Of course, Republicans are advocating fascism. That’s all that is left of the Party of Lincoln. A bunch of Aryan Nation and multinational monopolists. Anyone sane left the party in 2006.
3 Likes
Stock said. “If we want to administer this fairly …
Well, that’s not a problem. They’re not interested in administering it fairly.
1 Like
Not I, my North American ancestry goes back to the 1600’s, had a Great, Great, Great, Great (if not more I always loose track) a Colonel on Washington’s staff.
1 Like
Holy cow! My earliest ancestor was an “anchor baby” born in 1751 in PA. to a Germanic emigrant couple. Worried here 'bout them crazy GOPers.
1 Like
Birthright citizenship is a new world concept, currently practiced nowhere in Europe. Around the world, historical precedence leans far more heavily to lineage not geography of birth as the deciding factor in whether one was a citizen (or more commonly, subject) of the state or crown.
Ending it is certainly counter to U.S. precedence, but hardly at odds with a millennium of Western Civilization.
Ironically, such a system goes against the grain of many of the values —
smaller government, privacy, less bureaucracy — that conservatives hold
dear.
When liberals say stuff like this, it shows how effective Republicans have been in establishing a brand. The fact that Republicans are not for smaller government is just a simple fact. The difference is what they want to spend it on. They want to spend it on armies, intelligence agencies, and lucrative contracts to GE and Grumman. They want to put tanks in the hands of small down police; they want to build more prisons and higher walls. They want lower takes for the rich, offset partially by higher takes for the non-rich. They want Hispanic people to have to carry papers and more police to enforce it; they want more invasive laws and more bureaucracy to make sure unapproved of sex isn’t happening, and they want massive drug screening programs for recipients of government payouts (but only for poor individuals). They want the government to have permission to snoop and track everything you do.
Please don’t do their work for them by claiming small government, privacy, and less bureaucracy are Republican values.
3 Likes
Heck no. Birthright citizenship was a thing in England as far back as the 1600s in England. If your parents were subject to the King’s law, ie not an enemy or minister for another power, you were a citizen.
1 Like
Oops, my grandfather’s birth certificate was lost in the Charleston earthquake. He married someone he met overseas, so she got citizenship through him. So much for me.
I think the very lunacy of this idea is what attracts GOP political hacks (but I repeat myself) to it. It will never happen, and it would be a disaster if it did, so they can fundraise off it and stir up outraged members of the base pretty much forever. And they need something new to do those things, because gay marriage and the ACA really don’t have a lot of money power any more.
3 Likes
I suspect he actually employs anchor babies…to keep his yacht from drifting away.
1 Like
The even creepier thing if you look at the birthers questioning the citizenship of the 4 candidates in this TPM article is that they are applying a subjective loyalty criterion. So basically if you look funny to them or your parents did something they don’t like, well then…
2 Likes
Where are the Asian / Pacific/ Sub Continent voices on this issue?
Where are those groups giving their money to and who are they supporting?
Seems like this issue is as relevent to that population as well.
We have already decided that “illegal” Irish, Polish, European immagrants don’t exist in this version of reality so what about Asians?
Or is the arguement that just Hispanics that benefit from the 14th amendment?
In many of those countries there is a national ID that everyone carries, which parents would show when the child is registered. Conservatives here have been against that, as have most liberals too. I suppose you could use SSNs-if someone has one they are a citizen or legal permanent resident. There would of course be situations where the mother is undocumented and the father is unfindable, but the mother claims he is a citizen or legal resident. Not sure what you would do there.
Another problem is what if the home country decides (out of spite, or whatever motive) to change their laws such that those born abroad are not citizens, something they would be free to do? Then you have a stateless person, which is bad, and various treaties are specifically designed to prevent that. Then the parents’ home country can refuse the child and it ends up in foster care here.
The truth is this seems like an extreme measure to solve something that really isn’t a problem. These kids born here grow up to be like everybody else. Most will work and pay taxes and there is no compelling national interest in messing around with the current situation as regards citizenship.
1 Like
I’m 76, white, born in the United States. My parents came to this country 6 months before I was born. They eventually were made naturalized citizens. I of course was not, already being a U.S. citizen by birth. Does this idea mean that I would lose my citizenship? If nothing else any constitutional amendment would have to be complicated! I’m not sure any of the people suggesting taking away ‘birthright’ citizenship are smart enough to figure out the complexity of what they are suggesting!
3 Likes
Absolutely. Hypocrisy to no end.
Okay, I overstated it a bit, but it is not an American concept (although throughout the Americas it is the prevailing rule), and is very very old with a strong rationale behind it. It originated in Europe, and was British common law with the only exception being parties at arms against the King from the first millennium through 1983 (Thanks, Thatcher!), at which point it was restricted further.
Jus soli is still the law of the land in Britain, albeit with those new restrictions in place (which are relatively mild, allowing jus soli if either of the parents is “settled” in the country rather than requiring citizenship or application for exception). Places where Jus soli is not the law of the land or is heavily restricted have had significant increases in noncitizen “helot” populations (the muslim non-resident population in France, for instance) which have been major sources of violence and unrest in those countries.
Personally, I find jus soli as a more compelling and manageable standard for citizenship than jus sanguinis (blood right). It is a lot easier to prove one’s birth than to prove one’s ancestry to an arbitrarily long lineage. And, it makes more sense that if you are born here you get the rights of citizenship by default rather than gaining rights of citizenship based on who your parents are (or assert themselves to be). From the perspective of the state, having the vast majority of people inside its borders as citizens adds significant stability, while having people outside its borders who it is obligated to protect only ads risk for no benefit (which isn’t to say people should lose citizenship by leaving the country, but if you are permanently settled elsewhere, why should you be considered a citizen of here?)
In any case, blithely saying something that has been the law of the land for centuries should be gotten rid of, with no thought for either the consequences nor the reason why that existed in the first place, should rationally disqualify someone from public office.
4 Likes
Perhaps I should have said predominantly new world concept, where the questions of rights and citizenship as they related to popular sovereignty became inevitable. In the old world national identity was far more defined by blood ties and notions of fealty to a ruling sovereign than it was geography of birth. As for 17th century English law, it extended the “rights of Englishmen” only to Scots born after the ascension of the Scottish King James to the throne of England in 1603. Calvin’s Case was a building block in English common law later referenced to expand the definition of bght citizenship, but it pays to remember that even in this country the full rights of citizenship were initially only granted to white land-owning males, and it took a Supreme Court decision to grant birthright citizenship to Chinese born in this country, thirty years after the 14th amendment. Native Americans who refused to renounce tribal affiliations were not included until congressional action in 1924 and even then on the state level full rights weren’t automatic until 1957.
That I have no argument with.
I think we should do away with citizenship for anyone who hasn’t attended an ivy league school or served in the military. The rest are unworthy of the vote. 
.
I think the very lunacy of this idea is what attracts GOP political hacks (but I repeat myself) to it. It will never happen, and it would be a disaster if it did, so they can fundraise off it and stir up outraged members of the base pretty much forever. And they need something new to do those things, because gay marriage and the ACA really don’t have a lot of money power any more.
Bingo.
And how soon we forget exactly WHY all those Europeans emigrated to America-- because here you could be yourself, not confined entirely by your family’s situation…
We used to be proud of that, that we were open and accepting and independent and went our own way in opposition to the jaded old European states. The lack of birthright citizenship has been a real problem in Europe, btw- there are second-generations Germans without citizenship, and how is THAT a good thing?
They are not citizens anywhere. Stateless. That’s not the way to create a loyal and productive populace.
2 Likes