Removing the Fourteenth Amendment

[ChiSox_Sonix]

It is enforced by 33 countries, including Mexico and Canada.

 

Furthermore...I think right now, Western Europe is a great example of the societal problems that come up when you start extracting significant barriers to assimilation of immigrants and a strong argument in favor of retaining the status quo.

 

It is enforced by a whole 2 "developed nations"*

 

*As determined by the International Monetary Fund

[Balta1701]

It is enforced by a whole 2 "developed nations"*

 

*As determined by the International Monetary Fund

In particular, we propose that the Irish Citizenship Referendum illuminates the need to reconsider the relationship between restrictionism in immigration and in citizenship, often cast in American Studies as a direct relationship. The Irish case shows that a successful campaign for limits on access to citizenship was made in the absence of policies limiting immigration. One of the purposes and effects of citizenship restriction in a context of increased immigration, we propose, is the creation of a dual and unequal workforce. For this reason, we argue that the elimination of jus soli as a basis for citizenship was unjustified in the Irish case, despite the popular pressures on Irish politicians, and that the pressure being placed on U.S. politicians to undermine jus soli should be consciously resisted.

Link

 

I don't think I really need citations for the riots in France or the development of Islamic Terrorism in London and how those events have been linked to groups excluded by those laws.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Link

 

I don't think I really need citations for the riots in France or the development of Islamic Terrorism in London and how those events have been linked to groups excluded by those laws.

 

Riiiight. Because THAT'S the reason for Islamic terrorism/extremism in certain parts of the Western World...

 

 

edit: Regarding France, you may have a more valid point, but that can also be attributed to their imperial ways of the early-mid twentieth century, in particular Algeria, coming back to bite them in the ass. Also, they are trying to enact laws/reforms that seem to target specific groups, which can be argued has little do with the policy being discussed in this thread.

Edited August 11, 2010 by ChiSox_Sonix

[Soxbadger]

It has nothing to do with race, it's based on citizenry.

 

Disagree. No one is foolish enough to believe that in today's US society they could be outright racist, therefore you cloak racism with the "citizen" argument. This is not the first time its happened (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) And its not the first time that US immigration policy has been used to keep out undesirables. (See US immigration quotas prior and during WWII with regard to Jewish immigrants and countries with the highest Jewish populations)

 

Then why have ANY requirements, INCLUDING having to be born here?

 

Well in order for society to function (at least in order for our society to function) we have to have some sort of way to track people and make them pay taxes, etc. Thus if it was up to me the requirements for being a citizen would be nothing more than filling out a piece of paper that states you want to be a US citizen, that you agree to follow US laws, and that you will play for our sports teams in the Olympics or World Cup. I dont need them to past some US history test, I know that plenty of US citizens dont know s*** about history.

 

So, if they don't, they shouldn't be given that right? Some don't pay taxes, but still want to be citizens. And it's not "eventually," in this case, it's immediate.

 

 

And if they dont pay taxes, like many current US citizens, they would be subject to the laws of the US. What is odd is that if they are US citizens or have some incentive to pay US taxes, they are more likely to pay them then if they are "illegal" and dont even have a SS# to pay taxes on.

 

Why would you pay taxes if your an undocumented worker? You need to give people a reason to pay the taxes.

 

Yes, because "citizen" has no meaning or benefit.

 

Words only have the meaning or benefits that we give them.

 

There used to be a benefit to being a lord/lady, duke/duchess. Eventually those benefits were eroded because society has grown to despise artificial class heirarchy.

 

How about saving the future of our social services for people who actually have paid into them here and need them?

 

Why not let people in legally so that they can pay for those social services? It would seem to make sense that if we let them in and make them pay taxes, that this wouldnt be an issue.

 

I'm pretty sure you just called me a racist, which is laughable.

 

I dont believe I called anyone a racist. I merely stated that this idea is nothing more than a pretext for racism. I have no clue whether you are for or against the idea. Furthermore, it is possible to support the idea for non-racist reasons (ie you dont support the 14th amendment because you think that it is to broad and should be more narrowly tailored).

 

Im not in the business of accusing people of being racist or not. I have my opinions, I stand by them, if you think my opinion paints you as a racist, Im sorry but thats how I feel. And Im not going to back down or try and be more pc, because this is something that you cant give an inch on (imo). It is my duty as an American citizen to fight ideas like this, it offends my very existence.

 

Citizenship is this country's single greatest commodity. And the more you flood the country with that commodity, the less value it has, NOT because it means "undesirable" people are here, but because there are limits to the OTHER resources we have. Jobs, government services, water/land/natural resources, money, etc.

 

Disagree. America's single greatest commodity is freedom. Furthermore I disagree that it limits jobs and govt services. More immigrants could result in more jobs and more government services. How do we know that this immigrant wont be the next Bill Gates, or Carnegie (born in Scotland) or Alexander Hamilton? By restricting immigration you very well could prevent the next great entrepreneur from entering the US.

 

As for the water/land/resources. There is no doubt that the more people that come to the US, the more scarce resources will be. But who are we to say that the doors are closed? That weve reached maximum capacity? Many times in US history they have tried to restrict immigrants because of these reasons. Many of us, may not have been allowed here if those restrictions were enacted. Some of us may have never existed because our parents or grandparents would have died from persecution, war, etc.

 

I will not close the door on other immigrants, so long as I breathe, that much I can assure you.

 

Just as I have said in here in many ways that you HAVE to be careful with the consumption of natural resources if you want society to thrive, similarly, you HAVE to be careful of the rate at which people are coming into the country to access them.

 

The US has a population density far lower than most advanced countries. According to Wikipedia (to lazy to find world book) is 178th in population density. Is it possible that in the future we reach a point where population density is a legitimate concern, of course.

 

But right now, its not even close.

 

The U.S. is the place more people want to live than anywhere on Earth, far and away. We have something really great going here, even with its flaws. If you just fling open the doors with no restrictions to access and citizenship whatsoever, you will get huge floods of people that will inevitably make life more difficult for everyone here. This is why we have restrictions on citizenship and visitation, just like every country on earth (or close) does.

 

I dont disagree that life will be harder. But I would rather my life was harder and it gave some one else the chance to have a semi-decent life, than have my life being easier and knowing that there are people suffering around the world, who have no hope, and I turned my back on them.

 

So... since most people would agree that SOME sort of controls must be in place... the debate is not something ethereal and idealistic as you seem to think. What it really is, is deciding where you want that line to be. And all I'm saying is, maybe when deciding to draw that line, you should make life EASIER for the immigrants who do things right, and HARDER for those who don't.

 

I dont care what most people think. Im not a politician so I dont have to sell my soul so that I can appeal to the majority of people. My sentiments are to appeal to those who believe in American spirit. My way is not going to be easy, its not going to mean that all of us get to be rich at the expense of other nations being in poverty.

 

And the point of my statements is that I already believe that the line is to far against immigration. So when people say that theyll just be moving the line a little bit more, my stance is, its already been moved to far. I hope that one day my ideals will be shared by the majority of Americans.

 

As for easier for immigrants who come here legally. Wouldnt it be easier on all immigrants if we made it easier to become legal?

 

Shouldnt we be trying to make it easier to become legal, instead of putting up more barriers to become a citizen?

 

If we cared about ease, then you wouldnt be talking about getting rid of the 14th amendment. Part of the reason the 14th amendment was created was to make it "easier" to determine who was a citizen. Without the 14th you were getting into a huge clusterf*** of trying to decide who has what rights.

 

Maybe, maybe not. If they are getting paid cash, no.

 

At the end of the day, having a way to control costs is step number one in saving programs like social security, medicare, and forced health care. Having no mechanism at all to control the amount of people going into the programs is going to bankrupt them.

 

You want to stop this. Go after the employers. Employers are the ones paying in cash to prevent it from being on their books, so they dont have to pay all different sorts of taxes, insurance etc.

 

You could stop this whole thing by nailing the employers, but since the employers are "citizens" we overlook the fact that they are the ones who commit most of the tax evasion. And that is not limited to dealing with immigrants, it includes independent contractor fraud, etc. But companies have big money to make sure that congress doesnt come down on the real problem.

 

Further, if people are here illegally, they only pay in PART of the tax regime, if any. So again, they don't push up the other side with perfect efficiency. Therefore there is leakage and weakness economically.

 

Which is why you let them here "legally" and then you can prevent this.

 

Removing the 14th would create more "illegal" immigrants which would unbalance the system more and have less coming in, while still having to potentially pay out.

 

Not to mention by nature that people who are entering here illegally, are usually in the poorest segments, which means the rest of us have more cost to pick up.

 

Which goes back to the reason why we should let anyone in, not just those who can afford to pay off the right people to get their documents processed quicker.

 

If you have enough money you can get in pretty quick, not exactly the United States I believe in, one where money = freedom.

 

And I have always agreed with that - having a more sensical program for bringing in people to work and eventually become citizens. That, however, is not the same as saying everyone and anyone can come in at will. Again, I think even you would have to admit that there HAVE to be controls, or the consequences would be dire. Therefore, I wish you would stop speaking in absolutes, and talk in terms of reality - there has to be a line, there have to be controls, so where and how do we implement them?[/ b]

 

Let everyone come in as long as they are not wanted felon, etc. (I can make an exception for criminals). As soon as they enter the US they are given SS#, etc. They are required to pay taxes, like the rest of Americans.

 

At the end of every year the numbers are looked at. If at any point in the future there becomes good cause to restrict access or to further tailor the program, you make those decisions when they are necessary.

 

I'd be OK with changing it to be that children born to people who are in the country illegally do not gain citizenship. Seems pretty fair to me.

 

Depends on how you interpret fair.

 

Why should the child be theoretically punished for the actions of the parents?

 

Seems unfair to the child.

 

Well, there is a radical element saying we should indeed close down the borders, or certain borders anyway. Not in this forum though, at least so far. And those are the people who are more likely to be motivated by racism.

 

And this is the first step towards that end goal. I dont for a second believe that this is where they want it to end. It is my people's duty to prevent this. It is the duty of all people who have been persecuted by a govt. to stand together to make sure that their govt does not persecute others.

 

We are supposed to be the county where people can come to have a better life.

 

how is this different than any other standard the government arbitrarily sets?

 

I think issues involving citizenship and issues involving say, me being forced to buy health insurance, are a little different.

 

And i'm asking you, why is that such a big deal? It's like arguing that the government has the power to determine the age requirements of the President. "Well if you allow that to happen, then the whole thing falls apart!" GMAB.

 

It isnt, which is why I fight the govt on a considerable amount of issues. Its the reason why conservatives dislike me, because I actually dislike govt power.

 

I dont pick and chose when I like it.

 

"Its okay for the govt to tell some one they cant marry"

"Its not okay for the govt to tell me I cant own a guy"

"Its okay for the govt to tell me what drugs I can use"

 

Fair and logical. I don't even know how that doesn't make sense.

 

And for reference, since everyone always loves comparing us to our friends in Europe, jus soli is not observed by most European countries nor many other "western" nations.

 

Yeah just as fair and logically as the guy who in 1930 Germany stated:

 

"Why should we be letting the Jews own land and have property. They arent "citizens", why should they have the same rights as us!"

 

I said I wouldnt do it, but Im sorry I have to.

 

If we do not remember, we will be doomed to repeat.

 

On September 15, 1935 Germany passed the Reich Citizenship Law.

 

1. A citizen of the Reich is that subject only who is of German or kindred blood and who, through his conduct, shows that he is both desirous and fit to serve the German people and Reich faithfully.

 

 

It seemed logical at the time, Germany was suffering the worst depression ever, German money was worthless. German resources were scarce, if they shared them with everyone, there wouldnt have been enough for the Germans. Germany was only created in the late 19th century, so most Jews who were born in Germany, had parents who were not "citizens". Therefore they were illegal immigrants.

 

The Germans couldnt have been expected to provide for all of these "illegal Jewish immigrants." Shouldnt Germany have the right to protect its citizens and to ensure that the "illegals" werent taking money out of the German social programs.

 

1930 Germany was one of the most socially and scientifically advanced nations in the world. If it can happen there, it can happen here. If we do not remain vigilante in protecting those who can not otherwise protect themselves, we have failed.

 

I know that people will say that its not comparable, but in 1935 this is what was happening. In 1935 these were the exact same arguments for why Jews should be treated differently.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Soxbadger

[BigSqwert]

Is that an article or something or are you asking yourself rhetorical questions?

[Balta1701]

Riiiight. Because THAT'S the reason for Islamic terrorism/extremism in certain parts of the Western World...

The creation of a permanent underclass of non-citizens with limited job or life prospects has been absolutely key to those events.

[Soxbadger]

I couldnt use as many quote tags as i wanted so i bolded other peoples comments.

[Balta1701]

1. A citizen of the Reich is that subject only who is of German or kindred blood and who, through his conduct, shows that he is both desirous and fit to serve the German people and Reich faithfully.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

[BigSqwert]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

But I think there is a valid argument for bringing it up in this discussion.

[Balta1701]

But I think there is a valid argument for bringing it up in this discussion.

At least IMO, even in cases where the comparison may be somewhat apt in that the motivations were similar or the circumstances were similar...I still think Godwin's law applies...because by making a Nazi reference, you're not only arguing that what political opponent x is making is similar to something done in the 30's, you're also passively connecting it to every other evil thing that regime did.

 

Reforming the 14th amendment would be a horrible thing, but I seriously doubt even Tom Tancredo wants gas chambers for Hispanic immigrants.

[Soxbadger]

Im trying to find out if Godwin is jewish. My guess is he is not.

 

I still think Godwin's law applies...because by making a Nazi reference, you're not only arguing that what political opponent x is making is similar to something done in the 30's, you're also passively connecting it to every other evil thing that regime did.

 

Reforming the 14th amendment would be a horrible thing, but I seriously doubt even Tom Tancredo wants gas chambers for Hispanic immigrants.

 

Disagree.

 

By making the Nazi reference, in this specific case, you are showing how a very small law, can set the stage for something far worse.

 

You dont think its relevant that one of the first steps to the holocaust was removing Jewish citizenship? For similar reasons to the ones that people are making today?

 

And most Germans didnt want gas chambers for Jews. The problem is once they gave the govt the power to make these rules, the German people lost all control.

 

Most Germans never would have believed taking away Jewish citizenship, restricting their right to marry, would lead to the death of millions. If they were told that do you really believe they would have voted for it?

 

They were told that this was a way to protect them, to make sure that the Jews didnt take all of their money, etc.

 

If Godwin cared about the Holocaust or Jews he would never dissuade anyone from bringing up the crimes of the holocaust.

 

We must never forget.

 

His law, creates a disincentive to speak about the holocaust/Nazi's because his law can be used to create a strawman argument.

 

Instead of focusing on the true facts.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Soxbadger

[bmags]

Also, they are trying to enact laws/reforms that seem to target specific groups, which can be argued has little do with the policy being discussed in this thread.

 

lol

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Yeah just as fair and logically as the guy who in 1930 Germany stated:

 

"Why should we be letting the Jews own land and have property. They arent "citizens", why should they have the same rights as us!"

 

I know that people will say that its not comparable, but in 1935 this is what was happening. In 1935 these were the exact same arguments for why Jews should be treated differently.

 

It is not comparable because it just flat out isn't.

 

Godwin's Law got invoked earlier than expected here.

 

The creation of a permanent underclass of non-citizens with limited job or life prospects has been absolutely key to those events.

 

Are you seriously trying to argue that as a main reason? GMAB. That's a stretch and you know it.

[Jenksismyhero]

Im trying to find out if Godwin is jewish. My guess is he is not.

 

 

 

Disagree.

 

By making the Nazi reference, in this specific case, you are showing how a very small law, can set the stage for something far worse.

 

You dont think its relevant that one of the first steps to the holocaust was removing Jewish citizenship? For similar reasons to the ones that people are making today?

 

And most Germans didnt want gas chambers for Jews. The problem is once they gave the govt the power to make these rules, the German people lost all control.

 

Most Germans never would have believed taking away Jewish citizenship, restricting their right to marry, would lead to the death of millions. If they were told that do you really believe they would have voted for it?

 

They were told that this was a way to protect them, to make sure that the Jews didnt take all of their money, etc.

 

If Godwin cared about the Holocaust or Jews he would never dissuade anyone from bringing up the crimes of the holocaust.

 

We must never forget.

 

His law, creates a disincentive to speak about the holocaust/Nazi's because his law can be used to create a strawman argument.

 

Instead of focusing on the true facts.

 

Yep, because by believing that citizenship in a country isn't a right to every human on Earth I'm a Nazi. Start up the fires boys, we got some work to do.

 

f***ing ridiculous, and pretty god damn insulting actually.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

lol

 

Insightful as usual. Shocking.

 

Yes, it all stems back to them not allowing them to be citizens based on the sole fact that they were born on French soil.

 

 

[Balta1701]

You dont think its relevant that one of the first steps to the holocaust was removing Jewish citizenship? For similar reasons to the ones that people are making today?

 

And most Germans didnt want gas chambers for Jews. The problem is once they gave the govt the power to make these rules, the German people lost all control.

So, whether I agree with the point or not...the counterpoint is the exact data that my opponent cited earlier...that only 33 nations worldwide actually offer birthright citizenship. And several have removed that right from their laws in recent years, including the Irish example I cited.

 

Now, I will argue that getting rid of birthright citizenship will create an entire class of useless people that no country wants and that will be a plague on this nation for decades...but there is ample evidence right there that simply targeting a particularly disliked group with laws that strip it of citizenship does not a priori wind up with anything that would remotely be similar to a Nazi pogrom.

[Soxbadger]

If this is all you got from the post, then I am truly saddened.

 

Perhaps you guys should actually read the statements. If you would, you would realize not only am I not calling anyone in this thread a Nazi, I am actually defending German citizens pre1935, in saying that they werent Nazis at all. That they were just people in one of the most horrific depressions who were trying to find a way to survive.

 

Most Germans never would have believed taking away Jewish citizenship, restricting their right to marry, would lead to the death of millions. If they were told that do you really believe they would have voted for it?

 

They were told that this was a way to protect them, to make sure that the Jews didnt take all of their money, etc.

 

And like I said before, people are going to be offended by my beliefs.

[Balta1701]

If you don't want people to focus on the Nazi comparison, then don't make it, because that's by far the most inflammatory thing in your post. Even the guy who's spent the most effort defending birthright citizenship in this thread immediately went after you on it.

 

Furthermore, the fact that you made that comparison casts, to my eyes, a shadow upon every other argument you made.

[Soxbadger]

So, whether I agree with the point or not...the counterpoint is the exact data that my opponent cited earlier...that only 33 nations worldwide actually offer birthright citizenship. And several have removed that right from their laws in recent years, including the Irish example I cited.

 

Now, I will argue that getting rid of birthright citizenship will create an entire class of useless people that no country wants and that will be a plague on this nation for decades...but there is ample evidence right there that simply targeting a particularly disliked group with laws that strip it of citizenship does not a priori wind up with anything that would remotely be similar to a Nazi pogrom.

 

And the counterpoint is, I never said that this would ultimately lead to another holocaust.

 

I merely showed that people must be very careful when giving govt this type of power. Because in the past this power has been misused. So when you act like there is absolutely nothing bad that can ever happen from this, you need to remind people that Germany didnt start with gas chambers. They started by slowly eroding rights.

 

As for what the other countries do? Is that at all relevant to what I believe the US should do?

 

If 99.9% of of the countries made it illegal for Muslims to worship, would that make it okay for the US to do it?

 

If 99.9% of the countries said killing Jews was okay, would that make it okay for the US?

 

If 99.9% of the countries believed in aristocracy and title, should the US?

 

The entire point of the revolutionary war and the United States is that we dont do what other countries do just because it might be easier.

 

If our creed is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then its the US responsibility to give it meaning. Not for the US to sink to the level of other countries.

 

 

[Balta1701]

So...therefore...anything that could be considered a "slow erosion of rights" is comparable to something done by the Nazis?

[Soxbadger]

Sorry Balta, in political/history/legal discussions I have never been told a completely apt comparison is off limits because its "to inflammatory".

 

If some one wants to make a point how this would differ from the law that I quoted, feel free.

 

The problem is, that they are similar and people dont want to admit that US society has similarities to 1935 Germany.

 

The bigger problem is, if we are afraid to make that comparison, then we are doing those who died a disservice and their death was for nothing.

 

So...therefore...anything that could be considered a "slow erosion of rights" is comparable to something done by the Nazis?

 

I think anything done by the Nazi's that was a precursor to the holocaust is definitely comparable to something done by the Nazis.

 

Isnt the fact that it was done by the Nazis make it something that is comparable?

 

Its not like im creating some fictitious idea. The Nazis took away Jewish citizenship. People are arguing that we should either limit or take away citizenship of certain US individuals.

 

How is that not comparable?

 

I just dont see why Nazis are completely off limits when they are the most recent and sensible comparison.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Soxbadger

[ChiSox_Sonix]

And the counterpoint is, I never said that this would ultimately lead to another holocaust.

 

I merely showed that people must be very careful when giving govt this type of power. Because in the past this power has been misused. So when you act like there is absolutely nothing bad that can ever happen from this, you need to remind people that Germany didnt start with gas chambers. They started by slowly eroding rights.

 

Not to nitpick just a single thing from your post, but based on what you're saying then almost anything the government takes over or decides it will do or enact could have the same argument thrown against it.

[southsider2k5]

Well, there is a radical element saying we should indeed close down the borders, or certain borders anyway. Not in this forum though, at least so far. And those are the people who are more likely to be motivated by racism.

 

This whole argument is based in racism... Its not just the people who seem to love to label people as racist either. All of the people who take the arguments and turn them into arguments about "brown" people and the like are just as racist as anyone wearing a Klan robe. Framing this argument into racist overtones is just as bad as anything being done on the "right".

[BigSqwert]

Not to nitpick just a single thing from your post, but based on what you're saying then almost anything the government takes over or decides it will do or enact could have the same argument thrown against it.

But this is a direct correlation, taking away citizenship.

[Soxbadger]

Not to nitpick just a single thing from your post, but based on what you're saying then almost anything the government takes over or decides it will do or enact could have the same argument thrown against it.

 

Not if it wasnt done by the Nazi's.

 

If the govt created a program where it would ensure that all people received equal education regardless of race, religion, etc. Im not sure how you could make a valid comparison to the Nazis.

 

Conversely if the govt was to create a book burning program, I think you have a pretty legitimate comparison.