Birthright Citizenship

[wildcat09 29346]

41 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

While I don't think it should be done by Executive Order,  I would like to see birthright citizenship go away.  

As a poster mentioned earlier, it was implemented to give citizenship to freed slaves.  I think citizenship should be granted automatically based on the citizenship of the mother, and applied for in all other cases.  I have a nephew who was born in Germany, but he's not a German citizen.  

While racism may be behind the Right's reasoning, getting rid of birthright citizenship isn't an inherently racist position.  In my case it's largely a fiscal one.  

I want universal healthcare and education in the US.  That's sustainable if anyone citizenship is granted solely based on being born in the US.

So, aside from attacking Trump (which I do on a regular), or claimed racism, what is the argument in favor of birthright citizenship?  

Assuming you meant to say it's unsustainable, why do you think so?

[NameWithHeld 101]

2 minutes ago, mdmost said:

And you're welcome to try to amend the Constitution to change that law that is so offensive to you. But you short sided reactionaries who want to amend the Constitution by E.O....be careful what you wish for because the next Dem President might come after your guns that same way. 

Damn Activist Executive Branchers!

Why are you dems so Pro-illegal alien and rewarding them with citizenship for their children born here?   Fuck the people who abide by the rules?

[Lagunamadre 1975]

37 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

While I don't think it should be done by Executive Order,  I would like to see birthright citizenship go away.  

As a poster mentioned earlier, it was implemented to give citizenship to freed slaves.  I think citizenship should be granted automatically based on the citizenship of the mother, and applied for in all other cases.  I have a nephew who was born in Germany, but he's not a German citizen.  

While racism may be behind the Right's reasoning, getting rid of birthright citizenship isn't an inherently racist position.  In my case it's largely a fiscal one.  

I want universal healthcare and education in the US.  That's sustainable if anyone citizenship is granted solely based on being born in the US.

So, aside from attacking Trump (which I do on a regular), or claimed racism, what is the argument in favor of birthright citizenship?  

You know other Countries don't have a 2nd amendment either and their kids aren't afraid of getting sprayed with bullets during their school passing periods like ours our. 

So as long as we are axing constitutional amendments for a more perfect unions, let's throw that one in there as well. 

[hayden_horn 11362]

6 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

This right here.  Have your debate, then realize that all the time you spent debating this could've been spent on something that will actually make a difference.

Also, it's all smoke and mirrors for the election.  Crazy racist tweet from the Dotus this morning shoulda toldja.

he's apparently offering remarks on immigration this afternoon.

if yall can't see that this fucking racist shitbag is just using brown people as election pawns, i don't know what to tell you. he's been doing this from the first time he uttered anything about a wall. he's just stirring racist animus to score political points. that's all it is.

[wildcat09 29346]

Just now, NameWithHeld said:

Why are you dems so Pro-illegal alien and rewarding them with citizenship for their children born here?   Fuck the people who abide by the rules?

Because their kids will in all likelihood grow up to be better and more productive members of society than you.

[mdmost 42999]

2 minutes ago, NameWithHeld said:

Why are you dems so Pro-illegal alien and rewarding them with citizenship for their children born here?   Fuck the people who abide by the rules?

I'm not pro-illegal alien. I'm pro-don't send back kids who had no choice in where they were born to a country they don't know.

[Huckleberry 32848]

It's already established that you don't realize that low income people are still a net tax positive, slorch, we don't need to rehash it here.

Payroll taxes, consumption taxes, etc. Just because you don't want to believe it doesn't make it wrong. In 2010 the SSA estimates that illegal immigrants and their employers paid $13B, that's billion, in social security payroll taxes. Other studies have found that illegal immigrants pay approximately 8% of their income in state and local taxes. That's a higher rate than the wealthiest Americans because apparently Turbo Tax isn't quite the same as having a private accountant finding loopholes. Also, 6 million illegal immigrants file income taxes each year. So even though you might not choose to do so if you had a fake SSN, turns out that there are quite a few illegal immigrants who dutifully pay taxes to a government that claims they don't want them here (but privately knows they need them here).

[bad_teammate 13191]

The kids, who are the ones receiving citizenship, did nothing wrong. We should not, as a policy, punish kids who did nothing wrong.

[bernorange 8359]

My two sons both have dual citizenship with another country thanks to birthright citizenship.  Wife was with me while I was working overseas both times.  It was a pain in the ass to get the Consular Report of Birth Abroad documents for them, but not nearly as much a pain in the ass as getting their local paperwork handled.   /csb

[hayden_horn 11362]

5 minutes ago, NameWithHeld said:

Why are you dems so Pro-illegal alien and rewarding them with citizenship for their children born here?   Fuck the people who abide by the rules?

it cracks me up how people like you frame the issue. because someone disagrees, they must be a dem, and must be for fucking the people who abide by the rules.

you know that doesn't have to be, right? we can still grant jus soli citizenship. you know what else we could do? we could open the door a little fucking wider. how the fuck else are we going to give the olds their medicare and social security?

[Fudge Nuggets 19189]

7 minutes ago, bernorange said:

My two sons both have dual citizenship with another country thanks to birthright citizenship.  Wife was with me while I was working overseas both times.  It was a pain in the ass to get the Consular Report of Birth Abroad documents for them, but not nearly as much a pain in the ass as getting their local paperwork handled.   /csb

Why was it so difficult to get their Cosular Report?  In my two cases it was a breeze.

[bernorange 8359]

8 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Why was it so difficult to get their Cosular Report?  In my two cases it was a breeze.

Mostly because of long lines at the embassy and having to go back a couple of times when we didn't have something they required.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

35 minutes ago, NameWithHeld said:

So if you break US Law by illegally entering this country and give birth to a child we should reward the illegal alien by granting citizenship to the child and by default giving the parent(s) permanent residency?

Stupid  

the people that actually do it the LEGAL way wait years/decades and pay a lot of money are bypassed. They are the ones who will contribute to this society and will not be a drain.    Seems fair to me

  

 

26 minutes ago, slorch said:

Low income folks get rebates, or negative returns on federal taxes.

You think this caravan of folks approaching the US is gonna walk into $50k/ year jobs and middle class life in the first generation?

Maybe they are.  I'm not quite as optimistic.

I posed on here yesterday how many Texans actually believed that immigrants are a net negative on the economy, in light of the daily experience we all have of high immigration and good economy.  I think the number is up to two at least.

[Fozzz 152]

As i've said before, immigration is such a clarifying topic with respect to the actual feelings and beliefs that animate the right-wing worldview.  True market fundamentalists would be all in favor of the mobility of labor across national borders, just as they would be all in favor of the mobility of goods across those borders.  Lumpenproletariat like Slorch, when you get down to it, aren't nearly as pro-market as they believe.  

[HenryJames 66038]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

3 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

As i've said before, immigration is such a clarifying topic with respect to the actual feelings and beliefs that animate the right-wing worldview.  True market fundamentalists would be all in favor of the mobility of labor across national borders, just as they would be all in favor of the mobility of goods across those borders.  Lumpenproletariat like Slorch, when you get down to it, aren't nearly as pro-market as they believe.  

There is a reason for this.  I believe it’s easier to push the culture war to motivate voters than it is the benifits of free market capitalism.

[DanRydell 799]

As a poster mentioned earlier, it was implemented to give citizenship to freed slaves.  

This is simply false. Birthright citizenship was universally understood as the law from the start (and for centuries under English common law). The Fourteenth Amendment was enshrining what the law already was and making clear that Dred Scott was wrong.

For example, there was no federal statute in 1809 that made Abraham Lincoln a US citizen by virtue of being born in Kentucky. He just was, and it never occurred to anyone he wasn’t.

[DanRydell 799]

Why are you dems so Pro-illegal alien and rewarding them with citizenship for their children born here?   Fuck the people who abide by the rules?

I’m pro human rights, regardless of what someone’s parents did.

[sheeeit 129]

The reality is that immigration is just a political tool for both parties.  Bush 2 had a sensible plan for immigration and the repubs rejected it.  Obama and the dems had control of the house and senate and proposed exactly zero immigration fixes.  

I tend to agree that birth citizenship needs to be re worked.  I kind of like Canada's policy.  Basically, if you are born here you are a citizen as long as your parents/mother are in the country legally.

Immigration could be drastically improved if we adopt a very streamlined guest worker program.  I would support an almost unlimited guest worker program.  Essentially, have employers send requests for guest workers and have virtually all of them be approved.  If/when we get to a point that no employers are requesting workers then stop issuing work visas.

To the original topic, if a baby is born to a guest worker in the US then the baby is a citizen by birth.  

If you are in the US as a guest worker you should have ample ways to apply for citizenship while you are here if you want it.  

Take the caravan as an example.  If we currently had 50,000 requests for guest workers, then lets go find 7000 Guatemalans and bring them in to fill those jobs.  A lot safer for them than walking across mexico.

But lets not kid ourselves.  In no other country can people sneak into that country illegally and have a baby and then that baby be considered a citizen of that country. 

[hayden_horn 11362]

27 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

As i've said before, immigration is such a clarifying topic with respect to the actual feelings and beliefs that animate the right-wing worldview.  True market fundamentalists would be all in favor of the mobility of labor across national borders, just as they would be all in favor of the mobility of goods across those borders.  Lumpenproletariat like Slorch, when you get down to it, aren't nearly as pro-market as they believe.  

this is what is so galling to me. 

capitalism requires globalism, and globalism requires the movement of capital, goods, and labor across international borders.

the republican party has gone all in against capitalism while trying to convince (somewhat successfully) the slorches of the world that they are free market capitalists. 

[bad_teammate 13191]

25 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

As i've said before, immigration is such a clarifying topic with respect to the actual feelings and beliefs that animate the right-wing worldview.  True market fundamentalists would be all in favor of the mobility of labor across national borders, just as they would be all in favor of the mobility of goods across those borders.  Lumpenproletariat like Slorch, when you get down to it, aren't nearly as pro-market as they believe.  

Yes, this.

Most people aren't ideological at their core. Most people are fairly susceptible to framing and being sold. (Our types of people, the types who purposefully seek out political conflict online, are not like them in that way.)

You can basically sell 60% of Americans on any kind of story you want given the right climate, the right pitch, and the right pitchman. Right now the 60% is loving the racial-fascist pitch. In a year the 60% could be back on the hope-change racial-friendliness bandwagon.

[bad_teammate 13191]

3 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

The reality is that immigration is just a political tool for both parties.  Bush 2 had a sensible plan for immigration and the repubs rejected it.  Obama and the dems had control of the house and senate and proposed exactly zero immigration fixes.

I'm not a fan of Obama's immigration proposals, but they absolutely existed. The Gang of 8 was a thing.

The Republicans are the ones who kill this. We should criticize the Dems for not being big and bold enough, but they actually try.

[Fozzz 152]

The people who run the GOP certainly haven't gone all in against capitalism.  But as Hugo points out above, they need the culture war/xenophobia to get people like Slorch to vote for them.  Slorch is just too chicken to admit what is really animating his beliefs (fear of the other), as proven by the contradictions between his own positions.  

Edited November 1, 2018 by Fozzz

[sheeeit 129]

7 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

 

I’m pro human rights, regardless of what someone’s parents did.

 

So where do you draw your line?  I am assuming that you think it is wrong to deport the parents of babies born in the US?  What about the babies of parents that commit crimes?  Should we not imprison them because their babies did nothing wrong?  In those albeit rare situations, the babies become wards of the state and are placed with foster parents or relatives if available and willing.  Is that a satisfactory plan for these immigrant babies?  Of course the answer is no.  No one would want that.  But the law currently says people caught in the country illegally should be deported.  If the parents should legally be deported then the baby should go with them.  But we do not deport US citizens.  It is not an easy issue to decide on.

[TheRealRonWeaver? 1258]

1 hour ago, NameWithHeld said:

Why are you dems so Pro-illegal alien and rewarding them with citizenship for their children born here?   Fuck the people who abide by the rules?

I thought the 14th Amendment was "the rules."  No?

[SimonBolivar 10957]

Just now, TheRealRonWeaver? said:

I thought the 14th Amendment was "the rules."  No?

Yeah but they have to press 1 for English now so we need to change the rules.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

7 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

The people who run the GOP certainly haven't gone all in against capitalism.

Yes they have. For Capitalism to work, there needs to be an element of fair play, competition, and easy access to markets.  

The GOP sold out any allegiance to these ideas long ago.  The best recent example is the roll back of net neutrality.  No one wanted that except a few tech superpowers.  And the GOP gladly sold it to them.  

Edited November 1, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Fozzz 152]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yes they have. For Capitalism to work, there needs to be an element of fair play, competition, and easy access to markets.  

The GOP sold out any allegiance to these ideas long ago.  The best recent example is the roll back of net neutrality.  No one wanted that except a few tech superpowers.  And the GOP sold it to them.  

You're going to have to explain to me how clear governmental interference in the functioning of the market (net neutrality) is actually capitalist.  Capitalism naturally breeds corporate consolidation and monopsony power.    

[relapse98 634]

15 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

 In no other country can people sneak into that country illegally and have a baby and then that baby be considered a citizen of that country. 

You mean other than the 30 plus countries where they can?

[sheeeit 129]

10 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

this is what is so galling to me. 

capitalism requires globalism, and globalism requires the movement of capital, goods, and labor across international borders.

the republican party has gone all in against capitalism while trying to convince (somewhat successfully) the slorches of the world that they are free market capitalists. 

Hayden- This is such a poorly thought out emotional blame the republican post and you know it.  This new tactic of trying to somehow use immigration reform as somehow in conflict with capitalism is just too stupid.

"capitalism requires globalism, and globalism requires the movement of capital, goods, and labor across international borders."

For the most part this is exactly correct but you forgot maybe the most important word which is legal.  You think capitalism is dependent on capital and goods moving between countries illegally or under ground?  Of course not.  

I do not like the hard right approach to immigration at all.  I would not deport anyone that is currently in the US and obeying the law.  But trying to make an argument that trying to restrict/prevent ILLEGAL immigration is anti capitalist is retarded.  

 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

1 minute ago, Fozzz said:

You're going to have to explain to me how clear governmental interference in the functioning of the market (net neutrality) is actually capitalist.  Capitalism naturally breeds corporate consolidation and monopsony power.    

it's equal access to utilities (and treatment of the net as a utility).  that enhances competition that rests on those utilities.

[hayden_horn 11362]

1 minute ago, sheeeit said:

Hayden- This is such a poorly thought out emotional blame the republican post and you know it.  This new tactic of trying to somehow use immigration reform as somehow in conflict with capitalism is just too stupid.

"capitalism requires globalism, and globalism requires the movement of capital, goods, and labor across international borders."

For the most part this is exactly correct but you forgot maybe the most important word which is legal.  You think capitalism is dependent on capital and goods moving between countries illegally or under ground?  Of course not.  

I do not like the hard right approach to immigration at all.  I would not deport anyone that is currently in the US and obeying the law.  But trying to make an argument that trying to restrict/prevent ILLEGAL immigration is anti capitalist is retarded.  

 

supply and demand, dude. our domestic market demands more foreign labor than is legally supplied. we should allow more in.  we can do that, you know. we can make it legal for more people to enter this country and serve the demand for labor.

we don't. 

why is that?

[tantric superman 4667]

11 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Our birthrate is far from a problem. 

 

Birthrate is a problem in terms of the continuing existence of the planet. 

[SimonBolivar 10957]

5 minutes ago, relapse98 said:

You mean other than the 30 plus countries where they can?

It's an American thing for sure. Only 5 of 35 countries (Bahamas, Colombia, Haiti, Suriname, and The Dominican Republic) in the Western Hemisphere don't have birthright citizenship. You know the whole new world not modeled on the old world stuff.

[tantric superman 4667]

1 hour ago, slorch said:

You think this caravan of folks approaching the US is gonna walk into $50k/ year jobs and middle class life in the first generation?

Maybe they are.  I'm not quite as optimistic.

There is no way those faux-mexicans can pull themselves up by their bootstraps like you did.

I mean, didn't you walk here from, like Sweetwater?

[DanRydell 799]

So where do you draw your line?  I am assuming that you think it is wrong to deport the parents of babies born in the US?  What about the babies of parents that commit crimes?  Should we not imprison them because their babies did nothing wrong?  In those albeit rare situations, the babies become wards of the state and are placed with foster parents or relatives if available and willing.  Is that a satisfactory plan for these immigrant babies?  Of course the answer is no.  No one would want that.  But the law currently says people caught in the country illegally should be deported.  If the parents should legally be deported then the baby should go with them.  But we do not deport US citizens.  It is not an easy issue to decide on.

I draw the line at actively punishing children for for the conducts of their parents.

[sheeeit 129]

16 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I'm not a fan of Obama's immigration proposals, but they absolutely existed. The Gang of 8 was a thing.

The Republicans are the ones who kill this. We should criticize the Dems for not being big and bold enough, but they actually try.

I agree that the gang of 8 proposal was pretty fair.  It is wrong to say it was an "Obama" or "Repub" or "Dem" plan though as, by its name, the gang of 8 was bi-partisan.  I agree that it was shitty of the repubs to kill it.  My point though was that there was a period where the dems could have put forth a proposal where they controlled the House as well as the Senate and Boehner would have had no power to kill it before a vote and they chose not to do it.  Neither side really wants a workable solution.

[HenryJames 66038]

3 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Neither side really wants a workable solution.

No, the Freedom Caucus doesn’t want a workable solution.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

7 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

You're going to have to explain to me how clear governmental interference in the functioning of the market (net neutrality) is actually capitalist.  Capitalism naturally breeds corporate consolidation and monopsony power.    

Regulation does not equal anti-capitalism no matter how much the republicans try to sell that line.

We have anti-trust laws to prevent monopolies, which are by their nature anti-capitalistic.

When markets go unregulated we end up with too-big to fail scenarios which are also the antithesis of capitalism because the state is obligated to bail them out or suffer dire consequences.

Regulations, while some are bad, some are necessary to preserve the foundations of a healthy capitalist marketplace.  

Net neutrality leveled the playing field for smaller mom and pop internet businesses.  Without net neutrality, the big dogs can squeeze out the little guys by literally slowing them down while speeding themselves up. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

he's apparently offering remarks on immigration this afternoon.

if yall can't see that this fucking racist shitbag is just using brown people as election pawns, i don't know what to tell you. he's been doing this from the first time he uttered anything about a wall. he's just stirring racist animus to score political points. that's all it is.

I am in agreement that the wall is idiotic and people just need to stfu in promoting it as some viable solution. Enforce the laws on the books and move on. 

[Huckleberry 32848]

20 minutes ago, relapse98 said:

You mean other than the 30 plus countries where they can?

It's interesting to me that so many people are pointing to other countries and saying we should be more like them but ignoring the ones with jus soli. 

 

Now is there any reason that these people would be ignoring all those countries in Latin America and instead looking to all those countries in Europe for guidance? Any reason at all? Hard to come up with one, you know what I mean? What is it about Europe that makes these people agree with them on this particular issue even though they disagree with Europe on so much else? A complete and total mystery.

[bad_teammate 13191]

27 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yes they have. For Capitalism to work, there needs to be an element of fair play, competition, and easy access to markets.  

The GOP sold out any allegiance to these ideas long ago.  The best recent example is the roll back of net neutrality.  No one wanted that except a few tech superpowers.  And the GOP gladly sold it to them.  

*pssssssst* capitalism is bad

[sheeeit 129]

10 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

supply and demand, dude. our domestic market demands more foreign labor than is legally supplied. we should allow more in.  we can do that, you know. we can make it legal for more people to enter this country and serve the demand for labor.

we don't. 

why is that?

It is just not that simple.  We had periods as recently as 2011 where we had unemployment over 10%.  At that point we did not need additional uneducated workers in the country.

I have made my stance known right here on this thread that I think an enhanced guest worker program is by far the best solution to our needs.  When we have demand, let in as many folks as necessary to meet the demand.  When the demand lessens or goes away, send the guest workers back to their own country.  As far as capitalism goes, this is by far the most economical solution.  You bring in the human capital you need when you need it but you do not have to support that human capital when you do not need it.  Many, many countries do this already.

The dems are the ones that consistently shoot down expanded guest worker solutions.  The biggest reason is that the unions hate it and the dems are beholden to them.  

Like I said, neither party wants a truly workable solution.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

It's already established that you don't realize that low income people are still a net tax positive, slorch, we don't need to rehash it here.

Payroll taxes, consumption taxes, etc. Just because you don't want to believe it doesn't make it wrong. In 2010 the SSA estimates that illegal immigrants and their employers paid $13B, that's billion, in social security payroll taxes. Other studies have found that illegal immigrants pay approximately 8% of their income in state and local taxes. That's a higher rate than the wealthiest Americans because apparently Turbo Tax isn't quite the same as having a private accountant finding loopholes. Also, 6 million illegal immigrants file income taxes each year. So even though you might not choose to do so if you had a fake SSN, turns out that there are quite a few illegal immigrants who dutifully pay taxes to a government that claims they don't want them here (but privately knows they need them here).

How do they pay payroll taxes for jobs not requiring an I-9?

 

keep pushing that mystery math

 

i mean these awesome people just want to fully contribute to our society...I get it. 

Edited November 1, 2018 by slorch

[Anastasis 23463]

29 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Birthrate is a problem in terms of the continuing existence of the planet. 

Mildly racist?

[this 107]

2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Your logic is here is questionable at best. How do you figure more citizens makes these things less fiscally attainable? You realize that new citizens pay taxes just like old citizens, right? Or would you rather more people be illegal and therefore less likely to pay income tax (although we still obviously collect lots of other taxes even from those who don't pay income tax).

Hell, some of our entitlements wouldn't just continue with an ever-growing population, they actually depend on it just like a ponzi scheme.

This. And the fact that growing population is a must for a robust growing economy. 

[Fozzz 152]

35 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Regulation does not equal anti-capitalism no matter how much the republicans try to sell that line.

We have anti-trust laws to prevent monopolies, which are by their nature anti-capitalistic.

When markets go unregulated we end up with too-big to fail scenarios which are also the antithesis of capitalism because the state is obligated to bail them out or suffer dire consequences.

Regulations, while some are bad, some are necessary to preserve the foundations of a healthy capitalist marketplace.  

Net neutrality leveled the playing field for smaller mom and pop internet businesses.  Without net neutrality, the big dogs can squeeze out the little guys by literally slowing them down while speeding themselves up. 

The state isn't obligated to do anything.  You are simply begging the question here - capitalism does not define some desired distribution of market power.  It does not define some desired share of income to capital and income to labor.  The government could seize the assets of a monopoly of a given industry and sell them off in pieces to equalize market power in that industry, but no one in their right mind would consider such a policy as capitalist.  

The essence of capitalism is simply the money-commodity-money circuit.  Any infringement upon someone's freedom to dispose of their money/commodities as they see fit is necessarily in conflict with the functioning of said circuit.  Labor, in its commodified form under capitalism, must also be able to move freely throughout the market.  

[sheeeit 129]

42 minutes ago, relapse98 said:

You mean other than the 30 plus countries where they can?

Fair point.  Let me re-phrase (although Canada is currently included in that list and their laws are different and Canada does NOT offer citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants).  Lets just look at Mexico as it is on our border just like Canada.  You are correct that under their current laws, anchor babies (hate that term but it is easy to type) are initially citizens of Mexico.  However, it is a moot point practically speaking.  Mexico can and does deport the parents of anchor babies.  Under Mexican law, they can and do deport the parents for any reason and without any due process.  The parents have the "choice" to leave the babies in Mexico and have them enter the Mexican welfare system.  Obviously, few if any parents do this.  

[hayden_horn 11362]

We should definitely measure the american standard by the state of things in mexico

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

22 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

The state isn't obligated to do anything.  You are simply begging the question here - capitalism does not define some desired distribution of market power.  It does not define some desired share of income to capital and income to labor.  The government could seize the assets of a monopoly of a given industry and sell them off in pieces to equalize market power in that industry, but no one in their right mind would consider such a policy as capitalist.  

The essence of capitalism is simply the money-commodity-money circuit.  Any infringement upon someone's freedom to dispose of their money/commodities as they see fit is necessarily in conflict with the functioning of said circuit.  Labor, in its commodified form under capitalism, must also be able to move freely throughout the market.  

So are you saying regulations are unnecessary?