Discussion: The Tech Industry Also Has A Stake In Maintaining Birthright Citizenship

TPM Article Topics
1

Discussion for article #239773

2

“Birthright citizenship foes target their criticism of the practice –
widely believed to be enshrined by the 14th Amendment to the
Constitution …”

In the same way that 2 + 2 is widely believed to equal 4?

11 Likes
3

Let me start by saying that I totally support birthright citizenship in its current form. However, I think this article glosses over an important distinction, namely the difference between legal and illegal immigration. Someone here on an H1-B is here legally, and is clearly subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. The real question around birthright citizenship is whether Congress could interpret the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause to exclude illegal immigrants.

I think that would be bad policy, and is likely not supported by the precedents, but if such a law were passed and upheld it would have no impact on the tech community which overwhelmingly uses legal immigrants.

I should note that Jeb Bush’s recent comments about Asians coming on tourist visas to take unfair advantage of birthright citizenship are a complete smokescreen. Short of repealing the Fourteenth Amendment, the newborn children of those who come in legally, whether on tourist visas or H-1Bs, cannot be denied citizenship. The government could deny tourist visas to pregnant women, but hopefully the potential for retaliation from other countries will keep such a stupid policy from seeing the light of day.

2 Likes
4

Considering how extremely difficult it is to amend the Constitution , the 14th amendment will never be repealed, so everyone chill, already!

1 Like
5

I too support birthright citizenship but it might also be worth mentioning that H1-B people will come regardless of their unborn children being granted US citizenship upon birth. Where else are they going to go? They’re coming because that is where the $$ technology jobs are.

3 Likes
6

If “illegal immigrants” are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then the United States has no legal authority over them. They cannot be deported and they cannot be imprisoned if the United States has no jurisdiction over them. “Jurisdiction” isn’t just a cute word; it is a technical term that defines whether a judicial system has legal authority over a matter. To claim or to rule that “illegal immigrants” are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States would open a whole nother can of worms for the legal system. Believe me, you don’t want to go there.

The “subject to the jurisdiction” clause was meant to exclude the children of foreign diplomats, invading armies, and, at the time, “Indians not taxed”.

6 Likes
7

Um, no.

First, demagoguery has its own very bad side effects.

Second, it is hardly impossible to change the Constitution (seems like we’ve done that a few dozen times already, so …)

Third, with a little demagoguery on the issue today getting the “right” person in office to nominate judges to the SCOTUS, and an already-imbalanced “constitutional conservative” bent on that bench, it is very possible to then push a lawsuit to he SCOTUS for them to reinterpret the 14th amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause as excepting undocumented immigrants (which would have far-reaching consequences far beyond just the 14th amendment including for instance no Miranda and due-process rights for undocumented persons in the US, etc, but it is what Trump’s crack legal team is arguing).

So, yeah, I’m not ready to chill on this.

2 Likes
8

Well, it is an equilibrium. The $$ technology jobs are here because highly-skilled workers are here (where that group includes both US citizens / residents and those who can easily be enticed to come here). Making it a lot harder for foreign talent to come to the US (or rather, removing a very large carrot) shifts the equilibrium towards offshoring jobs and teams to other places.

Agree completely. But, this is exactly where Trump is going, so it is worth our time to understand why it is such a disastrously bad idea.

9

I don’t think birthright citizenship is the issue with the tech industry. Tech’s concern is that highly-skilled foreign born works are readily available to them. The birthright issue really isn’t much of a factor when it comes to getting low wage high skilled workers into the high tech pipeline.

1 Like
10

Congress can “interpret” as they wish. They can “interpret” the first amendment to allow them to ban flag burning (as they did), but the courts over-ruled that. “Subject to the jurisdiction” doesn’t mean obeying all laws-if it did, there would be no citizens at all. It means one can be punished for disobeying the law, whether one is actually apprehended and convicted or not. Legal permanent residents, legal temporary workers, tourists and illegals all fall into that category,

11

Any and all talk of amending/repealing the 14th is RWNJ election-year base-ginning.
That we’re discussing ‘merits’ is the sideshow.

jw1

12

See: AZ ‘papers-please’ legislation for how a bubbled population can stretch the interpretation.
Not pretty. Barely legal; for now.

jw1

1 Like
13

They’re right of course. It’s too bad their reasoning is entirely selfish in nature. Their only concern with visa holders is ultimately how it would affect their ability to recruit, not what is right or wrong.

14

Republicans don’t intend to repeal birthright citizenship for good people. Only bad ones. And The Rump will know them when he sees them because Management!

That is a completely accurate description of the platform. It’s as if the Underpants Gnomes hired Green Lantern as a Phase Two Consultant.

1 Like
15

It would be worse for the Imperial Valley farmers. Computer and software companies are far from the only ones who like their cheap labor just fine.

1 Like
16

The scaremongering about “permanently undocumented or secondary citizens” is really utter BS. What do you think happens when a child is born to US citizens abroad? That’s right, it gets US citizenship, it’s just a bit more paperwork. Children born to foreign workers in the US wouldn’t be stateless or any such nonsense, they would get their parent’s citizenship.

Yes, it would absolutely reduce the incentive for skilled workers to immigrate to the US, but there’s no need to make stuff up.

2 Likes
17

if birthright citizenship is ended would that mean we could revoke Donnie Dipstick’s citizenship?

18

Tierney Sneed has her doubts.

2 Likes
19

TPM, would you please stop referring to birthright citizenship as a mere “practice”? You’ve received tons of complaints about this, yet you persist. Today, you elaborate a little: “the practice – widely believed to be enshrined by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.” Widely believed, my ass. It’s fucking universally believed, with the apparent exception of TPM writers and editors. One has to wonder whether TPM similarly regards freedom of the press as a practice widely believed to be enshrined in the First Amendment.

Seriously, if you believe that you have a good reason for referring to birthright citizenship as a mere practice, rather than the law of the land for the past 147 years, please share your reasoning with us. Otherwise, just fucking stop this nonsense.

5 Likes
20

With hopes someone who has the means to put an end to this squish reads your post, I thank you. If we were so inclined we could even inform those in charge that the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were passed during Reconstruction all in the furtherance of civil rights for slaves, but that would be too much non-Donald news for one day and way too much American history.

2 Likes