Removing the Fourteenth Amendment

[lostfan]

I planned on reading all the posts in this thread before posting but now it's to page 10 and I don't really have time to do that. Anyway I posted some of my thoughts on this in the Republican thread the other day. I mostly agree with what NSS, Sonix, and Jenks were saying on page 1 of this thread. If the question is over whether people should automatically get citizenship, and whether we're actually going to do what we need to do if we decide we want to permanently change it as opposed to the typical political chest-thumping and doublespeak, then I'm fine with it.

 

This would require an actual amendment to the Constitution, since the actual text of the 14th Amendment is written in fairly plain language and the current interpretation's been backed up by the Supreme Court for a century or so. I find "constitutional grounds" arguments to be hypocritical a lot of times, and up until the subject of changing the 14th amendment was brought up I was rolling my eyes because until then it was typical bulls*** for scoring cheap political points. By bringing up the amendment that means that we at least want to have a serious discussion about it and want to do something real, instead of playing political games in the courts as is the norm. I haven't (yet) seen very many good arguments in favor of automatic citizenship for non-Americans, and haven't been convinced that it should stay that way, and I don't think it'd be unfair, racist, etc. if the text was changed to say something along the lines of "at least one parent must be a U.S. citizen or lawful resident" (children of illegals born here before the law took effect would have to be grandfathered in). I'm admittedly a little rusty on my reading and facts - someone correct me if I'm wrong - but I don't think this is the norm for citizenship in most other countries.

Edited August 11, 2010 by lostfan

[Balta1701]

I'm admittedly a little rusty on my reading and facts - someone correct me if I'm wrong - but I don't think this is the norm for citizenship in most other countries.

About 33 countries have birthright citizenship laws Lost, but only Canada and the U.S. out of modern countries.

 

A lot of the countries in Western Europe have removed birthright citizenship laws or never had them, and at least to my eyes, that's a key factor in the development of their excluded/oppressed minority communities. Mexico isn't going to take people just because we don't want them, and all that it would do is create a permanent group of people without citizenship here who have no place to go and no opportunities for anything.

 

The best argument I think I've got is the little-c conservatism one...that the ability to decide who is and who is not a citizen is not a power we want the federal government to have. We don't want people thinking they'll be deported if they're pregnant and go to a hospital without the proper papers, we don't want the federal government deciding which people who are here on Visas are allowed to have their children as citizens because of their pure motives and which have bad motives, and we don't want people stuck here with no future here or anywhere else.

 

Furthermore, aside from a vague notion of "cost", it's hard to see how changing the situation makes the current situation any better, and it would be an absolute mess to implement. "Birth Tourism" is likely equally common or perhaps more common on legal visas than it is on the immigration drop-and-run setup that we currently have.

 

If you run through the thread, that's my point...then there's some stuff about Nazis and Florida.

[southsider2k5]

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.

 

Not giving out millions more instances of medicade, social security, and every other social program under the sun isn't a significant cost savings? The minimum amount of social security paid is something like $500 a month. start multiplying that out, and tell me again how that is "anecdotes".

[bmags]

About 33 countries have birthright citizenship laws Lost, but only Canada and the U.S. out of modern countries.

 

2 countries built on immigration.

[kapkomet]

I find it kind of funny that when this arguement gets brought up, the disappearance of LEGAL immigration goes totally out the window, on both sides. Why is that?

 

[lostfan]

2 countries built on immigration.

I don't have a problem with immigration in the slightest... I don't think most people (whose opinions are worth listening to) do either.

 

My great-grandmother tried to come here illegally (through Canada) way back when, and got caught and deported, then came back legally... something I didn't know until a few weeks ago.

[Balta1701]

Not giving out millions more instances of medicade, social security, and every other social program under the sun isn't a significant cost savings? The minimum amount of social security paid is something like $500 a month. start multiplying that out, and tell me again how that is "anecdotes".

So...these kids are born as citizens right? So therefore, they should have all the rights and benefits of citizens as of now?

 

Isn't it official Republican party doctrine that America is the land of opportunity, that in America, everyone is created equal and everyone with the same rights should have the same results? In other words...if the child is a citizen, there's absolutely no reason why they should be a draw on Social Security or Medicare unless this nation has a permanent underclass as it currently is, such that they'd have an inherent disadvantage because of the economic status of their family.

 

Basically, if you're going to argue that, then you're admitting that there is a problem with a lack of economic mobility in the country as it stands now.

 

Of course, you'll probably try to turn that around and say "Oh, but what about the parents, they're just getting citizenship themselves!". Of course...then we can actually take a look at the rules. So, they have a kid who is a citizen. They then wait until the kid is 21. Nice short wait there. Then, they have to register and apply in Mexico, and go through about a 10 year waiting period while registered in Mexico, if they're lucky. So...all those benefits you're worried about...yeah, 30+ years later, we're totally in trouble. Of course, we've guaranteed that they're out of the country for 10 years while they're on the waiting list for a Visa in Mexico...so don't we get to celebrate that too?

 

And, finally, as I pointed out earlier in the thread...We're right now spending about $20 billion taxpayer dollars on immigration enforcement this year. Over 10 years, that's $200 billion at the current rate, and we're dumping money into that like it's going out of style. So...you like to focus on the costs, and you're typically responded to by saying "Yes, but the people you're talking about work and pay into the system" and the one thing you always ignore is that we're wasting enough money there to cover health care for millions of people already.

[kapkomet]

First, the cost of illegals is astronomical. Then, your logic is "make them all legal", which will cost even more. No one has a problem with legal immigration, which no one on your side seems to want or care about. That always seems to get dusted into the "racist" dustpan, whisked away at a moment's convenient notice.

 

And the way the social networks keep being pushed toward government, and the more people you want the government to take care of (the biggest redistribution of wealth scheme ever), the more and more ponzi schemeish it all becomes. Just tattoo "Democrat" on people's foreheads, because that is all big government is about: control.

[Balta1701]

First, the cost of illegals is astronomical. Then, your logic is "make them all legal", which will cost even more. No one has a problem with legal immigration, which no one on your side seems to want or care about. That always seems to get dusted into the "racist" dustpan, whisked away at a moment's convenient notice.

 

And the way the social networks keep being pushed toward government, and the more people you want the government to take care of (the biggest redistribution of wealth scheme ever), the more and more ponzi schemeish it all becomes. Just tattoo "Democrat" on people's foreheads, because that is all big government is about: control.

So...illegals cost an enormous amount, making them all legal costs an enormous amount, pretending that they're not here right now costs an enormous amount, and deporting them all costs an enormous amount.

 

Unless you have a cost effective way to go back in time and pass comprehensive immigration reform under Reagan, I don't see how any side gets to complain about costs, because every single solution costs an abject fortune. It's a question of who's cost estimate winds up being right which option is cheaper.

 

Instead of worrying about which option costs more, let's worry about which one is actually possible, and which one is actually anything but morally repugnant.

[kapkomet]

So...illegals cost an enormous amount, making them all legal costs an enormous amount, pretending that they're not here right now costs an enormous amount, and deporting them all costs an enormous amount.

 

Unless you have a cost effective way to go back in time and pass comprehensive immigration reform under Reagan, I don't see how any side gets to complain about costs, because every single solution costs an abject fortune. It's a question of who's cost estimate winds up being right which option is cheaper.

 

Instead of worrying about which option costs more, let's worry about which one is actually possible, and which one is actually anything but morally repugnant.

 

Oh, so you get to define "morally repugnant"? Barack Obama gets to define that? Who the hell made you and him king? That's arrogant and is the main reason that respect is lacking when this comes up.

[Balta1701]

Oh, so you get to define "morally repugnant"? Barack Obama gets to define that? Who the hell made you and him king? That's arrogant and is the main reason that respect is lacking when this comes up.

Does arrest and deportation of 15 million people strike you as anything other than morally repugnant?

 

Does the current situation on the border, where people are being smuggled by coyotes, dying, etc., strike you as anything but morally repugnant?

 

Does a situation where 10 million people are working illegally with no rights, workplace safety, or guarantees of any sort strike you as morally repugnant?

 

Does splitting up families and locking chunks of them up in immigration processing facilities prior to shipping them back to the border strike you as morally repugnant?

 

Does businesses profiting by slightly-better-than-slave-labor conditions strike you as morally repugnant?

 

Sure as Hell does for me. Doing right by these people and by ourselves ought to be the most important thing here.

[kapkomet]

Does arrest and deportation of 15 million people strike you as anything other than morally repugnant?

 

Does the current situation on the border, where people are being smuggled by coyotes, dying, etc., strike you as anything but morally repugnant?

 

Does a situation where 10 million people are working illegally with no rights, workplace safety, or guarantees of any sort strike you as morally repugnant?

 

Sure as Hell does for me.

 

Hmmm, does coming here with all of those risks, when they know those risks, seem morally repugnant to you? Does what happens to those same people in their own home country seem morally repugnant to you? Does instantly giving these people citizenship seem morally repugnant to you when hundreds of thousands of people died so that "citizenship" means something in this country (of course not... helps your base and further erodes the "rich power" those evil Republicans have "pushed" on you).

[Balta1701]

Hmmm, does coming here with all of those risks, when they know those risks, seem morally repugnant to you? Does what happens to those same people in their own home country seem morally repugnant to you? Does instantly giving these people citizenship seem morally repugnant to you when hundreds of thousands of people died so that "citizenship" means something in this country (of course not... helps your base and further erodes the "rich power" those evil Republicans have "pushed" on you).

Does punishing a child for the actions of their parents strike you as fair?

 

I do like how you talk about people taking risks for this country but only allow for it to count for the people you like.

[kapkomet]

Does punishing a child for the actions of their parents strike you as fair?

 

I do like how you talk about people taking risks for this country but only allow for it to count for the people you like.

 

What's "fair"? Taking trillions of dollars and handing it to people? Does punishing "wealthy people" make you happy and only count toward making you more complete?

 

Do people who make the choice to come here illegally, knowing that they have to go through what they do and it's not legal or proper, take risks that benefit you? What the hell is that? You don't know them any different then I do, so don't go there on that judgement call.

[Balta1701]

What's "fair"? Taking trillions of dollars and handing it to people? Does punishing "wealthy people" make you happy and only count toward making you more complete?

 

Do people who make the choice to come here illegally, knowing that they have to go through what they do and it's not legal or proper, take risks that benefit you? What the hell is that? You don't know them any different then I do, so don't go there on that judgement call.

Frankly, I don't think there's really anything morally defensible about the current situation. You want to criticize them for being here illegally and ignore the fact that the law is unjust, while I'll ignore the fact that they're here illegally and focus on the fact that the immigration laws are an abject, racist, debacle. Everything deserves criticism...but the longer we sit here and criticize, the more it costs either to continue ignoring it or to actually do something about it

[Rex Kickass]

Not giving out millions more instances of medicade, social security, and every other social program under the sun isn't a significant cost savings? The minimum amount of social security paid is something like $500 a month. start multiplying that out, and tell me again how that is "anecdotes".

 

How does restricting citizenship by birthright affect giving out Social Security benefits to people who don't pay into the system? It doesn't. If anything, it precludes additional people from being part of the system.

 

Social Security is not provided to you unless you pay into the system, in most cases. Ask my mother. She taught for universities in Illinois and had an option of paying into social security because she paid into a state pension.

 

She can't receive Social Security today, because she didn't pay into the system.

 

And yes what you're describing is "anecdotes" because you're telling a story, you aren't offering proof. How would changing the 14th amendment save money? How many people are in the system because of birthright citizenship who aren't paying in?

[Rex Kickass]

What's "fair"? Taking trillions of dollars and handing it to people? Does punishing "wealthy people" make you happy and only count toward making you more complete?

 

Do people who make the choice to come here illegally, knowing that they have to go through what they do and it's not legal or proper, take risks that benefit you? What the hell is that? You don't know them any different then I do, so don't go there on that judgement call.

 

Could you please define how giving undocumented residents an opportunity to work legally in our country and pay into our system will cost us trillions?

[Soxbadger]

I haven't (yet) seen very many good arguments in favor of automatic citizenship for non-Americans, and haven't been convinced that it should stay that way, and I don't think it'd be unfair, racist, etc. if the text was changed to say something along the lines of "at least one parent must be a U.S. citizen or lawful resident" (children of illegals born here before the law took effect would have to be grandfathered in). I'm admittedly a little rusty on my reading and facts - someone correct me if I'm wrong - but I don't think this is the norm for citizenship in most other countries.

 

The US should not compare itself to other countries, if we compared ourselves to them we wouldnt be who we are. The United States is unique, in 1776 there were no other Republics. If we defined ourselves by other countries we would have taken a less radical approach and been a constitutional monarchy with George Washington as our first King. We would have had a had a govt based on a class structure, where the haves had the house of lords and the have nots had the house of commons.

 

But we broke away from what other countries had traditionally done. This is why the United States will most likely never be a truly "conservative" (and by that I mean Michael Oakeshott conservative theory) because at the end of the day our country is proof that you do not have to follow tradition to be a successful nation. That you can be truly unique and not only succeed, but thrive.

 

The argument for citizenship for all who seek it (and that goes beyond just those who are born here, but instead to all those truly want to come here) is that freedom is the gift of America (at least in my opinion). When I think of the United States, I think of a place where anyone who has a dream and who has desire can become some one. A place where the govt will not destroy you because of your religion or your personal belief. A place where people of all races and religions can live, where they can live together and show the world that it can work.

 

I have been extremely lucky in my life to be born in America. Probably no where but this country would my parents have even met, let alone the idea that if there was no America many of my family would have most likely died due to political or religious reasons. The only reason I exist today is that because some one else who was in America before my great great grandparents made sure that immigrants and undesirables could come to America for a chance at a better life. They let my family in even though my family one day might take their job, or may have used their services or any of the other practical reasons that you hear. They let my family in, even though there was no good reason to. Why would any country let poor immigrants who are unwanted by their own country? The only practical answer is cheap labor. Immigrants would take the jobs that no one else would, for the chance at a better life for their family.

 

This past weighs on me. It makes me feel that I have a responsibility to those who seek the same opportunity that my family did. To protect their rights, to be their voice if necessary.

 

I cant tell you that letting more immigrants in the United States will mean a better life for you. I cant say that youll make more money, or that you may have to pay higher taxes. I feel that it would be good, but the economic side is really the least of my concerns.

 

So why do I want to let more immigrants in the United States when it will most likely cost me money and will unlikely ever benefit me?

 

Because there are very few chances we have in our lives that we can actually make some one elses life better. In this case it will be a strangers, but we have the opportunity to truly give people a chance. Most immigrants do not want to leave their country because of how great things are. They leave their country because of how bad things are. They leave their country because even as an illegal immigrant, a "criminal", in our country, its still exponentially better than the current situation that they are in.

 

I let them in because I would hope that if I was not as lucky as I am, that some one would have given me the chance.

 

I could not live with myself if I supported a plan that would force people to live in worse conditions, just to give me a better edge. If an immigrant cane come and take my job, they earned it. I had all the advantages and they beat me. Tip my hat and move on.

 

I know that everyone doesnt feel the same way. But that is what America is about to me. I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. And no argument can change my heart. Not everyone will understand, I dont expect them to.

 

I just want everyone to have a chance at freedom and I recognize not everyone can in their own country. So I let them in. Just like I let my friend sleep on my couch when times are tough.

 

For me its just a matter of streamlining the process of legal immigration. Once people can become legal US residents quickly, they will become part of society with the same responsibilities as me.

 

Not giving out millions more instances of medicade, social security, and every other social program under the sun isn't a significant cost savings? The minimum amount of social security paid is something like $500 a month. start multiplying that out, and tell me again how that is "anecdotes".

 

Im tragically undereducated on our tax code. But I was under the belief that your pay out on social security was connected to how much you pay into the system?

 

Furthermore since social security, medicaid, etc are also nothing more than ponzi schemes were the future participants pay for the current participants, wouldnt we actually want more young people being added (new borns) while their parents dont get any benefits (illegal immigrants dont receive social security etc, at least I dont believe).

 

The only way to pay off our current debts is by making sure that we have more people in the future who can do it. I just am not sure how if we create a class of people that doesnt have any rights and therefore dont have any responsibilities (ie not paying taxes) how that will ever solve the situation.

 

 

First, the cost of illegals is astronomical. Then, your logic is "make them all legal", which will cost even more. No one has a problem with legal immigration, which no one on your side seems to want or care about. That always seems to get dusted into the "racist" dustpan, whisked away at a moment's convenient notice.

 

And the way the social networks keep being pushed toward government, and the more people you want the government to take care of (the biggest redistribution of wealth scheme ever), the more and more ponzi schemeish it all becomes. Just tattoo "Democrat" on people's foreheads, because that is all big government is about: control.

 

All I keep arguing for is making legal immigration easier and allowing more people into the country.

 

I wont really get into the redistribution of wealth argument. Not really sure how giving more people an opportunity to compete means that the US govt is going to have to take care of them. Not every immigrant is a charity case, not every citizen is a hard worker.

 

About big govt, why is that to me Republican's want bigger govt than Democrat's. And this is a serious question because I generally lean towards anti-govt in almost every situation. To me big govt is when the govt dictates who can marry or even tells me that marriage means something. Who is the govt to get involved in marriage? The next question I have is, what right does govt have to limit what I consume as an adult? Why can the govt tell me what drugs I can take?

 

I hear Democrats being referred to as a nanny state, but why is it that Republican's want to extend govt when they like it? Have no problem creating more criminal laws, have no problem with expanding military?

 

Yet because Democrats want to expand govt to give people more money, thats when govt is bad?

 

Im not a Democrat or a Republican, neither of them want to invite me to the party. But the idea that Republican's are actually for "limited govt" died before I was born. When they say limited, they really only mean in certain areas.

 

Republicans generally have no problem with govt getting involved in social areas.

 

Oh, so you get to define "morally repugnant"? Barack Obama gets to define that? Who the hell made you and him king? That's arrogant and is the main reason that respect is lacking when this comes up.

 

Morality is a creation to control people.

 

I believe in freedom and equality. Not just for Americans, but for all humans who want it.

 

If you disagree, I dont think your morally repugnant, I think that youre normal.

 

What I believe is not easy.

 

Hmmm, does coming here with all of those risks, when they know those risks, seem morally repugnant to you? Does what happens to those same people in their own home country seem morally repugnant to you? Does instantly giving these people citizenship seem morally repugnant to you when hundreds of thousands of people died so that "citizenship" means something in this country (of course not... helps your base and further erodes the "rich power" those evil Republicans have "pushed" on you).

 

Coming here doesnt seem morally repugnant. If you thought your life was in danger or that your family would not survive unless they came to the US, would that discourage you? I empathize with the plight of people in other countries, and realize that not everyone is as lucky as me to have been born in perhaps the greatest country that has ever existed in the history of humanity.

 

I think that hundreds of thousands of immigrants died in a variety of US wars, so that future immigrants would have a place to call home. In almost every war in American history, immigrants fought with citizens.

 

I think that the American's who died in foreign wars, died to protect the idea that America is a place of freedom and opportunity.A place where anyone who has a dream can make it.

 

I dont think that they died so that the people who survived could create fictitious borders to deny people freedom, based on the idea that "We were here first so we can arbitrarily decide who gets to enjoy freedom with us."

 

I think they fought so that everyone could have freedom and opportunity.

 

Not just those who had the opportunity first, not just those who were entitled. A land were we judge people by their merit and work, not by their last name or title.

 

 

What's "fair"? Taking trillions of dollars and handing it to people? Does punishing "wealthy people" make you happy and only count toward making you more complete?

 

Ive never met a wealthy person who truly felt punished. In fact the majority of wealthy people I have met have been predominantly Democratic.

 

That doesnt really mean much, but its just odd to suggest that all wealthy people feel punished.

 

Im not sure what you mean by punishing rich people.

 

If you mean the progressive tax scale, that was theorized by Adam Smith.

 

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion

Edited August 12, 2010 by Soxbadger

[lostfan]

Good god... clearly, you put a lot of time in that so I'm going to read it... but, later. lol.

[Soxbadger]

You dont have to read it all, only some of it was a direct response to your post.

 

Im not used to short arguments. Sorry about that

[southsider2k5]

Does punishing a child for the actions of their parents strike you as fair?

I do like how you talk about people taking risks for this country but only allow for it to count for the people you like.

 

It happens all of the time. We send parents to jail for crimes, even if they have children. Here is a novel idea, when you are a parent, don't do stuff that could be detrimental to your family.

[southsider2k5]

How does restricting citizenship by birthright affect giving out Social Security benefits to people who don't pay into the system? It doesn't. If anything, it precludes additional people from being part of the system.

 

Social Security is not provided to you unless you pay into the system, in most cases. Ask my mother. She taught for universities in Illinois and had an option of paying into social security because she paid into a state pension.

She can't receive Social Security today, because she didn't pay into the system.

 

And yes what you're describing is "anecdotes" because you're telling a story, you aren't offering proof. How would changing the 14th amendment save money? How many people are in the system because of birthright citizenship who aren't paying in?

 

There are PLENTY of ways around this.

[Rex Kickass]

There are PLENTY of ways around this.

 

Please show me a legal way of this, and how changing the 14th amendment would prevent a legal way of getting money from SSI without paying into it?

[southsider2k5]

Please show me a legal way of this, and how changing the 14th amendment would prevent a legal way of getting money from SSI without paying into it?

 

Let me put it this way. If you can tell me that turning 10,12, 15, or whatever million people who are here illegally won't get paid social security, or any other social service, after getting amnesty, without paying a lifetime into it, I will be for it . Until then, I will consider the cost savings a fact.

[Rex Kickass]

Let me put it this way. If you can tell me that turning 10,12, 15, or whatever million people who are here illegally won't get paid social security, or any other social service, after getting amnesty, without paying a lifetime into it, I will be for it . Until then, I will consider the cost savings a fact.

 

What does amnesty have to do with birthright citizenship? One is a concept and policy not put into place since Reagan, one is enshrined in the constitution Those are two different arguments, IIRC.