News Lindsey Graham's Modification of 14th Amendment

[Al68]

A simpler definition might be that a natural right is any action that isn't "wrong" (infringes on others' rights).

This doesn't remove the circularity.

This seems to be a serious, rather than superficial, problem with the definition.

The "circularity" you refer to is an intentional avoidance of defining which actions are natural rights instead of just the concept. That definition was for what the term "natural right" means, not to define which actions are natural rights. None of my posts in this thread were intended to make any claims about which actions are or aren't natural rights, except the right to blink. And I used that one specifically to avoid a sidetrack into the issue of which actions are natural rights.

 

[Al68]

I think people try to turn rights into something divine instead of human constructions created in the mind.

Maybe so, but that has nothing to do with the huge conceptual difference between an action that is a "right", and an entitlement to some material good or service from another as a result of a contract or agreement between people. The difference has nothing to do with "divinity".

 

[CRGreathouse]

The "circularity" you refer to is an intentional avoidance of defining which actions are natural rights instead of just the concept.

Let me put it this way. I consider myself a libertarian, and this argument has caused a minor 'crisis of faith' for me. It seemed at first like this would be an easy thing to correct -- maybe an inductive definition, adding actions as rights for all parties under conditions that don't allow for existing rights to be infringed -- but I wasn't able to succeed. I have -- or had -- a good idea of what is meant by "rights" (I've always called them "negative rights", freedoms from rather than freedoms to), but now I'm not sure that I have a coherent definition in mind rather than a vague bundle of platitudes.

 

[Hurkyl]

Maybe so, but that has nothing to do with the huge conceptual difference between an action that is a "right", and an entitlement to some material good or service from another as a result of a contract or agreement between people. The difference has nothing to do with "divinity".

I think the conceptual difference only really exists if you don't analyze much.

It may be due to a lack of imagination, but I cannot come up with a way that you could have a government-granted right without at least being entitled to a service that protects it.

 

[apeiron]

Again, the answer seems simple enough. If the goal is to maximise individual freedom (the libertarian position) then individuals should be free to take any action that does not reduce the freedoms of others.

This is a self-referential definition, but not a circular one, as it models an interaction between the global whole (a community of free actors) and its local parts (the free actors).

If you wanted to then name particular rights, this is because you want to protect them explicitly via community institutions.

It is not because they are absolute self-evident truths, god-given mandates or even biological necessities. It is just naming the free actions which are either socially desired or socially inconsequential (but personally, biologically, satisfying) so they can be actively recognised and protected (and limited).

 

[Evo]

Can we please get back to the topic?

Congressmen Lindsey Graham is trying to modify the 14th Amendment so as to not include children born of illegal parents in this country. Sounds like a good, reasonable idea to me. We don't reward illegal behavior.

 

[lisab]

I think this whole 'anchor baby' issue is another red herring, something that comes up about this time every election cycle. Like I mentioned before: flag burning, sanctity of marriage, prayer in school, anything to do with gays. Blah blah blah, it's all fluff.

But this issue is tricky. I don't think it's a stretch to say it focuses on Hispanics. Look at the demographic shift in coming in the US over the next several decades: Hispanics will be a formidable portion of the population in several states. Are the Republicans sure they want to use this as their rallying call?

 

[SixNein]

I think this whole 'anchor baby' issue is another red herring, something that comes up about this time every election cycle. Like I mentioned before: flag burning, sanctity of marriage, prayer in school, anything to do with gays. Blah blah blah, it's all fluff.

But this issue is tricky. I don't think it's a stretch to say it focuses on Hispanics. Look at the demographic shift in coming in the US over the next several decades: Hispanics will be a formidable portion of the population in several states. Are the Republicans sure they want to use this as their rallying call?

The republicans have a very serious problem on their hands. I don't think republicans are very popular with any minority, and the nation is quickly becoming a majority of minorities. As such, the republicans may lose even the light of power.

I personally think power is the motivation behind this issue.

 

[edward]

I think this whole 'anchor baby' issue is another red herring, something that comes up about this time every election cycle. Like I mentioned before: flag burning, sanctity of marriage, prayer in school, anything to do with gays. Blah blah blah, it's all fluff.

But this issue is tricky. I don't think it's a stretch to say it focuses on Hispanics. Look at the demographic shift in coming in the US over the next several decades: Hispanics will be a formidable portion of the population in several states. Are the Republicans sure they want to use this as their rallying call?

The demographics will be shifting rapidly.

(CNN) -- One of about every 12 babies born in the United States in 2008 was the offspring of unauthorized immigrants, a Pew Hispanic Center study released Wednesday concluded.

According to the study, an estimated 340,000 of the 4.3 million babies born in this country that year had parents who were in the United States without legal documentation.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/11/hispanic.study/?hpt=T2

That is a national average. Arizona has been invaded.

It amazes me how the politicians have handled this. It is as if they never saw it coming and all of a sudden it is an emergency. McCain has an ad running on television 17 times a day that promises 3,000 troops on the border. Three months ago he didn't care.

 

[CRGreathouse]

The republicans have a very serious problem on their hands. I don't think republicans are very popular with any minority, and the nation is quickly becoming a majority of minorities. As such, the republicans may lose even the light of power.

My analysis matches yours.

I personally think power is the motivation behind this issue.

A secret Republican plot to lose power over the next few decades?

 

[SixNein]

My analysis matches yours.



A secret Republican plot to lose power over the next few decades?

I'm referring to the republicans fixation on anchor babies and modifications to the constitution. If they can modify the Constitution to change citizenship rules, they may think that they can slow the decay of the white majority.

 

[Cyrus]

I'm referring to the republicans fixation on anchor babies and modifications to the constitution. If they can modify the Constitution to change citizenship rules, they may think that they can slow the decay of the white majority.

What factual basis do you have to make this outlandish claim?

 

[SixNein]

What factual basis do you have to make this outlandish claim?

Just a reading of the political tea leaves, hence my usage of 'I think power is the motivation'.

Perhaps it is just coincidence that the republican party is fixated on changing citizenship rules, and it has nothing to do with a predicted majority of minorities.

 

[CRGreathouse]

majority of minorities.

What a silly phrase.

 

[Al68]

I think the conceptual difference only really exists if you don't analyze much.

It may be due to a lack of imagination, but I cannot come up with a way that you could have a government-granted right without at least being entitled to a service that protects it.

Well, first, a natural right by definition isn't a government-granted right. Second, even if a right to a particular action is so intertwined with an entitlement to government's protection of it that one couldn't exist without the other, there is still an obvious conceptual difference between the two.

 

[SixNein]

What a silly phrase.

I didn't coin the phrase.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/minmajpop.htm"Minorities, now roughly one-third of the U.S. population, are expected to become the majority in 2042, with the nation projected to be 54 percent minority in 2050. By 2023, minorities will comprise more than half of all children."

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/population/cb08-123.html

 

[mugaliens]

That's not really answered my question. Ok, here's another question: who do you think will ultimately be punished by refusing such a child citizenship?

Why do you use the term "punished?"

Do you think it's the parents who made the conscious decision to enter the country illegally who will be worse off, or the child who grows up stateless in a country s/he feels outcast in?

As Evo stated, the child will not be growing up stateless. The child will have its parents citizenship. If the child's parents or the child wants to immigrate to the US, there are procedures.

This has nothing to do with scamming the system, but more to do with human rights. I usually don't buy the whole "human rights" argument, but in this case we are talking about an innocent child.

There is no "inalienable right" to enter or remain in a country illegally.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I didn't coin the phrase.

I didn't blame you for it. It's silly regardless.

 

[Al68]

There is no "inalienable right" to enter or remain in a country illegally.

That seems like a silly statement as a response to a claim that a child born here is innocent. Does a child not have an "inalienable right" to leave the womb thereby "entering" the country? Was there a law requiring the child to stay in the womb? Is the child guilty instead of innocent because he broke such a law even if it did exist? Is the child guilty for his failure to promptly leave the country he was born in, if there were such a law?

No imaginable law could result in considering the child anything other than innocent. That's all besides the fact that there is no such law, and the child is a U.S. citizen for the same exact reason everyone born in the U.S. is a citizen. Birth location of one's parents is not a factor.

 

[loseyourname]

Honestly, I'd need to see some compelling evidence that very many illegal immigrants actually enter for the purpose of having "seed babies" and that denying citizenship to their American-born children would actually deter and reduce illegal immigration before I'd even start to consider this anything but a political red herring meant to rally the troops for an election with little to no regard for actually making a positive policy impact.

 

[Evo]

Birth location of one's parents is not a factor.

We're not talking about birth location, we're talking about whether the parents are in the country illegally.

LYN, I think the US should follow other similar western countries and not automatically give nationality to a child of people there illegally.

If people are here LEGALLY, but do not yet have citizenship (are not yet naturalized), I would agree to let their offspring be automatic citizens. So the difference would be if the parents are here legally or illegally. I think that is extremely fair.

 

[SixNein]

Honestly, I'd need to see some compelling evidence that very many illegal immigrants actually enter for the purpose of having "seed babies" and that denying citizenship to their American-born children would actually deter and reduce illegal immigration before I'd even start to consider this anything but a political red herring meant to rally the troops for an election with little to no regard for actually making a positive policy impact.

Even if illegal immigrants have these anchor babies, they do not get to enjoy citizenship through some kind of automatic means. In fact, the parents have to wait 21 years after birth before the child can sponsor their parents.

"(2)(A) (i) Immediate relatives. - For purposes of this subsection, the term "immediate relatives" means the children, spouses, and parents of a citizen of the United States, except that, in the case of parents, such citizens shall be at least 21 years of age"
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-914.html

In addition, having children doesn't stop deportation unless extreme hardship can be shown:
"Respondents, husband and wife who are citizens of Korea and who had been ordered to be deported after an administrative hearing, subsequently moved to reopen the deportation proceedings, seeking a suspension of deportation for "extreme hardship" under § 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and applicable regulations. They alleged that deportation would result in extreme hardship to their two American-born children through loss of "educational opportunities," and to themselves and their children from the forced liquidation, at a possible loss, of their assets, which included a home and a dry cleaning business. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied the motion without a hearing, concluding that respondents had failed to establish a prima facie case of extreme hardship. "

http://supreme.justia.com/us/450/139/case.html


Extreme hardship:

"Extreme hardship can be demonstrated in many aspects of your spouse or parent’s life such as:
a.
HEALTH - Ongoing or specialized treatment requirements for a physical or mental condition; availability and quality of such treatment in your country, anticipated duration of the treatment; whether a condition is chronic or acute, or long-or short-term.
b.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS - Future employability; loss due to sale of home or business or termination of a professional practice; decline in standard of living; ability to recoup short-term losses; cost of extraordinary needs such as special education or training for children; cost of care for family members (i.e., elderly and infirm parents).
c.
EDUCATION - Loss of opportunity for higher education; lower quality or limited scope of education options; disruption of current program; requirement to be educated in a foreign language or culture with ensuing loss of time for grade; availability of special requirements, such as training programs or internships in specific fields.
d.
PERSONAL CONSIDERATIONS - Close relatives in the United States and /or your country; separation from spouse/children; ages of involved parties; length of residence and community ties in the United States.
e.
SPECIAL FACTORS - Cultural, language, religious, and ethnic obstacles; valid fears of persecution, physical harm, or injury; social ostracism or stigma; access to social institutions or structures."

http://ciudadjuarez.usconsulate.gov/root/pdfs/waiverinstructions.pdf

 

[skeptic2]

We're not talking about birth location, we're talking about whether the parents are in the country illegally.

LYN, I think the US should follow other similar western countries and not automatically give nationality to a child of people there illegally.

If people are here LEGALLY, but do not yet have citizenship (are not yet naturalized), I would agree to let their offspring be automatic citizens. So the difference would be if the parents are here legally or illegally. I think that is extremely fair.

Perhaps then such a change in the Constitution would have little effect because it is relatively easy to obtain a visitors visa good for up to six months.

I lived just north of the border in Nogales, AZ and worked just south of the border in Nogales, Sonora for five years. My immediate boss was Mexican and lived south of the border. But he and his wife always crossed the border to have their children in the US.

 

[Evo]

Perhaps then such a change in the Constitution would have little effect because it is relatively easy to obtain a visitors visa good for up to six months.

I lived just north of the border in Nogales, AZ and worked just south of the border in Nogales, Sonora for five years. My immediate boss was Mexican and lived south of the border. But he and his wife always crossed the border to have their children in the US.

A temporary visa would not be sufficient. They would need permanant legal status.

For example, my mother was French when she married my American father, that granted her permanent legal status, but not citizenship. She still had to go through the formal naturalization process to become a US citizen.

It's not a cure, but it's a starting point. And yes, I have French citizenship, I'm a dual national.

 

[skeptic2]

I'm not against legal immigration, just illegals. We can no longer assimilate them. We can't provide jobs, healthcare, housing, or financial security for our legal citizens.

I think part of the problem is that illegals tend to be the more ambitious Mexicans and work harder, longer hours and for less pay than Americans. This drives down wages at the low end of the scale which is worsened by the recession. If work visas were offered that guaranteed minimum wage or higher, the immigrant workers would be paying taxes and no longer be a burden on society.

Instead of people criticising the US for saying we can't do this anymore, the anger should be directed at the government of Mexico for their abuse of their lower class citizens.

I doubt if directing one's anger at the Mexican government would change anything nor do I think their objective is to abuse the lower class. Instead it is simple greed. Those with power are the ones who get rich. A few years ago Forbes ranked Mexico as fifth in the world in the number of billionaires.

An additional problem is their closed legal system which almost promotes corruption. They do not have trials by jury but instead the judge listens to both sides in a closed courtroom and makes a decision often resulting in a decision that goes to the highest bidder.

I was in Mexico last week and the newspaper had some statistics about the police. Their salaries range from 1000 pesos to 4000 pesos (<$100 to <$400) per month with about 2% being illiterate and 68% having nothing more than a basic education (probably meaning limited to elementary school.) Mexico isn't going to change until after things like these change.

I'd like to see a trade system, for every hard working Mexican that wishes to work in the US, we get to send an equal number of our white trash to them.

I'm really surprised at you Evo.

 

[brainstorm]

Where the child grows up is not my problem. Let's look at the alternative, is the child going to grow up in America by itself, since his or her parents are not able to stay here legally? This is not even a remotely reasonable solution.

Children usually can maintain multiple citizenship, at least until adulthood is reached. If rules prevent multiple citizenship from being maintained as an adult, at least the child has been spared the trouble of going through all the trouble and hoop-jumping of attaining citizenship as an adult. If I wanted to attain US citizenship for my child, I would consider jus soli a blessing. It's only protectionism that construes this US freedom as a problem. The US was always intended to be an inclusive nation. If people think it no longer has the resources to be inclusive without limits, then we should be identifying means of broadening the limits.

 

[Evo]

I'm really surprised at you Evo.

It could work. We get hard working people, they get bums, they turn the bums into hard workers.

 

[Cyrus]

Just a reading of the political tea leaves, hence my usage of 'I think power is the motivation'.

Perhaps it is just coincidence that the republican party is fixated on changing citizenship rules, and it has nothing to do with a predicted majority of minorities.

No, people are sick and tired of people abusing the system, what this has to do with maintaining a white majority, I have no idea. You still have proved nothing to substantiate this, I'm going to write it off as nonsense.

 

[mugaliens]

Honestly, I'd need to see some compelling evidence that very many illegal immigrants actually enter for the purpose of having "seed babies" and that denying citizenship to their American-born children would actually deter and reduce illegal immigration before I'd even start to consider this anything but a political red herring meant to rally the troops for an election with little to no regard for actually making a positive policy impact.

http://www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/countrydata/country.cfm".

 

[Cyrus]

Children usually can maintain multiple citizenship, at least until adulthood is reached. If rules prevent multiple citizenship from being maintained as an adult, at least the child has been spared the trouble of going through all the trouble and hoop-jumping of attaining citizenship as an adult.

Sure, but I am not aware of anyone saying anything about rules concerning multiple citizenship.

If I wanted to attain US citizenship for my child, I would consider jus soli a blessing. It's only protectionism that construes this US freedom as a problem. The US was always intended to be an inclusive nation. If people think it no longer has the resources to be inclusive without limits, then we should be identifying means of broadening the limits.

Nonsense. The US is inclusive and has rules and a road map to citizenship.

I honestly have NO IDEA why you think the rules don't apply or matter...

 

[Al68]

Birth location of one's parents is not a factor.

We're not talking about birth location, we're talking about whether the parents are in the country illegally.

You're right, I stand corrected. I should have said that instead, since that's also not a factor for U.S. citizenship, or whether or not a child is innocent.

 

[loseyourname]

http://www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/countrydata/country.cfm".

That didn't help much. None of their tables differentiate between legal or illegal immigration, nor do they address motives for immigrating. I'd be happy with one of several things:

1) Evidence that a change from granting citizenship to children of illegal immigrants to not has reduced illegal immigration somewhere else.

2) Evidence that countries that grant citizenship to children of illegal immigrants tend to experience more illegal immigration as a percentage of total immigration than countries that do not grant this.

3) Evidence that the ability to have children who are legal citizens of the US is a significant motivating factor causing current residents to illegally immigrate here.

Ideally, this could be expected to create a decrease in illegal immigrants at least equal to the increase that would result from children being born in the US being illegal rather than being citizens.

 

[Al68]

If I wanted to attain US citizenship for my child, I would consider jus soli a blessing. It's only protectionism that construes this US freedom as a problem. The US was always intended to be an inclusive nation. If people think it no longer has the resources to be inclusive without limits, then we should be identifying means of broadening the limits.

Nonsense. The US is inclusive and has rules and a road map to citizenship.

I honestly have NO IDEA why you think the rules don't apply or matter...

I confused by this. The child is a U.S. citizen according to the rules, if they apply and matter.

Did I misconstrue your post? Are you simply referring to enforcing the immigration rules on the parents?

 

[brainstorm]

You're right, I stand corrected. I should have said that instead, since that's also not a factor for U.S. citizenship, or whether or not a child is innocent.

The unique thing about jus soli is that it responds to the birth location of the child instead of the nationality of the parents. Whether the parents are illegal, genealogically traceable to the revolutionary war, or martian should have no bearing where jus soli is concerned. For it to matter, you need to invoke jus sanguinis. Personally, I think jus soli still falls short of the ideal of a true republic, which should imo have citizenship determined by the willingness to live and act independently of external authority in order to prevent loyalism to any external sovereign. This would establish true republican independence but I don't know how you could possibly define and assess it in an individual.

 

[Cyrus]

I confused by this. The child is a U.S. citizen according to the rules, if they apply and matter.

Did I misconstrue your post? Are you simply referring to enforcing the immigration rules on the parents?

I am curious as to why someone does not take this to the supreme court and challenge it. It's intent was to make former black slaves in America citizens. Not for Mexicans running across the boarder.

Additionally, my objection is to his notion that we can "allow people without limits."

 

[brainstorm]

I confused by this. The child is a U.S. citizen according to the rules, if they apply and matter.

Did I misconstrue your post? Are you simply referring to enforcing the immigration rules on the parents?

Um, I was referring more to the general logic that rather than limiting access to citizenship, it makes more sense to expand territory and accept more citizenship requests. This could also be done by achieving sufficient freedom-guarantees via other government apparatuses. So, for example, if Mexican government could be reformed to a degree that freedom was equivalent to US freedom, then push and pull pressures should decrease. Economic and cultural activities would then presumably homogenize throughout both territories/regions and there would be no need to police intermigration, just as there is no need to police intermigration between US states. Between two or more truly free republics, there should be no reason to prevent or foster intermigration - it would happen on the basis of free-will and economic opportunity - not push and pull factors (those indicate relative central control).

 

[Cyrus]

Economic and cultural activities would then presumably homogenize throughout both territories/regions and there would be no need to police intermigration, just as there is no need to police intermigration between US states.

This makes absolutely no sense. Any country has to have control over the flow of goods, services, and people across its boarders with other nations from a security standpoint, at the very least. Do you think through the implications of your ideas?

Between two or more truly free republics, there should be no reason to prevent or foster intermigration - it would happen on the basis of free-will and economic opportunity - not push and pull factors (those indicate relative central control).

But, this is the real world after all. So what you proposed above can't, does not, and won't work.

 

[Al68]

I am curious as to why someone does not take this to the supreme court and challenge it.

On what basis? There's no ambiguity that I can see. Born in the U.S. equals U.S. citizen. That's the rule. Arguably the most unambiguous sentence in the constitution.

It's intent was to make former black slaves in America citizens.

It's intent is that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen.

Not for Mexicans running across the boarder.

Exiting a womb is not "running across the border". Exiting a womb is how the majority of U.S. citizens got here, and the reason we are citizens.

 

[Cyrus]

On what basis? There's no ambiguity that I can see. Born in the U.S. equals U.S. citizen. That's the rule.

On the basis that the intent of the Amendment was to allow blacks born within the United States to be recognized as equal citizens. It's not 'thats the rule', the same way freedom of speech is not an all inclusive, 'thats the rule', right.

Arguably the most unambiguous sentence in the constitution. It's intent is that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen. Exiting a womb is not "running across the border". Exiting a womb is how the majority of U.S. citizens got here, and the reason we are citizens.

, yes, we all exit the womb, ...anyways... the important question is what was the intention of the Amendment when it was passed: not what you would like it to mean today.

Edit: To be more explicit, it was to grant citizenship to the children of legal people, namely blacks, living inside the United States. The idea being not limited to blacks, but to all people of legal status so that there was not a large group of people who were in a limbo state, being born of parents of a foreign nationality. Simply stated, it was never intended to serve as a tool for people breaking the law to enter this country.

 

[Al68]

the important question is what was the intention of the Amendment when it was passed: not what you would like it to mean today.

Neither of those is the important question. The important question is "what does it say?" It says anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen. It says that in the most straightforward way possible.

Intentions are only relevant when "what it says" depends on context. That's clearly not the case here.

Simply stated, it was never intended to serve as a tool for people breaking the law to enter this country.

Exiting a womb isn't "breaking the law to enter this country". It's the common legal way.

 

[Cyrus]

Neither of those is the important question. The important question is "what does it say?" It says anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen. It says that in the most straightforward way possible.

No, that is not the important question. But, putting that aside, the argument is to modify the amendment whereby it explicitly says for kids born to parents of legal status: in effect, stating what should be the obvious in regards to the original intent of the amendment.

Intentions are only relevant when "what it says" depends on context. That's clearly not the case here.Exiting a womb isn't "breaking the law to enter this country". It's the common legal way.

It clearly is the case here. Anchor babies were never the intent of the 14th amendment, if you think otherwise, prove it (based on the history of why the 14th amendment was drafted).

 

[SixNein]

I think part of the problem is that illegals tend to be the more ambitious Mexicans and work harder, longer hours and for less pay than Americans. This drives down wages at the low end of the scale which is worsened by the recession. If work visas were offered that guaranteed minimum wage or higher, the immigrant workers would be paying taxes and no longer be a burden on society.

I think most people are just feeling the effects of the acceleration of globalization in recent decades. The world is a lot smaller, and companies have a larger supply of labor. I would say that Mexicans have become the poster child for the effects of globalization in American minds. Even if Mexicans are completely banned in the US, I don't think it will effect wages as much as people suspect because outsourcing to foreign nations will continue on regardless. As outsourcing continues, the hands on jobs will gain an increasing supply of labor; therefore, wages will continue to drop.

I doubt if directing one's anger at the Mexican government would change anything nor do I think their objective is to abuse the lower class. Instead it is simple greed. Those with power are the ones who get rich. A few years ago Forbes ranked Mexico as fifth in the world in the number of billionaires.

The Mexican government is very politically unstable, and I think it is fair to say its near collapse. The cartels have been working quite hard to supplant it, and the government is losing control of some areas. Mexico honestly needs to go before the UN and ask for help.

 

[SixNein]

, yes, we all exit the womb, ...anyways... the important question is what was the intention of the Amendment when it was passed: not what you would like it to mean today.

Are you a supporter of the living constitution interpretation?

For example, do you believe the General welfare clause in the constitution is sufficient for the social programs we have in America?

One thing I have noticed in the debate over the 14th amendment is that conservatives seem to change their constitutional philosophy when it suits their arguments.

 

[skeptic2]

Even if Mexicans are completely banned in the US, I don't think it will effect wages as much as people suspect because outsourcing to foreign nations will continue on regardless. As outsourcing continues, the hands on jobs will gain an increasing supply of labor; therefore, wages will continue to drop.

I agree that outsourcing is at least as big a problem as illegal labor, but largely unrecognized as such because those jobs are invisible. With illegals at least some of the money they earn stays in the US and puts other people to work, but money paid to workers in other countries stays in those countries and represents a true loss of jobs to the US.

One difference however is that the jobs illegals typically take are low wage jobs whereas outsourced jobs are often professional jobs like computer programming. Lower wages aren't the only reason US companies are going overseas. Another reason is to avoid US labor laws that proscribe age, sex discrimination or working in hazardous conditions.

 

[SixNein]

I agree that outsourcing is at least as big a problem as illegal labor, but largely unrecognized as such because those jobs are invisible. With illegals at least some of the money they earn stays in the US and puts other people to work, but money paid to workers in other countries stays in those countries and represents a true loss of jobs to the US.

One difference however is that the jobs illegals typically take are low wage jobs whereas outsourced jobs are often professional jobs like computer programming. Lower wages aren't the only reason US companies are going overseas. Another reason is to avoid US labor laws that proscribe age, sex discrimination or working in hazardous conditions.

Exactly, I look at the immigration problem as a scape goat for outsourcing. Quite frankly, I'm totally unconcerned about illegal immigration. My big concern is china.

 

[brainstorm]

This makes absolutely no sense. Any country has to have control over the flow of goods, services, and people across its boarders with other nations from a security standpoint, at the very least. Do you think through the implications of your ideas?

Have you thought through the implications of not being able to control interstate movement for drug smuggling and other contraband? I think your statement, "any country has to have control over" is very broad and assumptive without you giving any explicit grounds. The general tone of the statement is that a national government should be a command-control center instead of a representative democratic system of checks and balances. Which constitution are you going by again?

But, this is the real world after all. So what you proposed above can't, does not, and won't work.

Calling something "reality" is not political grounds for anything. It's so annoying that people have achieved so much in democracy with such an anti-democratic logic. If you think something is a good idea, you should enumerate your reasons on specific grounds; not defense of "reality." Your "reality" isn't currently working, nor has it or will it ever.

edit: all you seem to care about is separating people by definition and geography. What do you think that achieves exactly?

 

[BobG]

On the basis that the intent of the Amendment was to allow blacks born within the United States to be recognized as equal citizens. It's not 'thats the rule', the same way freedom of speech is not an all inclusive, 'thats the rule', right.



, yes, we all exit the womb, ...anyways... the important question is what was the intention of the Amendment when it was passed: not what you would like it to mean today.

Edit: To be more explicit, it was to grant citizenship to the children of legal people, namely blacks, living inside the United States. The idea being not limited to blacks, but to all people of legal status so that there was not a large group of people who were in a limbo state, being born of parents of a foreign nationality. Simply stated, it was never intended to serve as a tool for people breaking the law to enter this country.

Cyrus was right that the original motivation for the citizenship clause was to make former slaves legal citizens of the US. It was also worded so as to deny citizenship to Native Americans.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Technically, Native American tribes are their own unique nation with their own political system, so Native Americans born on a reservation were not US citizens. ( Elk v. Wilkins, 1884). Eventually, Native Americans were made citizens of the US by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

But, according to United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the 14th Amendment applies to all children born in the US, subject to the US jurisdiction. That case didn't mention how the Wongs came to the US, but they were ineligible to become US citizens by virtue of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act. The USSC ruled Wong Kim Ark's birth in the US made him a citizen. The only two classes of people born in the US that could be denied citizenship were the children of foreign diplomats and the children of foreign troops involved in a hostile occupation of the US (and Native Americans born on the reservation, since the Indian Citizenship Act hadn't been passed yet).

 

[BobG]

Perhaps we should deny citizenship to all babies born of immigrants just to be safe. They could be terror babies - their mother comes to the US to have her child born with US citizenship, returns to her home country where her baby is raised to be a terrorist, and now grown terrorist can enter the US legally to perform terrorist acts.

'Terror babies': The new immigration scare tactic

I think the immigration debate has now ventured far past the boundaries of bizarre. Or at least US Representative Gohmert (Tex) and Texas State Representative Riddle have.

 

[drankin]

If an American couple have a child outside of the country, is that child American?

 

[skeptic2]

At the age of 18 the child may decide if he or she wants US citizenship or the citizenship of the country he or she was born in. Many countries including Mexico but not the US, permit dual citizenship so in those cases he or she may choose US citizenship and still retain citizenship of the country of birth.