Removing the Fourteenth Amendment

[ChiSox_Sonix]

But this is a direct correlation, taking away citizenship.

 

I'm not advocating taking anything away, it's just a matter of determining how it is given out. To me, those are two totally different concepts.

[Balta1701]

I'm not advocating taking anything away, it's just a matter of determining how it is given out. To me, those are two totally different concepts.

That's an incredibly awkward way to try to slip around the reality that yes, for a ton of people, you are taking away that right. And doing so in a way where they'd have zero defense, and where it would not be their fault at all.

[Jenksismyhero]

That's an incredibly awkward way to try to slip around the reality that yes, for a ton of people, you are taking away that right. And doing so in a way where they'd have zero defense, and where it would not be their fault at all.

 

Any change would be retroactive. No one would have a right taken away if the 14th was amended.

[Balta1701]

Any change would be retroactive. No one would have a right taken away if the 14th was amended.

Seriously...you guys are dramatically parsing the language here. If you were to change the amendment and a child were to be born before that change or after that change...the child after that change would face a dramatic curtailing of his or her rights. The only way you can say it wasn't taken away is that the child just happened to be born on the wrong date so that it never received them.

[BigSqwert]

So will he have to staff government employees at hospitals to ensure at least one parent is a citizen for any newborns?

[Soxbadger]

I assume you mean any change would not be retroactive.

 

And people are going to disagree on what the purpose and function of the US is.

 

I understand the arguments and rationale for restricting citizenship, I just dont agree with it.

[NorthSideSox72]

By the way, just want to add, this is the best discussion we've had in the Buster in a while, IMO. Even with the occasional hyperbole.

 

 

[Balta1701]

So will he have to staff government employees at hospitals to ensure at least one parent is a citizen for any newborns?

We've got 9.5% unemployment right now. Think of the dent we can make in that by hiring people to keep immigrants away.

[Jenksismyhero]

Seriously...you guys are dramatically parsing the language here. If you were to change the amendment and a child were to be born before that change or after that change...the child after that change would face a dramatic curtailing of his or her rights. The only way you can say it wasn't taken away is that the child just happened to be born on the wrong date so that it never received them.

 

And that differs from any law that gets enacted.....how?

[Rex Kickass]

 

I think, even if you take away the morality issue of it, a bigger question is would such a rule be easily enforceable without too many issues that would be considered detrimental to society? And with long term undocumented residents, where would their children fall? How do you tell someone who has lived their entire life in the US that their very existence in the only country they know is illegal?

 

Let's say we take away birthright citizenship tomorrow, and Svetlana, an undocumented resident originating from wartorn Whogivesacrapistan gives birth to little Mikhail.

 

18 years later, Mikhail, who has lived his whole life as an undocumented resident (can't exactly call him an illegal immigrant because he didn't enter illegally, nor did he immigrate to the US) wants to travel to London, and needs a passport - or wants to find legitimate employment and needs to enroll in Social Security.

 

How does that work? He's lived here his whole life, he may have no family contact and definitely no contact with his country. He has nothing to prove his identity but a birth certificate and maybe a school ID. If he can't get the proper papers necessary to work above the board, he never will, and we've just created a permanent class of undocumented residents.

 

Do we provide these children with a path to citizenship? Do we provide them the ability to reside legally? What do we do with them?

 

What's more, is this necessary? If we are changing the constitution, we ought to be damn sure that its necessary. Can someone provide some actual empirical evidence that shows that birthright citizenship has been a serious drag on our country, or has had any negative effect at all? Because I've just heard some things about a birthing resort mentioned here, but nothing that isn't anything more than anecdotal.

[Jenksismyhero]

So will he have to staff government employees at hospitals to ensure at least one parent is a citizen for any newborns?

 

Really? So a pain in the ass process to prove something to the government is an argument against it? You've worked with the government before right?

[Rex Kickass]

Really? So a pain in the ass process to prove something to the government is an argument against it? You've worked with the government before right?

 

And what about non-citizens who are permanent legal residents? What about their kids? Do we make them eligible for citizenship when their parents are? Do they have to apply for babygreencards?

[BigSqwert]

Really? So a pain in the ass process to prove something to the government is an argument against it? You've worked with the government before right?

Still looking for a good reason to change the amendment.

[Quin]

I have a couple examples that hit close to home for me;

 

1) A teacher in my school district is from Brazil, but he was born in New York City just so when he grew up he could move back to the US and not have to go through the long process of naturalization. He's got dual citizenship, pays his taxes, and is a good man in every regard.

 

2) A friend of mine was born in Mexico and she and her parents came over on a visa when she was 2 months old. She essentially grew up here, but can't be a citizen because she is still waiting (for about the fourth or fifth year now) to take the citizenship test. Her brother was born here, and they have a home and everything and help the school district out with numerous things each year. Would it be right to deny her brother citizenship. Heck, you could make an argument to make it a little bit easier for under 18 year olds to become citizens, like my friend while she was still in high school.

[Jenksismyhero]

And what about non-citizens who are permanent legal residents? What about their kids? Do we make them eligible for citizenship when their parents are? Do they have to apply for babygreencards?

 

All good points, and should be part of the longer, more detailed discussion about the best policy to have.

[Quin]

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-r...wn---akhil-amar

 

I love how Stephen Colbert makes sense while being quite hilarious.

[Rex Kickass]

All good points, and should be part of the longer, more detailed discussion about the best policy to have.

 

Actually they should be part of the discussion about whether a policy change is necessary. Under the best of circumstances, this kind of change in policy would require huge growth in INS and grow government bureaucracy to a large extent, because INS' tentacles would now have to literally reach every medical facility and county clerk's office in the country. And its a big country!

[Balta1701]

Actually they should be part of the discussion about whether a policy change is necessary. Under the best of circumstances, this kind of change in policy would require huge growth in INS and grow government bureaucracy to a large extent, because INS' tentacles would now have to literally reach every medical facility and county clerk's office in the country. And its a big country!

(It stopped being the INS when the DHS was created. It's the ICE now I believe).

 

(Heading off to go down some more alphabet soup).

[Jenksismyhero]

Still looking for a good reason to change the amendment.

 

I think they were provided, but cost savings would be the biggest one. Taking away a benefit of coming here illegally (so hopefully a decrease in illegal immigration in general) would be another.

 

Also keep in mind that I think a lot of people would argue that you can amend the 14th as part of a larger immigration overhaul. For those that do things the right way, it should be easier to gain citizenship or long term resident status. It's not like people (at least i'm not) are arguing that we do away with the birth right while also making immigration as a whole more difficult.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[Soxbadger]

I think they were provided, but cost savings would be the biggest one. Taking away a benefit of coming here illegally (so hopefully a decrease in illegal immigration in general) would be another.

 

Im not sure there would be cost savings.

 

People dont come here illegally so that they can be citizens, they come here for a better life. If you make it so that their children are illegal too, it just will create more illegal immigrants in the US. It will mean that the govt has to spend more time and money on deportation etc.

 

For those that do things the right way, it should be easier to gain citizenship or long term resident status.

 

Here is a question, what is the right way?

 

To me the right way should be, applying and being accepted. That you should be accepted in a reasonable amount of time.

 

That until the US has a legitimate "right way", I dont think you can punish people who circumvent the process for the best interest of their family.

 

Who here wouldnt do whatever it took to give their family the best life possible?

 

If you were told youd have to wait years to come to the US, and it may put your family or your life at risk, would you wait? Or would you just come illegally?

Edited August 11, 2010 by Soxbadger

[Balta1701]

I think they were provided, but cost savings would be the biggest one. Taking away a benefit of coming here illegally (so hopefully a decrease in illegal immigration in general) would be another.

No one's been able to give us anything more than anecdotes on cost savings, and we can respond with possible significant extra costs associated with enforcement that could easily offset any cost savings. As BS pointed out...having a mechanism to actually fully research the immigration status of every child born in this country would not be cheap. We're already spending about $15-20 billion this year on the Mexican border and enforcement as it is...which happens to be a similar number to some estimates of the cost of the benefits that all those illegal immigrants would get if they became citizens.

[Rex Kickass]

I think they were provided, but cost savings would be the biggest one. Taking away a benefit of coming here illegally (so hopefully a decrease in illegal immigration in general) would be another.

 

Also keep in mind that I think a lot of people would argue that you can amend the 14th as part of a larger immigration overhaul. For those that do things the right way, it should be easier to gain citizenship or long term resident status. It's not like people (at least i'm not) are arguing that we do away with the birth right while also making immigration as a whole more difficult.

 

This is where we get into fundamental disagreements. I can't justify changing the way someone is considered a US national based on cost. In fact, I can't justify amending the constitution in a way that affects the legal status of any person for the sake of a deficit.

 

Economics and the rights of persons are two things that should remain mutually exclusive.

[Jenksismyhero]

Im not sure there would be cost savings.

 

People dont come here illegally so that they can be citizens, they come here for a better life. If you make it so that their children are illegal too, it just will create more illegal immigrants in the US. It will mean that the govt has to spend more time and money on deportation etc.

 

I dunno how there wouldn't be. If illegals are doing things the "right way," i.e., paying their taxes, paying for education and healthcare and all that, then there's no gain or loss. If illegals are doing it the wrong way, living here illegally, getting paid in cash, sending all the money home, AND utilzing the social services for the kids, then it's a net gain because the cost of providing those services will go elsewhere. You have what, 20 million illegals in this country? How many of them are children? I think a significant amount.

 

Moreover, I think people DO come here for the benefit of their children, and if that incentive is gone, I think there's a reasonable chance that illegal immigration goes down.

 

Here is a question, what is the right way?

 

To me the right way should be, applying and being accepted. That you should be accepted in a reasonable amount of time.

 

That until the US has a legitimate "right way", I dont think you can punish people who circumvent the process for the best interest of their family.

 

Who here wouldnt do whatever it took to give their family the best life possible?

 

If you were told youd have to wait years to come to the US, and it may put your family or your life at risk, would you wait? Or would you just come illegally?

 

 

Again, I'm saying that eliminating the birth right to citizenship is just one of many changes that need to be made. I'm in agreement with you - I think if you have your ducks in a row it shouldn't take years to get to the US. But, just because the system sucks now doesn't mean we should excuse illegal activity.

[Jenksismyhero]

No one's been able to give us anything more than anecdotes on cost savings, and we can respond with possible significant extra costs associated with enforcement that could easily offset any cost savings. As BS pointed out...having a mechanism to actually fully research the immigration status of every child born in this country would not be cheap. We're already spending about $15-20 billion this year on the Mexican border and enforcement as it is...which happens to be a similar number to some estimates of the cost of the benefits that all those illegal immigrants would get if they became citizens.

 

Well, if it's up to your party any "enforcement" is just racist discrimination right? And so fine, if it turns out that enforcement costs that much, you again say that the change is effective from this day forward, not the past.

 

I just don't see what the big deal is to proving your citizenship. You gotta provide papers for a baby's birth certificate already right?

[Jenksismyhero]

This is where we get into fundamental disagreements. I can't justify changing the way someone is considered a US national based on cost. In fact, I can't justify amending the constitution in a way that affects the legal status of any person for the sake of a deficit.

 

Economics and the rights of persons are two things that should remain mutually exclusive.

 

Since when are economics and the Constitution incompatable? Money is used as a basis for a lot of things.