4 ms·

Invariably someone will shoot back with "citizen children of illegal immigrants."

by 15155 9mo ago

defrost 9mo ago
Sure, that happens a lot despite Court orders to the contrary. ICE has also deported full adult citizens, eg: Pedro Guzman, Mark Lyttle, etc. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Guzman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Guzman * https://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/press-releases/court-recommends-case-wrongly-deported-north-carolina-citizen-go-forward/ https://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/press-releases/court-rec... Currently there's a running problem simply having access to the names and files of those that disappear into the ICE Gulag.
- 15155 9mo ago
  How many other developed countries in the world allow tourists to unconditionally birth citizens?
  - trhway 9mo ago
    allow to birth? Only God does that. US does entice tourists by granting citizenship to anybody born on US territory. If you don't like it - change the Constitution. If you aren't changing it, then you want it for some reason. Edit: to the commenter below - what "moral" has to do with the Constitution provision? I mean beside the general understanding that Constitution is a law and following law is in general a moral thing, and that US Constitution was generally an attempt to write a good moral thing.
    - zahlman 9mo ago
      I first have to ask: do you personally think it makes sense that couples can enter the US illegally, remain in the US illegally until a child is born, and have that child automatically become a citizen? Do you think it is moral? Why? But just to clarify, GP was asking you whether that particular path to citizenship exists in other developed countries.
      - vel0city 9mo ago
        I do think it's moral and makes sense to make people born here citizens. It prevents the formation of an underclass of stateless residents who do not have rights. The idea of Jus Soli goes back a long time, rooted in English common law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli And yes, lots of other countries have similar policies in place. Racists act like it's something that is only a thing in the United States, and that it was only created by the 14th Amendment, and have managed to dupe many others to become ignorant of history.
        zahlman 9mo ago
        This has nothing to do with racism, and the implication is offensive. In the age of English common law, nations and states were conceived of fundamentally differently.
        vel0city 9mo ago
        > This has nothing to do with racism, and the implication is offensive. The history of the 14th amendment, Jus Soli, and birthright citizenship have loads of racism in their debates and history. I'm not necessarily calling you a racist here, I'm just pointing out many racists do these things for racist reasons. But you are the one suggesting the citizenship rights guaranteed by the 14th amendment is immoral. If you're truly ignorant of the history of the 14th Amendment and it's connection to racism you really need to read up on the US Civil War. > In the age of English common law We're still living in the age of English Common Law in many ways. It guides a massive part of our legal theory. I point to it because it seems you're taking the position the US is rare in its application of Jus Soli, as if only we made it up somewhat recently. For practically all free white babies born to immigrants living in the US even before the 14th Amendment Jus Soli was the standard. Racism prevented granting this right to others. What moral reasons do you give to not give citizenship to those born here? How is the 14th Amendment immoral?
        zahlman 9mo ago
        > But you are the one suggesting the citizenship rights guaranteed by the 14th amendment is immoral. I am not suggesting any such thing. I am suggesting it specifically about people who are born to those who did not have a legal right to be in the country in the first place. The 14th amendment was passed primarily to protect slaves whose families had been in the country for generations, and the presence of whose ancestors was explicitly solicited by slave-owning citizens. > I point to it because it seems you're taking the position the US is rare in its application of Jus Soli I'm not. I'm supposing that it's outdated, and was not designed to reflect considerations like mass amounts of illegal immigration — especially from poor countries to much wealthier bordering ones, in an world where wealthy countries provide a social safety net that medieval Brits couldn't even have dreamed of. Edit: as a sibling comment points out, the progenitors of English common law also could not have foreseen a world of ordinary people wealthy enough to travel internationally and have children abroad because citizenship in other countries would be favourable to their family. They could not even have foreseen a world in which the common folk could travel from England to France within hours on a whim.
- zahlman 9mo ago
  > ICE has also deported full adult citizens, eg: Pedro Guzman, Mark Lyttle, etc. Per your sources, these happened in 2007-2008, so that hardly seems relevant to the current discussion. Trump is not responsible for law enforcement overreaches that occurred under GWB. > Currently there's a running problem simply having access to the names and files of those that disappear into the ICE Gulag. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
nobody9999 9mo ago
>Invariably someone will shoot back with "citizen children of illegal immigrants." Do the children of immigrants have fewer rights than other citizens? I'm the child of an immigrant. Do I not deserve the same rights as any other citizen or resident of the US? If not, why not?
- 15155 9mo ago
  If you are a citizen child and your parents are arrested and subsequently incarcerated for breaking the law, you will be placed in foster care absent a suitable alternative guardian. In this case, the children are being kept with their families. Who else should take them? Foster care? Parents don't just magically get a free pass to break the law because they birthed a child.
  - nobody9999 9mo ago
    >Do the children of immigrants have fewer rights than other citizens? Your response doesn't even approach answering it. Why is that? Are you unwilling to answer such a question? Did you misunderstand? Your comment was completely unrelated to the question I asked. Especially since my parents are long dead (51 years and 28 years) and I haven't relied on parental support in 35+ years. As I mentioned, I'm the child of a non-citizen immigrant. Do you claim that I have fewer rights than other citizens? If so, which rights, and what justification do you use to make such a claim? That's not a rhetorical question.
    - 15155 9mo ago
      I am not talking about your rights: this is a strawman argument. Nobody is talking about you, an adult citizen - was the context difficult to follow? Maybe English isn't your first language: when people are talking about "children" - they don't mean typically "adult child." The children (see: not adults) of illegal immigrants who are deported don't have "less rights" in this case than a citizen child. Let's follow the thread: > US citizens were extradited? Who? To where? >> Invariably someone will shoot back with "citizen children of illegal immigrants." >>> Do the children of immigrants have fewer rights than other citizens? How exactly does your "my rights!!!" diatribe make sense in context here? Why would "adult children" be the implication in this sentence? In case you weren't aware: there has been much recent controversy about families being deported together despite their children being citizens - this is what I was referring to. As an adult citizen, you would not be subject to deportation as you do not need a guardian. Find something else to be outraged about.

Invariably someone will shoot back with "citizen children of illegal immigrants."

by 15155 9mo ago

Invariably someone will shoot back with "citizen children of illegal immigrants."

Sure, that happens a lot despite Court orders to the contrary. ICE has also deported full adult citizens, eg: Pedro Guzman, Mark Lyttle, etc. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Guzman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Guzman * https://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/press-releases/court-recommends-case-wrongly-deported-north-carolina-citizen-go-forward/ https://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/press-releases/court-rec... Currently there's a running problem simply having access to the names and files of those that disappear into the ICE Gulag.

15155 9mo ago
How many other developed countries in the world allow tourists to unconditionally birth citizens?
- trhway 9mo ago
  allow to birth? Only God does that. US does entice tourists by granting citizenship to anybody born on US territory. If you don't like it - change the Constitution. If you aren't changing it, then you want it for some reason. Edit: to the commenter below - what "moral" has to do with the Constitution provision? I mean beside the general understanding that Constitution is a law and following law is in general a moral thing, and that US Constitution was generally an attempt to write a good moral thing.
  - zahlman 9mo ago
    I first have to ask: do you personally think it makes sense that couples can enter the US illegally, remain in the US illegally until a child is born, and have that child automatically become a citizen? Do you think it is moral? Why? But just to clarify, GP was asking you whether that particular path to citizenship exists in other developed countries.
    - vel0city 9mo ago
      I do think it's moral and makes sense to make people born here citizens. It prevents the formation of an underclass of stateless residents who do not have rights. The idea of Jus Soli goes back a long time, rooted in English common law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli And yes, lots of other countries have similar policies in place. Racists act like it's something that is only a thing in the United States, and that it was only created by the 14th Amendment, and have managed to dupe many others to become ignorant of history.
      - zahlman 9mo ago
        This has nothing to do with racism, and the implication is offensive. In the age of English common law, nations and states were conceived of fundamentally differently.
        vel0city 9mo ago
        > This has nothing to do with racism, and the implication is offensive. The history of the 14th amendment, Jus Soli, and birthright citizenship have loads of racism in their debates and history. I'm not necessarily calling you a racist here, I'm just pointing out many racists do these things for racist reasons. But you are the one suggesting the citizenship rights guaranteed by the 14th amendment is immoral. If you're truly ignorant of the history of the 14th Amendment and it's connection to racism you really need to read up on the US Civil War. > In the age of English common law We're still living in the age of English Common Law in many ways. It guides a massive part of our legal theory. I point to it because it seems you're taking the position the US is rare in its application of Jus Soli, as if only we made it up somewhat recently. For practically all free white babies born to immigrants living in the US even before the 14th Amendment Jus Soli was the standard. Racism prevented granting this right to others. What moral reasons do you give to not give citizenship to those born here? How is the 14th Amendment immoral?
        zahlman 9mo ago
        > But you are the one suggesting the citizenship rights guaranteed by the 14th amendment is immoral. I am not suggesting any such thing. I am suggesting it specifically about people who are born to those who did not have a legal right to be in the country in the first place. The 14th amendment was passed primarily to protect slaves whose families had been in the country for generations, and the presence of whose ancestors was explicitly solicited by slave-owning citizens. > I point to it because it seems you're taking the position the US is rare in its application of Jus Soli I'm not. I'm supposing that it's outdated, and was not designed to reflect considerations like mass amounts of illegal immigration — especially from poor countries to much wealthier bordering ones, in an world where wealthy countries provide a social safety net that medieval Brits couldn't even have dreamed of. Edit: as a sibling comment points out, the progenitors of English common law also could not have foreseen a world of ordinary people wealthy enough to travel internationally and have children abroad because citizenship in other countries would be favourable to their family. They could not even have foreseen a world in which the common folk could travel from England to France within hours on a whim.
zahlman 9mo ago
> ICE has also deported full adult citizens, eg: Pedro Guzman, Mark Lyttle, etc. Per your sources, these happened in 2007-2008, so that hardly seems relevant to the current discussion. Trump is not responsible for law enforcement overreaches that occurred under GWB. > Currently there's a running problem simply having access to the names and files of those that disappear into the ICE Gulag. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

nobody9999 9mo ago

>Invariably someone will shoot back with "citizen children of illegal immigrants." Do the children of immigrants have fewer rights than other citizens? I'm the child of an immigrant. Do I not deserve the same rights as any other citizen or resident of the US? If not, why not?

15155 9mo ago
If you are a citizen child and your parents are arrested and subsequently incarcerated for breaking the law, you will be placed in foster care absent a suitable alternative guardian. In this case, the children are being kept with their families. Who else should take them? Foster care? Parents don't just magically get a free pass to break the law because they birthed a child.
- nobody9999 9mo ago
  >Do the children of immigrants have fewer rights than other citizens? Your response doesn't even approach answering it. Why is that? Are you unwilling to answer such a question? Did you misunderstand? Your comment was completely unrelated to the question I asked. Especially since my parents are long dead (51 years and 28 years) and I haven't relied on parental support in 35+ years. As I mentioned, I'm the child of a non-citizen immigrant. Do you claim that I have fewer rights than other citizens? If so, which rights, and what justification do you use to make such a claim? That's not a rhetorical question.
  - 15155 9mo ago
    I am not talking about your rights: this is a strawman argument. Nobody is talking about you, an adult citizen - was the context difficult to follow? Maybe English isn't your first language: when people are talking about "children" - they don't mean typically "adult child." The children (see: not adults) of illegal immigrants who are deported don't have "less rights" in this case than a citizen child. Let's follow the thread: > US citizens were extradited? Who? To where? >> Invariably someone will shoot back with "citizen children of illegal immigrants." >>> Do the children of immigrants have fewer rights than other citizens? How exactly does your "my rights!!!" diatribe make sense in context here? Why would "adult children" be the implication in this sentence? In case you weren't aware: there has been much recent controversy about families being deported together despite their children being citizens - this is what I was referring to. As an adult citizen, you would not be subject to deportation as you do not need a guardian. Find something else to be outraged about.