Citizenship by birth good idea. Yes or No

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Billy T, Sep 14, 2010.


US should continue to grant citizenship to all born in USA

  1. Yes

  2. No

  3. Grant it only when condition I discussed are met.

    0 vote(s)
  1. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    That is the law by 14th Admendment of Constitution in the USA, but is increasing being called into question. See:

    Recently Israel expelled 400 children born in Israel. Their non-Jewish parents were there legally on multi-year work permits, but those permits expired. Bedouins, all of whom were born in land now Israel and many except the oldest, born in the state of Israel have no rights as citizens (unless they join the army). - They are confined to one of three concentration camp cities.

    Only 30 nations grant citizenship to anyone who is born inside their country. Do you think the US should continue to do this? If you vote no, what would be the basis of granting citizenship?

    I voted "yes" mainly because I can not think of a better way to determine who is a citizen. But there is a growing problem that requires better control of the borders.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 14, 2010
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    To start with a juxtaposition

    To raise an idea from the far end of the spectrum as juxtaposition, I would recall Starship Troopers: "Service guarantees citizenship."

    There is some aspect of a slippery-slope argument about it, I admit, but I'm unable at this time to envision a middle ground that doesn't set some sort of precedent allowing a state to create all manner of exclusive standards by which basic citizenship becomes a privilege, and not a right.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. raptorttail Registered Member

    If not citizens, then who determines?

    The whole U.S. budget would be spent on court cases, appeals, etc. Some US citizens would be deported and the whole system would be open to lawsuits, compensation, etc.

    ...and, at the end of the day, most would be back in the USA whether deported or not.

    It would be like the death penalty but on a thousand times the scale...perhaps there is an argument 'for' the death penalty but the reality is that in most states it's token punishment that costs millions in infrastructure and millions more as each case goes through appeals...then at the end of the day a fraction of a fraction of murderers are executed.

    Should someone born in the USA be an automatic citizen...perhaps not but any reversal of law would be a chaotic nightmare.

    there's 'What should be (or not)" in theory...then there is the reality of what actually is.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    On second thought it might be better to require that the child was conceived in the US.

    I.e. mother had to legally enter the US for at least 8 months (or a few months less if two doctors certify that the birth was premature by those few months).

    That would prevent the current problem of advanced pregnancy cases entering illegally to give birth to child in US a week or two before being deported.
  8. raptorttail Registered Member

    I hope you are being trying to be funny.
  9. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    No, I was serious, but implimentation could be difficult.

    For example if the woman of an American couple became pregnant in Paris while they were on two week vactation there, I think all would want that child to be a US citizen when they returned home and it was born in USA. Thus the legal requirement could not just be that conception took place in the US. - That was just a quick an imprecise way to state the idea.

    That "conceived in Paris" child would be a citizen if the test was that the mother had leagally entered (or been born in) the USA at least 8 months earlier.

    Why do you think a rule that requires mother to be legally in the US for 8* months prior to child's birth is a joke?

    * Less than 8 months in the case of premature births, by number of months premanture as certified by two doctors.
  10. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    hang on, i get tiassa's point but what are we actually talking about here. In Australia there are 2 ways to become a citizan 1) be born to a parent who is a citizan or i THINK permident resident, on a humanitarian visa ect

    2) applie after being a permident resident for x amount of time

    Now i agree with tiassa on the dangers of making citizanship anything other than birth related but i dont think a child needs to be a citizan simply because they happened to be on holidays in the US at the time the mother gave birth

    What is more important to abolish out of the US consitution is the requirement to be born in the US to be president. Its an insult to every migrant who choses to become a US citizan that its not full and equal to people born there. Our current PM was a "10 pound pom", she was born in wales but she is an AUSTRALIAN citizan and grew up HERE not in wales
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Principle 3 of the 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child asserts: "The child shall be entitled from his birth to a name and a nationality."

    States bound by the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child are obligated to implement policies and programs to ensure that children's families and national authorities can secure citizenship for every child in the country.​

    Source: Wikipedia - statelessness


    The issue of nationality and citizenship is a rather complicated area of international law and practice.
  12. sifreak21 Valued Senior Member

    no the only reason i say no is because all of these illegals are comming over giving birth and now were getting stuck with tons of illegals children here who without a support group will live in poverty just costing us more and more money
  13. Shadow1 Valued Senior Member


    There's a new law for that in tunisia, any child is born, that he/her's mother is tunisian, or he/her's fother is tunisian, he would be a tunisian, even if he's not born in tunisia. also can get two nationalities, the tunisian nationality, and that country nationality.
    i really don't know if it is a good idea, but, i just voted yes.

    can anyone post arguments to say no?
  14. Shadow1 Valued Senior Member

    non- jewish parents.
  15. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    I think the problem caused by birthright citizenship is the concept of "anchor babies" which allows an entire family of illegals to stay in the US because one child happened to be born here.

    Why not simply do away with that? In other words, being the parent, sibling, whatever of a child who happened to be born in the US should confer no increased right to US residency. Thus the baby, US citizen or not, will be deported along with the rest of the family unless the family can find a US citizen to serve as the guardian of the child.

    Doing away with birthright citizenship altogether could result in the development of an underclass of people born here, educated here, speaking only English, yet not citizens. That would be a recipe for social chaos.
  16. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    If some "super mod" has the ability to do so, I would like one vote reduction in the "yes" count and one vote added to the "with conditions discussed" count. My conditions are described in posts 4 & 6, but probably not with full needed precision for stating the law.
  17. SilentLi89 Registered Senior Member

    I don't think there is any problem with the way it is. I just think that non-citizen parents should not be able to stay in the country just because their child is a citizen. The kid can stay, but they can't. The child of course can't and shouldn't be deported, but they can be and the child can go with them or be placed in foster care (albeit a horrible alternative). Of course the child's parents are probably going to stay illegally anyway so the child gets the best of both worlds, in a way I suppose.
  18. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Mod Hat - Poll edit

    Mod Hat — Poll edit

    The poll has been edited according to member request; see post #13 above.

    System limitations do not permit the reassignment of member names to match their votes. Thus, Billy T's name remains in the "Yes" group, while his actual vote has been transferred to the "condition" result.

    Any questions about this poll edit should be directed to me via private message.
  19. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    To Tiassa: thanks for adjusting the vote count.
  20. Shadow1 Valued Senior Member


    and you like that? to seperate a family? what's the value of a family their? the family is not just a group of people.... it's not a game to play dude, who should be seperated from he's parents and puted in a foster house, or to send the kid to another country, and god knows what would happen to him.. are humans to you personally like machines with no feeling, seperate them and bring them back together when you want too?
    (correct me if i understood you in the wrong)

    anyway, i think sending them all together would be better, on the first hand, the kid is still a child at first, and can start he's life in he's native country (thoght)
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    That's my preference as well, but I thought that was already the case?
  22. SilentLi89 Registered Senior Member

    ??? is that really how my post came off?

    They don't have to separate if they don't want to. I said the child could return to their country of origin with them, if that is what they wanted, as the child would have dual citizenship. But if the child's parents are already in the country illegally anyway, I doubt they will leave voluntarily, so as long as they don't get caught, the child gets to live in the US and have their family. which is what would happen even the whole 'anchor baby' thing was abolished.
    All I meant by foster care was that they child could not be forcibly removed, only their non-citizen parents. If their parents were desperate enough, they might opt to leave them in the US instead of having them return to wherever they are from. I can't imagine doing that, but I've actually met parents who have done this, believing that their child would have a much better life even if they have to be apart forever (especially in countries torn by war or where poverty and starvation is overwhelming).
  23. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    If memory serves me, more than one train load of young Jews left Germany when Hitler was growing strong. Many ended up in England or France. Probably when sent out of Germany, the parents hoped to be re-united later when Jews were not singled out for being Jewish. Unfortunately many of those parents did not survive the Nazi era.

    I don't know what fraction of those sent to France survived the later Nazi occupation of France. Very few, if any, were allowed to enter the USA, even if they had a relative living there. - In the earlier period of Hitler's rise to power, he had many supporters in the US, the most famous being Charles Lindbergh, who went to Germany more than once to help rebuild the German Air Force, train pilots, etc.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 15, 2010

Share This Page