7 ms·

First, the US needs to resolve its issue of citizenship. It has been proposed that the US citizenship model was always like the Swiss model - you could only be

First, the US needs to resolve its issue of citizenship. It has been proposed that the US citizenship model was always like the Swiss model - you could only be a citizen if you were born of at least 1 citizen (naturalized or otherwise). For reasons I'm not clear, this has not been strictly enforced for some time. Instead we defaulted to "anyone born in a US hospital is a citizen" Then, as welfare, lack of law enforcement and border grew, the broken citizenship process became a larger problem that now we have to deal with. To me, the answer to your question of what is the alternative is as follows: The sole act of breaking laws and cutting the line to come into the country, to then birth babies here for the pusposes of straightjacketing the host's own response seems like should not be allowed, full stop. The premise of becoming a US citizen cannot be grounded in 2 crimes being committed before you are a citizen (1 illegal entry, 1 lying about your asylum petition). We then have the issue of citizenship. It cannot be that because you come out of a womb that happens to be passing by a US hospital, you are a US citizen. US hospitals do not have magic pixie dust that grant american-ness. The Swiss have the right model that you actually have to come from at least 1 national parent, to foster national unity. The Swiss have the longest-lasting democracy in the world for a reason. Ignoring this seems suicidal. In nature and history, no humans prospered without an organized tribe centered around shared history and values. Then there are the cases of people that came here, all legally, and found a life worth having by contributing to society. There should be a path for them to be citizens. What that path looks like, I dont know. But that's a conversation worth having soon since they are paying the price for the crimes and abuse committed by the 1st group.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
whimsicalism 1y ago
Let's remind ourselves of the text of the 14th amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” > It has been proposed that the US citizenship model was always like the Swiss model - you could only be a citizen if you were born of at least 1 citizen (naturalized or otherwise). For reasons I'm not clear, this has not been strictly enforced for some time. I think any clear reading of the 14th amendment shows that you are incorrect.
- IG_Semmelweiss 1y ago
  IANAL, but interpretation of: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" seems critical to make a determination on whether you are correct or not. Take the act of a random french spy who goes to the UK for the purpose of defecting, without express permission of either government. Does that make him a subject to the UK crown? I think the historical outcome of such situation would be crystal-clear.
  - whimsicalism 1y ago
    Are only people with at least 1 naturalized citizen parent the only people subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
    - IG_Semmelweiss 1y ago
      This is switching the topic. The 14th amendment discusses who is a citizen. It does not capture who is a subject to US jurisdictions, or not. That part is open to interpretation , likely because it is based in common law.
      - whimsicalism 1y ago
        e: You've now edited your comment to be consistent with what you originally said. Before edit, the commenter said that the jurisdiction clause meant that at least one parent needed to be at least a legal visitor to the US. Not only is that not in the text of the 14th, it's different from your original proposal two comments ago. If you really want to do this fine-grained reading to try to support your point, you might notice that 1. the subject to the jurisdiction clause is the baby, not the parents, 2. breaking a law does not mean you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the state you reside in.
      - jf 1y ago
        Please note that the 14th Amendment does not “discuss” who is a citizen, a better word would be “establishes” or “determines” - the “discussion” happened during the drafting and ratification processes and all of those records are available for you to read. Post ratification, the court system uses those discussions as part of their decisions on issues related to clarification of questions that arose after ratification. Those court decisions are also available for you to read.
ivape 1y ago
The people that come here legally don't really build anything of significant value when you compare it to entire immigrant communities. Mexicans, Chinese, Indians, Irish, you name it, they build vast amounts of culture and businesses that get integrated into America. Even if you give me 2 million of the smartest legal immigrants, they will pale in comparison to what large immigrant communities offer to the fabric of America. This is deeply American issue, you either get it or you don't. Just Apu from the Simpsons is only possible due to our immigration. Just the very fucking iconic cartoon character. This is not from legal immigration. Taco Tuesdays, every Irish pub, like, it sounds silly, but what they offer America is ten fold. I do not care about the best and the brightest, give us your tired and poor. The American right-wing reeks of elitism (soft language for racist/xenophobic) and it is the antithesis of the American spirit and dream. I'm not with it. This will be one of my final posts on this topic because I believe we are only in month five, and have 3.5 years to go. I pray the midterms are a landslide, and I pray the next Democrat grants Amnesty. See you all on the other side, because to me this issue is no different than the anit-gay marriage bullshit from the 2000s that we wiped the table clean of once and for all. We are a nation of immigrants and we will be so until eternity.
- generalizations 1y ago
  > American right-wing reeks of elitism Common notion, but based in ignorance. I've found that the left wing is more idealistic, but in the sense that they have chosen not to learn from history and rely on immediate emotional values. The right wing sees second order effects and acts on them. Thus, you get the left calling the right heartless/immoral/racist, and the right calling the left idiots.
  - ivape 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - generalizations 1y ago
      > wonderful integrated members of our society You've clearly only paid attention to ragebait. Because "integrated members of our society" is exactly what the right wing is interested in. But this is not what happened in recent years. The entire reason for the deportations is because they are not becoming "integrated members of our society" - it instead became "all crime-like" in places it wasn't before, and the correlation with the alien imports is just too obvious. It happened too fast and too much, and now the correction is just as hard. "They are simply sick" and you're...... proving my point.
mayneack 1y ago
Why does the birthright status quo need resolving? Why is there magic pixie dust based on who your parents are? None of these are fundamental truths. The US and the Swiss just chose different laws.
- rs186 1y ago
  Exactly. Same for dual citizenship. I realize there is nothing right or wrong about whether a countries allows dual citizenship -- it's just two different ways of doing things. Although that's a bit of a stretch here.
chasd00 1y ago
> It has been proposed that the US citizenship model was always like the Swiss model - you could only be a citizen if you were born of at least 1 citizen (naturalized or otherwise) I like this a lot. That makes total sense and would take away the incentive to cross the border to give birth.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

whimsicalism 1y ago

Let's remind ourselves of the text of the 14th amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” > It has been proposed that the US citizenship model was always like the Swiss model - you could only be a citizen if you were born of at least 1 citizen (naturalized or otherwise). For reasons I'm not clear, this has not been strictly enforced for some time. I think any clear reading of the 14th amendment shows that you are incorrect.

IG_Semmelweiss 1y ago
IANAL, but interpretation of: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" seems critical to make a determination on whether you are correct or not. Take the act of a random french spy who goes to the UK for the purpose of defecting, without express permission of either government. Does that make him a subject to the UK crown? I think the historical outcome of such situation would be crystal-clear.
- whimsicalism 1y ago
  Are only people with at least 1 naturalized citizen parent the only people subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
  - IG_Semmelweiss 1y ago
    This is switching the topic. The 14th amendment discusses who is a citizen. It does not capture who is a subject to US jurisdictions, or not. That part is open to interpretation , likely because it is based in common law.
    - whimsicalism 1y ago
      e: You've now edited your comment to be consistent with what you originally said. Before edit, the commenter said that the jurisdiction clause meant that at least one parent needed to be at least a legal visitor to the US. Not only is that not in the text of the 14th, it's different from your original proposal two comments ago. If you really want to do this fine-grained reading to try to support your point, you might notice that 1. the subject to the jurisdiction clause is the baby, not the parents, 2. breaking a law does not mean you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the state you reside in.
    - jf 1y ago
      Please note that the 14th Amendment does not “discuss” who is a citizen, a better word would be “establishes” or “determines” - the “discussion” happened during the drafting and ratification processes and all of those records are available for you to read. Post ratification, the court system uses those discussions as part of their decisions on issues related to clarification of questions that arose after ratification. Those court decisions are also available for you to read.

ivape 1y ago

The people that come here legally don't really build anything of significant value when you compare it to entire immigrant communities. Mexicans, Chinese, Indians, Irish, you name it, they build vast amounts of culture and businesses that get integrated into America. Even if you give me 2 million of the smartest legal immigrants, they will pale in comparison to what large immigrant communities offer to the fabric of America. This is deeply American issue, you either get it or you don't. Just Apu from the Simpsons is only possible due to our immigration. Just the very fucking iconic cartoon character. This is not from legal immigration. Taco Tuesdays, every Irish pub, like, it sounds silly, but what they offer America is ten fold. I do not care about the best and the brightest, give us your tired and poor. The American right-wing reeks of elitism (soft language for racist/xenophobic) and it is the antithesis of the American spirit and dream. I'm not with it. This will be one of my final posts on this topic because I believe we are only in month five, and have 3.5 years to go. I pray the midterms are a landslide, and I pray the next Democrat grants Amnesty. See you all on the other side, because to me this issue is no different than the anit-gay marriage bullshit from the 2000s that we wiped the table clean of once and for all. We are a nation of immigrants and we will be so until eternity.

generalizations 1y ago
> American right-wing reeks of elitism Common notion, but based in ignorance. I've found that the left wing is more idealistic, but in the sense that they have chosen not to learn from history and rely on immediate emotional values. The right wing sees second order effects and acts on them. Thus, you get the left calling the right heartless/immoral/racist, and the right calling the left idiots.
- ivape 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - generalizations 1y ago
    > wonderful integrated members of our society You've clearly only paid attention to ragebait. Because "integrated members of our society" is exactly what the right wing is interested in. But this is not what happened in recent years. The entire reason for the deportations is because they are not becoming "integrated members of our society" - it instead became "all crime-like" in places it wasn't before, and the correlation with the alien imports is just too obvious. It happened too fast and too much, and now the correction is just as hard. "They are simply sick" and you're...... proving my point.

mayneack 1y ago

Why does the birthright status quo need resolving? Why is there magic pixie dust based on who your parents are? None of these are fundamental truths. The US and the Swiss just chose different laws.

rs186 1y ago
Exactly. Same for dual citizenship. I realize there is nothing right or wrong about whether a countries allows dual citizenship -- it's just two different ways of doing things. Although that's a bit of a stretch here.

chasd00 1y ago

> It has been proposed that the US citizenship model was always like the Swiss model - you could only be a citizen if you were born of at least 1 citizen (naturalized or otherwise) I like this a lot. That makes total sense and would take away the incentive to cross the border to give birth.