Birthright Citizenship

[NBMisha 224]

23 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.  

The state is obligated to do what society wants.  Regarding macro economics, society asks "what's the economy for?"  For the 1%, for the majority?  There is no economy without the instituions that the state provides.

[sheeeit 129]

11 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

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

Wow.  Perfect microcosm for this place.  

Person A: We should reconsider birth citizenship

Person B: Look at all of these countries like Mexico that have it.

Person B 5 minutes later: Why should we ever want to be like Mexico.

[Fozzz 152]

Just now, NBMisha said:

The state is obligated to do what society wants.  Regarding macro economics, society asks "what's the economy for?"  For the 1%, for the majority?  There is no economy without the instituions that the state provides.

This and Hugo's critiques are ideological in nature.  They are critiques regarding how you believe society should look and function.  Capitalism is an economic system, not an ideology.  My main point is that arguing that constraints should be placed on capitalism to serve ideological ends is actually capitalist makes no fucking sense.  It's a product of internalized propaganda (capitalism = good, so anything not good must /= capitalism).  

[tantric superman 4667]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Mildly racist?

I think more planetist.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

26 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

This and Hugo's critiques are ideological in nature.  They are critiques regarding how you believe society should look and function.  Capitalism is an economic system, not an ideology.  My main point is that arguing that constraints should be placed on capitalism to serve ideological ends is actually capitalist makes no fucking sense.  It's a product of internalized propaganda (capitalism = good, so anything not good must /= capitalism).  

And that’s fair. 

The language surrounding capitalism/socialism has fucked up our perceptions, myself included, over the years. 

[NBMisha 224]

1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

This and Hugo's critiques are ideological in nature.  They are critiques regarding how you believe society should look and function.  Capitalism is an economic system, not an ideology.  My main point is that arguing that constraints should be placed on capitalism to serve ideological ends is actually capitalist makes no fucking sense.  It's a product of internalized propaganda (capitalism = good, so anything not good must /= capitalism).  

And you are framing the issue in your preferred way, in that such mundane questions as what should we do, what may we hope for are cast as "ideological" rather than simply very important to humans.  And you seem to view macro economics as a sort of physics that exists platonically independent of humans.  

 

Grow up.  Econcomics is a social science.  Macro economics is a collection of models meant to shed light within human decision making processes.

[Dahobbs 17681]

2 hours ago, sheeeit said:

Wow.  Perfect microcosm for this place.  

Person A: We should reconsider birth citizenship

Person B: Look at all of these countries like Mexico that have it.

Person B 5 minutes later: Why should we ever want to be like Mexico.

That isn't what happened.

Person A (you): "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."

Person B: That isn't true, 30+ countries have a similar rule.

You made a false statement. Someone else corrected it.  

[Lagunamadre 1975]

2 hours ago, sheeeit said:

Person A: We should reconsider birth citizenship  the constitution 

 

FIFY 

[Buzzrock 14941]

How long before a recording artist named Jus Soli headlines Coachella?

[MissingInAction 25183]

2 hours ago, sheeeit said:

Wow.  Perfect microcosm for this place.  

Person A: We should reconsider birth citizenship

Person B: Look at all of these countries like Mexico that have it.

Person B 5 minutes later: Why should we ever want to be like Mexico.

Fuck Mexico

[Fozzz 152]

34 minutes ago, NBMisha said:

And you are framing the issue in your preferred way, in that such mundane questions as what should we do, what may we hope for are cast as "ideological" rather than simply very important to humans.  And you seem to view macro economics as a sort of physics that exists platonically independent of humans.  

 

Grow up.  Econcomics is a social science.  Macro economics is a collection of models meant to shed light within human decision making processes.

I never said that those questions were mundane, just that they are normative whereas capitalism is not.  I also didn't say capitalism was immutable.  As someone once said, "there is a continual movement of growth in productive forces, of destruction in social relations, of formation in ideas; the only immutable thing is the abstraction of movement."  

[bad_teammate 13224]

I unironically love it when you guys write stuff that makes me have to slow down and actually think because you're using big words.

Hell yeah.

Edited November 1, 2018 by bad_teammate

[NameWithHeld 101]

5 hours ago, DanRydell said:

 

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

 

How?  If they are born here they can be shipped back with their illegal parents.  How is that actively punishing the children---they wouldn't know the difference.

Edited November 1, 2018 by NameWithHeld
grammer

[mdmost 43050]

And the ones who have been here for a long time, grown up here and are working, attending school, and being decent members of society? They go back too? To a country they don’t know and have no concept of how to live in because a bunch of assholes want to EO away their citizenship?

Edited November 1, 2018 by mdmost

[NameWithHeld 101]

6 hours ago, relapse98 said:

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

How many of those 30 plus countries have 10s of 1,000s of people coming across the border, dropping an anchor baby and claiming birthright citizenship and enjoying all the welfare benefits of that country?  Something tells me not too fucking many.

[Foosters 17888]

3 minutes ago, NameWithHeld said:

How?  If they are born here they can be shipped back with their illegal parents.  How is that actively punishing the children---they wouldn't no the difference.

If this is serious, fuck you. If not, fuck you for trolling.

[Huckleberry 33096]

How?  If they are born here they can be shipped back with their illegal parents.  How is that actively punishing the children---they wouldn't know the difference.

No they can't, because that would be a violation of their Constitutional rights.

[hayden_horn 11365]

Just now, NameWithHeld said:

How many of those 30 plus countries have 10s of 1,000s of people coming across the border, dropping an anchor baby and claiming birthright citizenship and enjoying all the welfare benefits of that country?  Something tells me not too fucking many.

"dropping an anchor baby" language is all i really need to know about you and your racism.

[NameWithHeld 101]

1 minute ago, mdmost said:

And the ones who have been here for a long time, grown up here and are working, attending school, and being decent members of society? They go back too? To a country they don’t know and have no concept of how to live in because a bunch of assholes want to EO away their citizenship?

As much as I would like that to change I am speaking about NOW going forward.  There needs to be a starting point.

[NameWithHeld 101]

2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

"dropping an anchor baby" language is all i really need to know about you and your racism.

That's how the people who come here and give birth see it.  If you can't see that then you are fucking blind.

Edited November 1, 2018 by NameWithHeld

[mdmost 43050]

Ah so you’re cool with all the ones who did this prior to a set point in time.

[NameWithHeld 101]

1 minute ago, mdmost said:

Ah so you’re cool with all the ones who did this prior to a set point in time.

Unfortunately you gotta start somewhere

[DanRydell 799]

18 minutes ago, NameWithHeld said:

How?  If they are born here they can be shipped back with their illegal parents.  How is that actively punishing the children---they wouldn't know the difference.

Denial of citizenship is a punishment

[NameWithHeld 101]

3 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

Denial of citizenship is a punishment

Not in the eyes of the baby they don't know any difference.  Again the children born here from illegals are being used as pawns plain and simple.

 

I get it, you and the others that share your viewpoint would welcome the world if they came here and gave birth.  You would throw open the "treasure chest" of the U.S. welfare system and tell'm "its all yours, come one come all".  Where does it stop?  Again, no country even comes close to the USA in having illegals giving birth to "citizens" .  You know it's not by accident, everyone knows where the treasure is buried-------------on American soil.  Hell, the rich Chinese come over on "birthright" vacations to grab their citizenships.

[DanRydell 799]

1 minute ago, NameWithHeld said:

Not in the eyes of the baby they don't know any difference.  Again the children born here from illegals are being used as pawns plain and simple.

 

I get it, you and the others that share your viewpoint would welcome the world if they came here and gave birth.  You would throw open the "treasure chest" of the U.S. welfare system and tell'm "its all yours, come one come all".  Where does it stop?  Again, no country even comes close to the USA in having illegals giving birth to "citizens" .  You know it's not by accident, everyone knows where the treasure is buried-------------on American soil.  Hell, the rich Chinese come over on "birthright" vacations to grab their citizenships.

They'll certainly know the difference when they grow up and don't have the opportunity to live and work in the United States.

I support open borders so I would welcome the world regardless of whether they gave birth. The right to live and work and to flee oppression, be it physical or economic, is a fundamental human right. 

[Dahobbs 17681]

5 minutes ago, NameWithHeld said:

Not in the eyes of the baby they don't know any difference.  Again the children born here from illegals are being used as pawns plain and simple.

 

I get it, you and the others that share your viewpoint would welcome the world if they came here and gave birth.  You would throw open the "treasure chest" of the U.S. welfare system and tell'm "its all yours, come one come all".  Where does it stop?  Again, no country even comes close to the USA in having illegals giving birth to "citizens" .  You know it's not by accident, everyone knows where the treasure is buried-------------on American soil.  Hell, the rich Chinese come over on "birthright" vacations to grab their citizenships.

(1) That is actually how the founding fathers thought;

(2) It wasn't until Dred Scott that it occurred to anyone it was any other way in the US, and that decision was corrected with the 14th;

(3) LOL at calling the US welfare system a "treasure chest." People don't move here because we have a great welfare system (we have a terrible one). They move here because there are tons of jobs available that the native population refuses to do (as seen by the many companies and industries clamoring for more guest worker visas).  

(4) the rich Chinese are. . . well . . . fucking RICH. Like super rich. You seriously think welfare is the driver?

 

[NameWithHeld 101]

33 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

They'll certainly know the difference when they grow up and don't have the opportunity to live and work in the United States.

I support open borders so I would welcome the world regardless of whether they gave birth. The right to live and work and to flee oppression, be it physical or economic, is a fundamental human right. 

Except when it destroys the environment you live in.  You have no concept on living life and working----------you can't considering the statement you just made above.  

[NameWithHeld 101]

29 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

(1) That is actually how the founding fathers thought;

(2) It wasn't until Dred Scott that it occurred to anyone it was any other way in the US, and that decision was corrected with the 14th;

(3) LOL at calling the US welfare system a "treasure chest." People don't move here because we have a great welfare system (we have a terrible one). They move here because there are tons of jobs available that the native population refuses to do (as seen by the many companies and industries clamoring for more guest worker visas).  

(4) the rich Chinese are. . . well . . . fucking RICH. Like super rich. You seriously think welfare is the driver?

 

Not for the wealthy Chinese.  They want a way to escape if their country goes sideways.    The poor----after they give birth----------yes.

[RDCanecutter 26473]

Entire subject is moot seeing as how no Pope ever rescinded the Treaty of Tordesillas.

Vosotros todos perteneceis al glorioso Rey de Espana y Las Indias, en todo su esplandor. Los gryngos, los mexycanos, los de allende en Cuba e Hispaniola i de ts partes dl Ymperio. Santiago!

[sheeeit 129]

1 hour ago, DanRydell said:

They'll certainly know the difference when they grow up and don't have the opportunity to live and work in the United States.

I support open borders so I would welcome the world regardless of whether they gave birth. The right to live and work and to flee oppression, be it physical or economic, is a fundamental human right. 

When the repubs make statements about dems that want open borders I always assumed that they, the repubs, were simply exaggerating or taking comments out of context.  I guess now I believe/hope there are only a few out there.  I can not imagine the level of disconnect from reality that has to exist to get to the point of actually advocating for open borders. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Not in the eyes of the baby they don't know any difference.

Are you pro-choice too?

Since we can just do whatever with babies because they don’t know any better and all.

[DanRydell 799]

When the repubs make statements about dems that want open borders I always assumed that they, the repubs, were simply exaggerating or taking comments out of context.  I guess now I believe/hope there are only a few out there.  I can not imagine the level of disconnect from reality that has to exist to get to the point of actually advocating for open borders. 

 

I know others who advocate for open borders but none of them are dems. Even if you’re a Reagan conservative who only cares about the bottom line and not the human rights aspect of it, there are reasons to favor open borders.

 

Removing barriers to the migration of labor would increase world GDP by between 50-150%. https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.25.3.83

 

Immigrants in the US receive 39% less welfare than native-born citizens per capita. https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/dont-blame-immigrants-bloated-welfare-state

 

In EU countries, there is an inverse relationship between the size of a country’s welfare state and immigrant population. http://www.ia-forum.org/Files/ForumReport%20Fall%202010%20Migration3.pdf

[Jack Burton 35]

"Being American" means being a white Southerner goddammit. Or Republican.

[NameWithHeld 101]

2 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

 

Are you pro-choice too?

Since we can just do whatever with babies because they don’t know any better and all.

 

Pro-Abortion.   No.  

[Jack Burton 35]

Let's keep calling them aliens that way we don't need to agree they are humans.

[David Dennison 18946]

This is such a non-issue.

The 14th Amendment is crystal clear on the matter.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Pro-Abortion.   No.  

Why not? According to you, these babies don’t know any better even after being born. You’re wanting to send them off to dangerous countries where there’s a chance they’ll be murdered along with their parents.

That’s not very pro-life.

Why the double standard?

I’m sure you’d be foaming at the mouth if someone used “Who cares about abortion? Those fetuses don’t know any better anyway.”

[NBMisha 224]

11 hours ago, Fozzz said:

I never said that those questions were mundane, just that they are normative whereas capitalism is not.  I also didn't say capitalism was immutable.  As someone once said, "there is a continual movement of growth in productive forces, of destruction in social relations, of formation in ideas; the only immutable thing is the abstraction of movement."  

Well, Fozz, our conversation is now thread shitting, which I regret, and I regret as well my grow up comment.

Your clarification by reclassifying my original statements as normative as opposed to ideological is accepted.  Your classification of capitalism as non normative is true only in the sense that it is a lable for a large set of practices and institutions.  If it is descriptive, it is not so in a positive or positivistic manner.  Yet you showed your true meaning when you spoke of infringement of the freedoms of those wanting to deploy their money.   Those are loaded framing words, reflecting your normative view of the way things should be.  You are not above it all.

I'll repeat, the idea that macro economics is some real thing out there and up there above mere human wants and desires is nonsense.  Worse, it is a pernicious weapon used to great political effect.  If this is what is taught at McCombs now, well, shit.

 

 

Edited November 2, 2018 by NBMisha

[workswithseed 2111]

I feel like if we pass this law that the ones born here should be grandfathered in. 

I also thought if you want to become an American citizen that you should go join the army for 4 years. Would be cheaper, and more likely a faster rout to citizenship. 

[elfenix 34332]

I feel like if we pass this law that the ones born here should be grandfathered in. 

Uh, that would defeat the whole purpose of changing it

I also thought if you want to become an American citizen that you should go join the army for 4 years. Would be cheaper, and more likely a faster rout to citizenship. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Opportunity,_and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013

[workswithseed 2111]

40 minutes ago, elfenix said:

 

Uh, that would defeat the whole purpose of changing it

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Opportunity,_and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013

 

Eh, would make it easier than saying a person whose done nothing wrong 30 years is all of a sudden not an American citizen.

Thanks, for the info.

[elfenix 34332]

2 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Eh, would make it easier than saying a person whose done nothing wrong 30 years is all of a sudden not an American citizen.

Thanks, for the info.

i don't think even trump is proposing that we ex post facto strip current citizens of citizenship due to having been anchor babies.  but i guess there's no lower bound to the deplorable bucket.

[Bookman 4642]

22 hours 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?

We need new blood in this country. 63,000,000 just voted for a corrupt, incompetent failed-businessman to be President of the United States. I've lost faith in them.

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

5 hours ago, tjhooker said:

This will be up to the Court.  I am glad Trump is forcing it.  He is right this shouldn't be the case but unfortunately legally it is.  I don't agree an executive order can counteract the 14th amendment.  It has been a long time since I read the Federalist Papers.  They have any views on this?   I'd guess not.  So unfortunately, this is a shit loop hole it is legal.  So what you do is keep as many people trying to have babies here to a min.  Otherwise, at least pass a law.  Otherwise, a president can't order that.

*wat.gif

[horncyclist 1391]

This reminds me some of the movement that led to Heller redefining the 2nd Amendment to protect an individual right to bear arms. A lot more ground work had been laid there but there are similar originalism arguments for the 14th to overturn 150 years of precedent and an earlier Supreme Court case. The thing about originalism is you often have your pick of original interpretations so it can be a vehicle for activisim. Here they'll focus on "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to exclude undocumented immigrants. It's not a totally far fetched argument, though it goes against mainstream legal thinking. That the second amendment protected an individual right also went against mainstream legal scholarship and we know how that turned out. Both the majority and dissent in Heller relied on originalist arguments.

There's also a lot of dumbing down in the media of what Trump would actually do with an EO. It wouldn't change the 14th amendment. An EO would setup a legal challenge that could eventually lead to, depending on your views a reinterpretation or clarification of the 14th amendment. It's just like states passing laws to test Roe. There may be other issues with executive power and if an EO is contrary to a statute providing for birthright citizenship but those are different issues than this idea of changing the constitution by EO. Trump, or at least his handlers, know that's not possible.

The policy of birthright citizenship is also a lot more complicated. Birth tourism is clearly problematic but the certainty birthright provides is important. Eliminating birthright citizenship would drastically expand the number of people who, like the dreamers, are American in every day but under the law. That's a big problem.

 

 

Edited November 2, 2018 by horncyclist

[TexArcher 38066]

There's really no debate here.

Once upon a time, an amendment made alcohol illegal.  A later amendment repealed the first one.  For over a decade in between, no president could just decide that alcohol was legal.  Presidents don't make or repeal laws.  The end. 

[Huckleberry 33096]

6 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

This reminds me some of the movement that led to Heller redefining the 2nd Amendment to protect an individual right to bear arms. A lot more ground work had been laid there but there are similar originalism arguments for the 14th to overturn 150 years of precedent and an earlier Supreme Court case. The thing about originalism is you often have your pick of original interpretations so it can be a vehicle for activisim. Here they'll focus on "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to exclude undocumented immigrants. It's not a totally far fetched argument, though it goes against mainstream legal thinking. That the second amendment protected an individual right also went against mainstream legal scholarship and we know how that turned out. Both the majority and dissent in Heller relied on originalist arguments.

There's also a lot of dumbing down in the media of what Trump would actually do with an EO. It wouldn't change the 14th amendment. An would setup a legal challenge that could eventually lead to, depending on your views a reinterpretation or clarification of the 14th amendment. It's just like states passing laws to test Roe. There may be other issues with executive power and if an EO is contrary to a statute providing for birthright citizenship but those are different issues than this idea of changing the constitution by EO. Trump, or at least his handlers, know that's not possible.

The policy of birthright citizenship is also a lot more complicated. Birth tourism is clearly problematic but the certainty birthright provides is important. Eliminating birthright citizenship would drastically expand the number of people who, like the dreamers, are American in every day but under the law. That's a big problem.

 

 

This silliness is why plain language should matter.

The 2nd Amendment protects the individual right to bear arms because the plain language of the text says so. It gives the necessity of a militia as the main reason for that right to be protected but in no way limits that as the only reason. If I write the sentence "because reproduction is necessary for the species and therefore society to continue, the right of the people to have sex shall not be infringed" that doesn't mean that people only have the right to have sex if they're doing so to reproduce. It means that reproduction is so important that we're going to be safe and point blank say that sex is a right and you can't infringe on it in any way whatsoever because we don't want to start a slippery slope.

Similarly, the 14th Amendment's language is clear. If you are born here and are subject to our jurisdiction then you're not a citizen. The only people who are born here and aren't subject to our jurisdiction are children of foreign diplomats, ambassadors, etc. Arguing that a child born to foreign immigrants is not subject to our jurisdiction is arguing that we can't deport him because he's, you know, not subject to our jurisdiction.

Edited November 2, 2018 by Huckleberry

[TexArcher 38066]

And this is high irony after all the Republican talk about Obama "abusing power" and "playing king" with all his executive orders.  Donald Trump is on pace to obliterate Obama's total of executive orders if we're stupid enough to re-elect him, even without this threatened executive order, which is, you know, illegal.

[horncyclist 1391]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

This silliness is why plain language should matter.

The 2nd Amendment protects the individual right to bear arms because the plain language of the text says so. It gives the necessity of a militia as the main reason for that right to be protected but in no way limits that as the only reason. If I write the sentence "because reproduction is necessary for the species and therefore society to continue, the right of the people to have sex shall not be infringed" that doesn't mean that people only have the right to have sex if they're doing so to reproduce.

Similarly, the 14th Amendment's language is clear. If you are born here and are subject to our jurisdiction then you're not a citizen. The only people who are born here and aren't subject to our jurisdiction are children of foreign diplomats, ambassadors, etc. Arguing that a child born to foreign immigrants is not subject to our jurisdiction is arguing that we can't deport him because he's, you know, not subject to our jurisdiction.

Neither of those are as clear as you just said, which is the problem of textualism. Plain language is never plain. Heller and the longstanding understanding it overturned shows that. 

 

 

[Fozzz 152]

Birth tourism sounds pretty rad actually.