4 ms·

" In that sense all Americans other than natives are illegal immigrants" Well, no. Decedents of though.

mac01021 8y ago
"Natives", here, clearly means people born in the country, rather than aboriginal.
tialaramex 8y ago
Birth right citizenship was invented by the White American colonists who decided that fuck the cost of setting up the colonies, they were going to be "free" now and do whatever they wanted. If you arrive somewhere and decide that the new rules say you were always in charge and you get to choose all the rules, don't for a moment think those rules are any more legitimate just because you say so. Nobody asked America's existing inhabitants whether they wanted European colonies. The Europeans took whatever they pleased. Nobody asked them for permission to form the United States of America either. And that birthright citizenship of course didn't apply to those native inhabitants except - after the old white men running things started to very slowly become aware of how amazingly racist they were - retrospectively. It also didn't apply to all the black slaves they'd imported, or the cheap Chinese labour they imported for decades. Those weren't white people, and so, thanks to racism, they weren't counted as "people" at all and weren't entitled to your imagined birthright citizenship. It's all very ugly underneath. "I'm declaring myself owner of this whole cake. Now, I'm going to give you one small slice to share between you. Don't fuss! It's my cake after all, even if you did make it".
- lainga 8y ago
  >was invented by the White American colonists By the 14th Amendment in 1868? The Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1802 don't mention birthright citizenship. Children born to foreigners only became citizens once their parents did.
- bvc35 8y ago
  Everyone knows that the United States of America, like almost every nation and people on earth, has a violent past filled with ethnic cleansing, wars, and genocide. Are you suggesting that inherited citizenship should be done away with?
  - tialaramex 8y ago
    Inherited citizenship is very different, the US has fairly weak inherited citizenship, it relies way more on granting citizenship by reason of presence in the country at birth. Suppose both your parents were born in country X to country X citizens from a long line. They live in country X all their lives, until one day at say, 35, they move to country Y. They then settle in country Y, you are conceived soon after and born there, you grow up there, you think of Y as your home. Do you have citizenship of country X? Of country Y? Neither? Both? The US says if X is the USA then you are NOT a citizen of the US. Your parents (who are citizens) could bring you into the country, and do the paperwork, and you would probably qualify, but not automatically. The longer you all wait, the more unlikely it becomes. Once you're 18, you are just another foreigner if you didn't already start the process. The US also says if Y is the USA, then you ARE a citizen of the US, regardless of almost anything else. Some countries operate almost the reverse rule. For example if X is Ireland then you're an Irish Citizen, but if Y is Ireland you probably aren't unless X was the United Kingdom or your parents had some other form of "enduring connection" to Ireland. The only overall principle is that all UN members have agreed not to create "stateless people". That is, if there appears to be no citizenship you're entitled to, somebody has to pick up the slack and make you their problem. The US system is simple in this respect - if there's an unexplained baby born in the US, Americans just give it US citizenship. Simple. The rules against statelessness are partly because statelessness is a colossal bureaucratic problem and the UN would much rather its members stopped making it worse, but also because has an enormous human rights impact, statelessness usually means you can't get decent treatment anywhere because everybody says you aren't their problem.
    - nebulous1 8y ago
      > The US says if X is the USA then you are NOT a citizen of the US That is not correct. In the majority of cases the child will be a US citizen at birth, and the parents do not have to bring the child to the US. > Once you're 18, you are just another foreigner if you didn't already start the process. Also incorrect. Even if no application is made until the child becomes an adult, application can still be made for derivative US citizenship. > if Y is Ireland you probably aren't Again incorrect, assuming by "settled in Y" you mean gained permanent residency.
- zaroth 8y ago
  If ever there was an abject lesson on the importance of strong borders...
- magduf 8y ago
  Oh please. I challenge you to find any inhabited land on this planet that wasn't forcibly taken from someone at some point in the past. At best, you might find some remote islands where the current inhabitants are descended from the original settlers, but even there if you could magically look back in time you might find that one clan stole the land from some other clan after wiping them out in a war. >don't for a moment think those rules are any more legitimate just because you say so. The only thing that makes the rules legitimate is the ability to back up those rules with force.
  - FullyFunctional 8y ago
    As you wish: Denmark
    - magduf 8y ago
      You think none of the land in modern-day Denmark was fought over at some point in its ~10,000 year history? Heck, less than 100 years ago it was conquered by the Nazis.
      - FullyFunctional 8y ago
        It was never conquered by the Nazis, it was occupied which isn't the same thing. In it's recorded history (1000+ years) there is (AFAIK) no instance of a foreign power taking over.
        megaman22 8y ago
        Schleswig-Holstein? Part of Denmark before the Iron Chancellor took them in the 1860s.
- nebulous1 8y ago
  You seem somewhat confused as to the topic of conversation here.
- jcranmer 8y ago
  > Nobody asked America's existing inhabitants whether they wanted European colonies. The Europeans took whatever they pleased. Actually, many of the early settlements did establish good relations with nearby natives and had some degree of permission to settle there. (Sometimes before they set up their settlement, sometimes shortly afterwards). By the mid-17th century, the colonists became adroit at exploiting local conflicts, and carving extra land for themselves out of the lands of the losing side; it's not really until the early 19th century (maybe 1790s at the earliest) that there is a strong sense of superiority over natives that results in the get-out-or-else attitude.

"Natives", here, clearly means people born in the country, rather than aboriginal.

Birth right citizenship was invented by the White American colonists who decided that fuck the cost of setting up the colonies, they were going to be "free" now and do whatever they wanted. If you arrive somewhere and decide that the new rules say you were always in charge and you get to choose all the rules, don't for a moment think those rules are any more legitimate just because you say so. Nobody asked America's existing inhabitants whether they wanted European colonies. The Europeans took whatever they pleased. Nobody asked them for permission to form the United States of America either. And that birthright citizenship of course didn't apply to those native inhabitants except - after the old white men running things started to very slowly become aware of how amazingly racist they were - retrospectively. It also didn't apply to all the black slaves they'd imported, or the cheap Chinese labour they imported for decades. Those weren't white people, and so, thanks to racism, they weren't counted as "people" at all and weren't entitled to your imagined birthright citizenship. It's all very ugly underneath. "I'm declaring myself owner of this whole cake. Now, I'm going to give you one small slice to share between you. Don't fuss! It's my cake after all, even if you did make it".

lainga 8y ago
>was invented by the White American colonists By the 14th Amendment in 1868? The Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1802 don't mention birthright citizenship. Children born to foreigners only became citizens once their parents did.
bvc35 8y ago
Everyone knows that the United States of America, like almost every nation and people on earth, has a violent past filled with ethnic cleansing, wars, and genocide. Are you suggesting that inherited citizenship should be done away with?
- tialaramex 8y ago
  Inherited citizenship is very different, the US has fairly weak inherited citizenship, it relies way more on granting citizenship by reason of presence in the country at birth. Suppose both your parents were born in country X to country X citizens from a long line. They live in country X all their lives, until one day at say, 35, they move to country Y. They then settle in country Y, you are conceived soon after and born there, you grow up there, you think of Y as your home. Do you have citizenship of country X? Of country Y? Neither? Both? The US says if X is the USA then you are NOT a citizen of the US. Your parents (who are citizens) could bring you into the country, and do the paperwork, and you would probably qualify, but not automatically. The longer you all wait, the more unlikely it becomes. Once you're 18, you are just another foreigner if you didn't already start the process. The US also says if Y is the USA, then you ARE a citizen of the US, regardless of almost anything else. Some countries operate almost the reverse rule. For example if X is Ireland then you're an Irish Citizen, but if Y is Ireland you probably aren't unless X was the United Kingdom or your parents had some other form of "enduring connection" to Ireland. The only overall principle is that all UN members have agreed not to create "stateless people". That is, if there appears to be no citizenship you're entitled to, somebody has to pick up the slack and make you their problem. The US system is simple in this respect - if there's an unexplained baby born in the US, Americans just give it US citizenship. Simple. The rules against statelessness are partly because statelessness is a colossal bureaucratic problem and the UN would much rather its members stopped making it worse, but also because has an enormous human rights impact, statelessness usually means you can't get decent treatment anywhere because everybody says you aren't their problem.
  - nebulous1 8y ago
    > The US says if X is the USA then you are NOT a citizen of the US That is not correct. In the majority of cases the child will be a US citizen at birth, and the parents do not have to bring the child to the US. > Once you're 18, you are just another foreigner if you didn't already start the process. Also incorrect. Even if no application is made until the child becomes an adult, application can still be made for derivative US citizenship. > if Y is Ireland you probably aren't Again incorrect, assuming by "settled in Y" you mean gained permanent residency.
zaroth 8y ago
If ever there was an abject lesson on the importance of strong borders...
magduf 8y ago
Oh please. I challenge you to find any inhabited land on this planet that wasn't forcibly taken from someone at some point in the past. At best, you might find some remote islands where the current inhabitants are descended from the original settlers, but even there if you could magically look back in time you might find that one clan stole the land from some other clan after wiping them out in a war. >don't for a moment think those rules are any more legitimate just because you say so. The only thing that makes the rules legitimate is the ability to back up those rules with force.
- FullyFunctional 8y ago
  As you wish: Denmark
  - magduf 8y ago
    You think none of the land in modern-day Denmark was fought over at some point in its ~10,000 year history? Heck, less than 100 years ago it was conquered by the Nazis.
    - FullyFunctional 8y ago
      It was never conquered by the Nazis, it was occupied which isn't the same thing. In it's recorded history (1000+ years) there is (AFAIK) no instance of a foreign power taking over.
      - megaman22 8y ago
        Schleswig-Holstein? Part of Denmark before the Iron Chancellor took them in the 1860s.
nebulous1 8y ago
You seem somewhat confused as to the topic of conversation here.
jcranmer 8y ago
> Nobody asked America's existing inhabitants whether they wanted European colonies. The Europeans took whatever they pleased. Actually, many of the early settlements did establish good relations with nearby natives and had some degree of permission to settle there. (Sometimes before they set up their settlement, sometimes shortly afterwards). By the mid-17th century, the colonists became adroit at exploiting local conflicts, and carving extra land for themselves out of the lands of the losing side; it's not really until the early 19th century (maybe 1790s at the earliest) that there is a strong sense of superiority over natives that results in the get-out-or-else attitude.