation—that are withheld from ordinary civilians. Humans, who are now capable of interstellar travel, conduct colonization missions throughout the galaxy, bringing them into conflict with a race of highly evolved insectoid creatures dubbed "Arachnids" or, derisively, "bugs".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers_(film)
It originally came from Starship Troopers the book, where it was presented as a non-satirical idea and part of Heinlein's philosophical musings at the time. (I'd also argue that fascism in the original book is not Heinlein's intent at all, quite different from the movie where it was overtly and explicitly part of the plot.)
Yes. Any civil service. So teachers. All the civil service people Trump and Muskrat hate.
Really the book has to be read to see how this franchise developed.
He tossed out all sorts of franchise ideas in various places. One, only women, because men have messed up on their own for so long. Two, enough brains to solve a simple quadratic equation. Bright 10 year old girl votes, stupid adult man doesn’t (his example).
-
Requiring someone to "volunteer" or work a job they otherwise would not want to do, pretty much amounts to slavery.
-
I think the better way to go about things is that nobody born in the US gets citizenship, regardless of the parental status. You earn citizenship through 2 years of military service or an equivalent non-combat government program that is of societal benefit.
I can think of all sorts of ways this could be abused (e.g., to deny citizenship to "undesirable" classes of people), and/or lead to terrible outcomes.
The ideas seems to come from Starship Troopers (a satirical movie about fascism):
Starship Troopers
In the future, Earth is governed by the United Citizen Federation, a stratocratic regime founded generations earlier by "veterans" after democracy and social scientists brought civilization to the brink of ruin. Citizenship is exclusively earned through federal service, which grants rights—like voting and procreation—that are withheld from ordinary civilians. Humans, who are now capable of interstellar travel, conduct colonization missions throughout the galaxy, bringing them into conflict with a race of highly evolved insectoid creatures dubbed "Arachnids" or, derisively, "bugs".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers_(film)
Yep. And I've always worried that that film strays too close to Poe's Law territory, especially given the original (US) marketing (which depicted it as a straight-up action film, with no hint of irony or subtext)
I think it's quite possible that Elon Musk didn't get it and named his flying coffin "Starship" after the movie.
-
Requiring someone to "volunteer" or work a job they otherwise would not want to do, pretty much amounts to slavery.
I kind of felt the same way when at age 18 I signed up for the draft b/c I was obligated to. Went on to volunteer for the military (6 yrs total).
No, I've come believe a draft might do our youth some good - even if given a choice to do a few years in the military or a CCC-like alternative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps
In reality it would likely devolve into something undesirable once politics or religion or business got involved. I works well theoretically anyhow.
-
Yep. And I've always worried that that film strays too close to Poe's Law territory, especially given the original (US) marketing (which depicted it as a straight-up action film, with no hint of irony or subtext)
Upon release, the film was completely misunderstood by critics, audiences in general and especially by fans of the book, most of whom thought it was a brainless shoot 'em up that lightly glorified fascism.
In reality (IMO) it was a brilliant satire that stands the test of time. Part of brilliance is the characters themselves don't realize there is anything wrong with their society, which is why fascism can exist in the first place.
-
Requiring someone to "volunteer" or work a job they otherwise would not want to do, pretty much amounts to slavery.
I kind of felt the same way when at age 18 I signed up for the draft b/c I was obligated to. Went on to volunteer for the military (6 yrs total).
No, I've come believe a draft might do our youth some good - even if given a choice to do a few years in the military or a CCC-like alternative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps
In reality it would likely devolve into something undesirable once politics or religion or business got involved. I works well theoretically anyhow.
My dad surprised me a few years back with a hot take on why we should bring back the draft in the U.S., and it's not because it would be good for the youth. In his opinion, America was more reigned in when there was a notable percentage of people in the military that absolutely did not want to be there. These were the people that would more readily question/refuse illegal orders, be general obstructions to cohesion, and keep any wars or military actions more present in the minds of a broader cross-section of the population. Going to an all-volunteer force has clamped down too much on willingness to call out bad actions as "well, you signed up for this." Plus, having a draft eliminates some of the incentive to make society overall shittier in order to prey on the poor for jobs/education access.
-
Requiring someone to "volunteer" or work a job they otherwise would not want to do, pretty much amounts to slavery.
I kind of felt the same way when at age 18 I signed up for the draft b/c I was obligated to. Went on to volunteer for the military (6 yrs total).
No, I've come believe a draft might do our youth some good - even if given a choice to do a few years in the military or a CCC-like alternative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps
In reality it would likely devolve into something undesirable once politics or religion or business got involved. I works well theoretically anyhow.
It also depends on what you're being asked to do as part of that "character building" government service. Without getting too political, I fear for the long-term mental health and wellbeing of a generation of kids doing their mandatory service in the IDF right now.
-
Requiring someone to "volunteer" or work a job they otherwise would not want to do, pretty much amounts to slavery.
I kind of felt the same way when at age 18 I signed up for the draft b/c I was obligated to. Went on to volunteer for the military (6 yrs total).
No, I've come believe a draft might do our youth some good - even if given a choice to do a few years in the military or a CCC-like alternative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps
In reality it would likely devolve into something undesirable once politics or religion or business got involved. I works well theoretically anyhow.
My dad surprised me a few years back with a hot take on why we should bring back the draft in the U.S., and it's not because it would be good for the youth. In his opinion, America was more reigned in when there was a notable percentage of people in the military that absolutely did not want to be there. These were the people that would more readily question/refuse illegal orders, be general obstructions to cohesion, and keep any wars or military actions more present in the minds of a broader cross-section of the population. Going to an all-volunteer force has clamped down too much on willingness to call out bad actions as "well, you signed up for this." Plus, having a draft eliminates some of the incentive to make society overall shittier in order to prey on the poor for jobs/education access.
His overall point is not wrong. An all volunteer force also means that a pretty large chunk is made up of poor people who enter the military because of lack of alternatives. This insulates the rich who tend to make political decisions in the country from having anything to lose when there's a war.
-
Requiring someone to "volunteer" or work a job they otherwise would not want to do, pretty much amounts to slavery.
I kind of felt the same way when at age 18 I signed up for the draft b/c I was obligated to. Went on to volunteer for the military (6 yrs total).
No, I've come believe a draft might do our youth some good - even if given a choice to do a few years in the military or a CCC-like alternative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps
In reality it would likely devolve into something undesirable once politics or religion or business got involved. I works well theoretically anyhow.
My dad surprised me a few years back with a hot take on why we should bring back the draft in the U.S., and it's not because it would be good for the youth. In his opinion, America was more reigned in when there was a notable percentage of people in the military that absolutely did not want to be there. These were the people that would more readily question/refuse illegal orders, be general obstructions to cohesion, and keep any wars or military actions more present in the minds of a broader cross-section of the population. Going to an all-volunteer force has clamped down too much on willingness to call out bad actions as "well, you signed up for this." Plus, having a draft eliminates some of the incentive to make society overall shittier in order to prey on the poor for jobs/education access.
His overall point is not wrong. An all volunteer force also means that a pretty large chunk is made up of poor people who enter the military because of lack of alternatives. This insulates the rich who tend to make political decisions in the country from having anything to lose when there's a war.
You have a point there. Not that the wealthy and connected ever had much trouble dodging the draft, though (*cough*bone spurs*cough*)
-
Requiring someone to "volunteer" or work a job they otherwise would not want to do, pretty much amounts to slavery.
I kind of felt the same way when at age 18 I signed up for the draft b/c I was obligated to. Went on to volunteer for the military (6 yrs total).
No, I've come believe a draft might do our youth some good - even if given a choice to do a few years in the military or a CCC-like alternative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps
In reality it would likely devolve into something undesirable once politics or religion or business got involved. I works well theoretically anyhow.
My dad surprised me a few years back with a hot take on why we should bring back the draft in the U.S., and it's not because it would be good for the youth. In his opinion, America was more reigned in when there was a notable percentage of people in the military that absolutely did not want to be there. These were the people that would more readily question/refuse illegal orders, be general obstructions to cohesion, and keep any wars or military actions more present in the minds of a broader cross-section of the population. Going to an all-volunteer force has clamped down too much on willingness to call out bad actions as "well, you signed up for this." Plus, having a draft eliminates some of the incentive to make society overall shittier in order to prey on the poor for jobs/education access.
His overall point is not wrong. An all volunteer force also means that a pretty large chunk is made up of poor people who enter the military because of lack of alternatives. This insulates the rich who tend to make political decisions in the country from having anything to lose when there's a war.
You have a point there. Not that the wealthy and connected ever had much trouble dodging the draft, though (*cough*bone spurs*cough*)
I don't necessarily support bringing back the draft, but if it happened, this is part of why I think it would be critical to include non-military service. Bone spurs mean you can't serve in the military? Okay, here's the list of Peace Corps jobs and non-specialty healthcare and teaching roles in underserved communities. Which would you prefer? (And perhaps these non-military roles, which would be more desirable for most, would require an addition year of service.)
Only those who qualify for Medicaid or SS Disability (or some similar high bar) would be exempt from serving in some way.
-
Requiring someone to "volunteer" or work a job they otherwise would not want to do, pretty much amounts to slavery.
I kind of felt the same way when at age 18 I signed up for the draft b/c I was obligated to. Went on to volunteer for the military (6 yrs total).
No, I've come believe a draft might do our youth some good - even if given a choice to do a few years in the military or a CCC-like alternative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps
In reality it would likely devolve into something undesirable once politics or religion or business got involved. I works well theoretically anyhow.
My dad surprised me a few years back with a hot take on why we should bring back the draft in the U.S., and it's not because it would be good for the youth. In his opinion, America was more reigned in when there was a notable percentage of people in the military that absolutely did not want to be there. These were the people that would more readily question/refuse illegal orders, be general obstructions to cohesion, and keep any wars or military actions more present in the minds of a broader cross-section of the population. Going to an all-volunteer force has clamped down too much on willingness to call out bad actions as "well, you signed up for this." Plus, having a draft eliminates some of the incentive to make society overall shittier in order to prey on the poor for jobs/education access.
His overall point is not wrong. An all volunteer force also means that a pretty large chunk is made up of poor people who enter the military because of lack of alternatives. This insulates the rich who tend to make political decisions in the country from having anything to lose when there's a war.
It's similar to the argument for mandating public schools. If the rich cannot flee to private/home schools, there's an incentive to work within the system and make improvements*.
*Theoretically. In reality, typically ways are just found to build systems that insulate and segregate specific public school systems and still hoard resources and advantages.