Rethinking Birthright Citizenship

Discussion in 'Politics' started by angrybellsprout, Jan 14, 2008.

  1. angrybellsprout paultard since 2002 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,251
    A recent article in the Houston Chronicle discusses the problem of so-called anchor babies, children born in U.S. hospitals to illegal immigrant parents. These children automatically become citizens, and thus serve as an anchor for their parents to remain in the country. Our immigration authorities understandably are reluctant to break up families by deporting parents of young babies. But birthright citizenship, originating in the 14th amendment, has become a serious cultural and economic dilemma for our nation.

    In some Houston hospitals, administrators estimate that 70 or 80% of the babies born have parents who are in the country illegally. As an obstetrician in south Texas for several decades, I can attest to the severity of the problem. It’s the same story in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. And the truth is most illegal immigrants who have babies in U.S. hospitals do not have health insurance and do not pay their hospital bills.

    This obviously cannot be sustained, either by the hospitals involved or the taxpayers who end up paying the bills.

    No other wealthy, western nations grant automatic citizenship to those who simply happen to be born within their borders to non-citizens. These nations recognize that citizenship involves more than the physical location of one’s birth; it also involves some measure of cultural connection and allegiance. In most cases this means the parents must be citizens of a nation in order for their newborn children to receive automatic citizenship.

    Make no mistake, Americans are happy to welcome immigrants who follow our immigration laws and seek a better life here. America is far more welcoming and tolerant of newcomers than virtually any nation on earth. But our modern welfare state creates perverse incentives for immigrants, incentives that cloud the issue of why people choose to come here. The real problem is not immigration, but rather the welfare state magnet.

    Hospitals bear the costs when illegal immigrants enter the country for the express purpose of giving birth. But illegal immigrants also use emergency rooms, public roads, and public schools. In many cases they are able to obtain Medicaid, food stamps, public housing, and even unemployment benefits. Some have fraudulently collected Social Security benefits.

    Of course many American citizens also use or abuse the welfare system. But we cannot afford to open our pocketbooks to the rest of the world. We must end the perverse incentives that encourage immigrants to come here illegally, including the anchor baby incentive.

    I’ve introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution and end automatic birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, on the heels of the Civil War. The country, especially the western territories, was wide open and ripe for homesteading. There was no welfare state to exploit, and the modern problems associated with immigration could not have been imagined.

    Our founders knew that unforeseen problems with our system of government would arise, and that’s precisely why they gave us a method for amending the Constitution. It’s time to rethink birthright citizenship by amending the 14th amendment.

    http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst100206.htm

    Gotta love that 14th Amendment.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Must keep out the whiny brown people, eh?

    What a surprise

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Its called jus soli
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    That is one thing that I dislike about the criticism that we get from the rest of the world, they themselves don't automatically grant citizenship to any born in their, and in many cases if you need medical care it has to be paid for in advance.

    When the result of a illegal act, the profit of that action in the legal system is not allowed to accrue to the benefit of those that broke the law, and that is the result of the our current citizenship laws, the criminal is accruing benefit from his illegal act, and committing fraud because they receives services with out the intention to pay for them.

    If they want their children to be U.S. ciotizens come here legally, and go through the legal process.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    It could also just be something a bit more simple: there are laws for a reason, and when those laws are broken, people should not be rewarded.

    I know you live in a world where every little noise you hear brings fears of racial pogroms, but that's not always the case. The USA won't stop being a melting pot any time soon, but the flow of immigrants must be manageable and assimilatable (is that a word?). I'm okay with the entire racial makeup of the USA shifting: that's just the reality of our times. I am not okay, however, with the cultural and linguistic component of our nation shifting.

    Still, as far as multi-ethnic societies go: the USA does a far better job than anything in Europe or Asia. There may be racist protagonists, but nothing compared to the issues suffered by other minorities around the world.

    ~String
     
  8. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Mexican is already creeping up from the South and if the economy tanks they may finally be the only people willing to sustain it as everyone else flees for better shores.

    I would not be surprised if a lot more Americans are speaking Spanish in a 100 years
     
  9. angrybellsprout paultard since 2002 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,251
    Why do you use the term melting pot when the US stopped being a melting pot decades ago? The current PC term is that the US is more like a tossed salad, as a melting pot would require assimilation which is currently considered to be a racist ideal.
     
  10. Zephyr Humans are ONE Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,371
    Wrong, Canada does.

    Many other Western countries practice a modified form of Jus Soli where citizenship is only conferred on the child of a citizen or legal permanent resident. India abolished Jus Soli in 1987.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
     
  11. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    I looked onto moving into Canada, and yes Canada grants citizenship when you are born their if your parents are legal residents, but if your parents are there illegally you do not get citizenship.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli[/QUOTE]

    Abolition of jus soli
    Some countries which formerly operated jus soli have moved to abolish it partially, only conferring citizenship on children born in the country if one of the parents is a citizen (or has been a legal resident for a number of years) of that country. These include:

    India on 1 July 1987
    Malta on 1 August 1989
    Ireland on 24 June 2004
    New Zealand on 1 January 2006

    Being legally in the country or having one parent a citizen of that state, is a requirement of Canada and India.
     
  12. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Undeniable influence

    The "assimilation" you note is, in actuality, a two-way process. Ever actually melt disparate ingredients together in a pot? Like cheese dip, for instance. One simple recipe is:

    • 16 oz. Velveeta, cubed
    • 10 oz. Ro-Tel tomatoes w/jalepeño
    • Black pepper to taste
    • Garlic powder to taste
    • Chili powder to taste
    • Cumin to taste​

    As you mix all the ingredients together and melt them in the pot, the majority (e.g. Velveeta) dominates the mix. But the Ro-Tel does not become Velveeta. The spices do not become Velveeta. The resulting mixture does not, in fact, retain solely the properties of the Velveeta. The resulting mixture adopts a texture that reflects the influence of the Ro-Tel, and a color that reflects especially the chili powder and cumin. And the flavor? Well, if you're imagining it still tastes like straight, unadulterated Velveeta, you're fooling yourself.

    Expecting the minority ingredients in the melting pot to simply convert to a Velveeta polymer is, quite obviously, unrealistic. They have an inevitable, undeniable influence.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2008
  13. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I heard the suggestion that birthright citizenship should only apply if the people are in the country legally, that would also apply to tourists, green card holders, etc... I could live with that.
     
  14. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,168
    Let's do something about the guns, too.
    I think the British are unlikely to take another shot at bringing us to heel.
     
  15. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    I would put a time limit on that. Just because your parents are passing through and don't intend to stay should not give citizenship.

    If they intend to stay long term, and if they intend to become citizens that would then argue for citizenship, but there should be a time frame requirement.
     
  16. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Not entirely, children of one parent who is citizen or NRI are citizens. I have them in my family.
     
  17. angrybellsprout paultard since 2002 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,251
    Too bad idiots cannot figure out what article 5 of the Constitution says.
     
  18. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    Too bad you can't actually create an argument for yourself. Instead of shooting at the hip with derisive one liners, how about pointing out exactly how and why article 5 supports your point.
     
  19. angrybellsprout paultard since 2002 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,251
  20. angrybellsprout paultard since 2002 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,251
    Do you even know what article 5 of the Constitution is?
     
  21. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    Does it matter to my point if I do or don't? I'm asking you to actually make an argument of your own instead of just copying and pasting Paul's words.
     
  22. angrybellsprout paultard since 2002 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,251
    Don't comment on things that you obviously aren't able to understand.

    If you don't know what article 5 is, then maybe you should learn what google is and figure it out before blahblahblahing out some crap about how you need to be spoonfeed everything because you are too helpless to figure out anything for yourself.

    Verbosity is not a sign of knowledge.
     
  23. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    How do you even know if I know what article 5 is or not? How do you even know if I agree or disagree with Paul's argument in the OP based on what I've said so far?

    Making a well reasoned argument with sources to back up your points and claims isn't spoon feeding, it's intelligent discourse that'll help to change the minds of people who read it. What's the purpose of this thread? To share Paul's ideas and hopefully change the minds of people who read them to favor Paul. Your behavior will end up doing the opposite.

    Your little one line zingers? Not much more than dickish behavior that just turns people off from even looking into your arguments.
     

Share This Page