6 ms·
You can't get citizenship by giving birth in the US. And asylum is a special case, it's not really a normal immigration route.
by pertymcpert 8y ago
You can't get citizenship by giving birth in the US. And asylum is a special case, it's not really a normal immigration route.
- mc32 8y agoNot the person giving birth but the progeny. Most countries ~164 out of 194) are jus sanguinis (you inherit nationality of parent(s)) we are one of the exceptions with jus soli. We even have “birth tourism” taking advantage of our liberal policy.
- Daishiman 8y agoFalse; pretty much all of the Americas are jus soli.
- mc32 8y agoNot false. How is ~164 out of 194 countries jus sanguinis not most? There are approx 30 of 194 that are jus soli. How is that “false”. And except for Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chili and Uruguay, the rest aren’t what one would think of as “sought after”, otherwise you’d have other people trying to take advantage of their citizenship policies.
- Daishiman 8y agoAn entire continent, of the youngest countries consisting of liberal democracies being jus soli isn't something you can just wave away and pretend is irrelevant or has some particularly unusual behavior. Said countries have even laxes immigration policies, similar proportions of immigrant populations, the same anti-immigrant rhetoric that you're spouting, and yet it's just not really the problem that it's made out to be at all.
- mc32 8y agoWanting control over who comes in and who goes out is not “anti-immigrant rhetoric”, If those countries had sudden surges, you’d see them change, just look at the Venezuela/Colombia border to see how a surge will change opinion anc behavior. Chile is also cracking down on illegal entries now that they’re more prevalent. No country will have unrestricted immigration, otherwise why not form a union with neighbors? Also my claim wasn’t false as you suggested.
- arcticbull 8y agoIt’s not false it’s just irrelevant. People are people no matter where they’re from, the US has some of the toughest immigration laws anywhere, immigrants boost the economy and the US is squandering it’s opportunity by letting countries like Canada take in the worlds best and brightest.
- mc32 8y agoI take you haven’t been to Japan, South Africa, Korea or China. We’re not tough by a long shot.
- arcticbull 8y agoI sure have, and Japan believe it or not has no caps or quotas on immigration and just introduced a bunch of measures to make it easier to immigrate. Limiting immigrants is a bad thing and the US could stand to benefit hugely, economically and socially, by laxening the rules.
- mc32 8y agoWhat does a quota matter when you have other real effective restrictions. Also, I’m for immigration where we have proven needs. I don’t agree with flooding the market and depressing wages for average workers. PhDs, sure, rare skills, sure. Or, let’s put it this way, would you be in favor we took Japan’s immigration system part and parcel and implemented it as they have?
- ataturk 8y agoIt's just funny how every single open policy that US has that supports real freedom is either being gamed or swept away now. We're done.
- arcticbull 8y agoChili sounds spicy. I’m not pro jus soli but to characterize birth tourism as a big problem is crazy. A conservative think tank estimated it at 40,000 births per year out of 4.3 million (0.9%) — the average delivery costs $32,000 for an economic benefit of $1.28B per year. Then those poor kids are going to have to pay US income taxes for the rest of their natural lives no matter where they live. We can expect the first 18 years to be abroad since their parents don’t get citizenship and the US has effectively zero social safety net anyways. What’s the big deal?
- mc32 8y agoIt’s not a problem in and of itself but it’s illustrative of our lax policy.
- arcticbull 8y agoHow does that make the policy lax? Compared to what, zero admissions?
- mc32 8y agoWe allow millions in legally every year. Birth tourism often involves immigration fraud. It’s seldom prosecuted = lax enforcement. So, no, we still would allow millions of legal immigrants in. We’d just crack down on unregulated immigrants.
- arcticbull 8y ago1 million per year, not millions, in a country of 325 million (0.3%), for comparison Canada lets in 0.33 million per year in a country of 36 million (almost 1%).
- jessaustin 8y agoNo matter how much some people might dislike the 14th Amendment, it ain't going anywhere.
- godelmachine 8y agoParents can later leverage the citizenship of their progeny to gain theirs.
- arcticbull 8y ago27 years later.
- godelmachine 8y agoI don’t follow. Parents who are on H1B can leverage their wards citizenship by birth to get their own citizenship by naturalization. And by no stretch of imagination do they need to wait for 27 long years!
- arcticbull 8y agoHow so? They don’t get any special benefits, to the best of my knowledge until their adult child sponsors them. The idea of an anchor baby in the us is a complete myth. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/the-myth-of-the-anchor-baby-deportation-defense/?utm_term=.314017b4c6cc https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/th...
- godelmachine 8y agoMy friend, my parents are in US and their case got strong when they said my step brother was born in US and they had to be around for his upbringing. I am not going to read any newspaper article when I have a living proof in my family. And it wasn’t easy other. They had to wait 18 years before they got naturalized.
- arcticbull 8y agoWhat on earth does “got strong” mean? Is it a section of the immigration and nationality act? 18 vs 27 years is just situational, it’s a range. When someone says “leveraging their ward” they mean days/months or a dedicated process not supporting evidence in the standard two to three decade process. And sure, why read evidence I found for you when you have your gut and a single anecdote.
- damnyou 8y agoJus soli is a civil rights issue. Jus sanguinis has led to many cases of intergenerational oppression. Giving up jus soli would be like giving up the Civil Rights Act.
- arcticbull 8y agoJus soli was a hack, applied to force southern states to stop being terrible to former slaves in the wake of the Dredd Scott decision. That doesn’t make it intrinsically a civil rights issue. It makes it a tool used to solve a civil rights issue. The civil rights issue itself can and (IMO) should be solved directly, and be a separate conversation from that of what constitutes nationality. IMO jus soli doesn’t make sense as your place of birth doesn’t make you intrinsically any more or less of a given nationality. Living somewhere does, being part of a society does, etc. I’d prefer birthright permanent residency for instance - you can claim PR any time, and if you live in the country for 3/5 years you can petition for citizenship like anyone else.
- damnyou 8y agoYou're not wrong, I think birthright PR would be fine, but I'd be worried about the political viability of statutes. Jus soli has the advantage of being embedded in the constitution so nativist leaders can't just change it. (I don't think the current president would be in favor of what you described either.)
- arcticbull 8y agoI agree with everything you said here.
- dgudkov 8y ago>And asylum is a special case, it's not really a normal immigration route. If it works it's normal. Just in a different sense.
- pertymcpert 8y agoNo, it's not in any sense. You're assuming they're not claiming asylum legitimately.