Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    20363
    31 Oct '18 08:13
    @no1marauder said
    I don't believe in blatantly defying the Constitution for partisan political reasons which is what this is all about.

    I'm not in favor of unlimited immigration, think that the amount of illegal immigration over the last few decades has had negative economic effects and am fine with enhancing border security.

    I do not believe in limiting immigration for racial reasons, however.
    Sure, and I do not believe in defying the Constitution for what amounts to a partisan reason, either. The Yale study puts the number of illegals at something like 23 million, and I believe it even says it could be as high as 32 million.

    Imagine what this number would actually be like if none of the children of illegals were recognized as legitimate citizens, either?

    This process has been very harmful because it makes it impossible to calculate real immigration needs and regulate the economy so that it is fair to migrant workers. It also creates parallel societies within America that detract from our overall unity.... I think you already recognize a lot of these reasons.

    Because neither the left nor the right has addressed it for decades in a meaningful way, it is now like an emergency, and all I do is propose that we follow our Leader and embrace the changes that we are seeing because they will bring a resolution quickly.
  2. Subscribermoonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    2490
    31 Oct '18 08:46
    @shavixmir said
    I know.
    I’m just saying it’s stupid.
    Citizenship based on place of birth is not stupid; it was necessary given that the United States was a nation of immigrants (the first U.S. citizens were British subjects, until they revolted, so they had to come up with some other criterion than parental status). Citizenship based on parent(s) citizenship is also not stupid. Each system has its merits, and in cases where the two different systems would lead to an anomaly or a conflict, there are legal procedures for sorting it out.
  3. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    31 Oct '18 09:22
    @philokalia said
    Sure, and I do not believe in defying the Constitution for what amounts to a partisan reason, either. The Yale study puts the number of illegals at something like 23 million, and I believe it even says it could be as high as 32 million.

    Imagine what this number would actually be like if none of the children of illegals were recognized as legitimate citizens, either?

    ...[text shortened]... our Leader and embrace the changes that we are seeing because they will bring a resolution quickly.
    The United States doesn't have a "Leader"; it has a President who takes a oath to defend the Constitution, not ignore it when he finds it politically expedient.

    I don't see any short-term emergency regarding illegal or legal immigration and the matter should be left to the Congress as the Constitution provides.
  4. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80175
    31 Oct '18 13:321 edit
    @moonbus said
    Citizenship based on place of birth is not stupid; it was necessary given that the United States was a nation of immigrants (the first U.S. citizens were British subjects, until they revolted, so they had to come up with some other criterion than parental status). Citizenship based on parent(s) citizenship is also not stupid. Each system has its merits, and in c ...[text shortened]... erent systems would lead to an anomaly or a conflict, there are legal procedures for sorting it out.
    Just a point, until the 1980's anyone born in Britain was automatically a British citizen, or at least had the right to be. In the meantime there was a rule change so that one needs either to have at least one British grandparent if born overseas or be born here and be continuously resident for a decade. I doubt they had well worked out rules in the 18th century. Immigration is only a problem because of the numbers involved and mass migration only really happened during periods of extended war, for example the Hugenots and later the wave of German immigration as a result of the Napoleonic Wars. As mass transport has become more effective people can move country in large numbers for reasons less dire than war and famine.

    On the one hand the US might want to consider more stringent citizenship qualifications, on the other an Executive Order is not the way to do it.

    Edit: My statement about the current British immigration rules was from memory and I might have details wrong.
  5. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    31 Oct '18 13:50
    @deepthought said
    Just a point, until the 1980's anyone born in Britain was automatically a British citizen, or at least had the right to be. In the meantime there was a rule change so that one needs either to have at least one British grandparent if born overseas or be born here and be continuously resident for a decade. I doubt they had well worked out rules in the 18th century. Immig ...[text shortened]... tatement about the current British immigration rules was from memory and I might have details wrong.
    Actually, British common law did have well-worked out rules in the 18th Century:

    By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England.

    Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, Cockburn on Nationality, (cited in United States v. Wong Kim Ark). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
  6. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    31 Oct '18 16:08
    @philokalia said
    Right -- con sanguinas birth right is what makes the most sense.

    Even though my significant other and I are both legal long-term residents on legal visas here, our child will not be considered a Korean citizen. They will be given de facto legal residence, but only after a long period of living here and meeting certain qualifications will they even be given full citizenship.
    What makes "the most sense" is to grant people equal rights.
  7. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Mr. Wolf
    at home
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45709
    31 Oct '18 19:24
    @moonbus said
    Citizenship based on place of birth is not stupid; it was necessary given that the United States was a nation of immigrants (the first U.S. citizens were British subjects, until they revolted, so they had to come up with some other criterion than parental status). Citizenship based on parent(s) citizenship is also not stupid. Each system has its merits, and in c ...[text shortened]... erent systems would lead to an anomaly or a conflict, there are legal procedures for sorting it out.
    Most countries accept both criteria.
    My daughters are both British and NZ citizens.
    Born to British parents and born in NZ.

    Some countries (like Holland) do not alow dual nationality but I reckon with
    some creative thinking you could conjure up a situation where a person has
    citizenship in 7 countries since often grandparent nationality is considered.
  8. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Mr. Wolf
    at home
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45709
    31 Oct '18 19:27
    @philokalia said
    Sure, and I do not believe in defying the Constitution for what amounts to a partisan reason, either. The Yale study puts the number of illegals at something like 23 million, and I believe it even says it could be as high as 32 million.
    What would taking 32 million out of the country do to the economy?
  9. Joined
    05 Nov '06
    Moves
    81763
    01 Nov '18 09:53
    @wolfgang59 said
    What would taking 32 million out of the country do to the economy?
    increase the wage for legal workers, school kids could find meanial work again, be able to understand tech support people. Oh I see, you want to pretend every illegal is employed...why do you ignore those recieving govt benefits without contributing to the system?
  10. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35902
    01 Nov '18 10:14
    @whodey said
    How is it a sovereign nation any invasion force can enter it and declare amnesty and then vote?

    The 14th amendment says all person born or naturalized in the US, "subject to the jurisdiction therefor...". How does that apply to anyone who crosses our borders and enters this nation "illegally"? I cannot understand how anyone can believe a woman can illegally cross our border, have a baby that afternoon and it is considered a citizen.
    Hey, stupid.

    ANYone (except maybe for ambassadors and others with 'diplomatic immunity' ) inside the borders of the US is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US. The benefits of US law apply to ANYone within the borders of the US. This is basic US Constitution 101.

    Yes, even "illegal" immigrants. How else could the US deport them? Federal law has jurisdiction within the borders of the US. How something this simple eludes you conservatives is sad, really.
Back to Top