# Birthright citizenship



## russmuller (Aug 26, 2015)

Since the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America was passed, simply being born in the U.S. makes you a citizen by default. But for some reason or another, a slice of the American population seems to think this is not the case.

Most recently, billionaire @$$hat Donald Trump has declared that he believes that interpretation of the 14th Amendment is wrong and he seems to have some obnoxiously loud supporters.

The fact is that Trump, and those who agree with him, are dead wrong on this issue. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the sole entity tasked with interpreting our Constitution. Therefore, the Constitution means what SCOTUS decides it means. This is a built-in feature of our government (like the amendment process itself) to prevent the constitution from becoming stale and irrelevant in a changing world. SCOTUS has upheld birthright citizenship every single time that interpretation has been challenged in the court, thus, birthright citizenship is constitutional.

The amendment states "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." The claim is that people who are in the country illegally are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. because they have no political allegiance to our government. I am not a legal or constitutional scholar, but I've never heard of jurisdiction being defined as political allegiance before this iteration of xenophobia reached our media.

Of course, they're within our jurisdiction to police, otherwise aren't we just kidnapping foreign nationals?

For a country built by immigrants, it's hard to imagine any other path to citizenship besides going through the naturalization process to obtain citizenship. What did I ever do to deserve citizenship in the USA besides being born here?

On the flip side, many other countries do not have birthright citizenship. If I fathered a child with my girlfriend while on vacation in Germany, it would not be a German citizen.

I'm curious what the rest of you think about this issue, particularly those with any kind of legal/constitutional background, or members outside of the United States. I welcome your opinions (even if they fly in the face of mine). I'm genuinely interested to explore reasonable viewpoints.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Aug 26, 2015)

As an American TAX payer... Gtfo.


As a human, I welcome people with open arms... If you go the legal route. I totally understand people entering the country illegally, but I have zero sympathy if the system catches up to you.

This birthright citizenship I get. Do I agree no. What happens when parents of a 4 year old have the INS called on them? (That's an actual question)





(Drunk post)


----------



## Señor Voorhees (Aug 26, 2015)

I don't know what I feel to be honest. I think our immigration system is ....ing embarrassing, and something definitely needs to be done. I see people say they support people who do it the legal way, but they fail to acknowledge just how hard it is to do it the legal way. I think people should treat Americans how we treat Mexicans.

At the same time, like you said in OP, birthright citizenship is a weird thing. My fiance for instance was born in Germany to two US citizens. I don't think she should just be given citizenship for that.

It's a whole big thing that needs to be fixed, but I'm not even close to being the one to ask "how."


----------



## cwhitey2 (Aug 26, 2015)

No one ever said being legal was easy.

I think it takes around 7 years if you actually wait in line... Like you should.

I get the whole 'melting pot' thing... Except taxpayers are blue burdened with the bill. The last thing I want my tax dollars spent on is an 'illegal' human. 

I really have a beef with America, not illegals.


----------



## celticelk (Aug 26, 2015)

russmuller said:


> The amendment states "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." The claim is that people who are in the country illegally are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. because they have no political allegiance to our government. I am not a legal or constitutional scholar, but I've never heard of jurisdiction being defined as political allegiance before this iteration of xenophobia reached our media.



As you point out, that interpretation directly contradicts a Supreme Court precedent of over a century's standing (_US v. Wong Kim Ark_, for those inclined to look it up). Any foreign national within the US who does not expressly have diplomatic immunity is subject to our jurisdiction. Congress could try to redefine "jurisdiction" by statute, but that would be a tricky business. I don't believe that repealing or modifying the Fourteenth Amendment is going to get much traction, even in this political climate. I don't see that there are any other significant options available for those arguing to change the law.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Aug 26, 2015)

cwhitey2 said:


> As an American TAX payer... Gtfo.
> 
> 
> As a human, I welcome people with open arms... If you go the legal route. I totally understand people entering the country illegally, but I have zero sympathy if the system catches up to you.
> ...





cwhitey2 said:


> No one ever said being legal was easy.
> 
> I think it takes around 7 years if you actually wait in line... Like you should.
> 
> ...



The tax argument is stupid. 

The fact of the matter is they pay ~$12 BILLION with a B in taxes per year. 

To break that down even further, about 8.1 million of the 11.4 million total undocumented immigrants pay state and federal taxes, even though they're here illegally and face less social and economic benefits than legal immigrants or citizens.

As a tax payer it's in your best interest to streamline these folks coming into the US, and the more we get lax on deportation and imprisoning them the more they pay. 

The majority are employed (doing jobs most rather not do), about 8.5 million. As for welfare benefits, only about 15% more undocumented immigrant households with children received any form of assistance compared to legal citizens.


----------



## asher (Aug 26, 2015)

by Max.

I fail to think of a single argument against it that isn't a) effectively just about legal oddities (wordplay ref. above) b) blatant racism.


----------



## Alex Kenivel (Aug 27, 2015)

I just think there's too many fvcking people everywhere..


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Aug 27, 2015)

All we need to do is build a reliable wall, be it literal or figurative I could care less.
If we would just gain total control over our borders and then properly regulate entry, then there really isn't any need to change the amendment or even re-examine it's intent.

How can we gripe about "anchor babies" when we knowingly accept 8 month preggo foreign girls for temporary "visits" .

No reason at all to deport children who were born here.


----------



## russmuller (Aug 27, 2015)

cwhitey2 said:


> I get the whole 'melting pot' thing... Except taxpayers are blue burdened with the bill.



The bill of rounding up and deporting them, or the bill of paying white people to do your manual labor?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Aug 27, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> All we need to do is build a reliable wall, be it literal of figurative I could care less.
> If we would just gain total control over our borders and then properly regulate entry, then there really isn't any need to change the amendment or even re-examine it's intent.
> 
> How can we gripe about "anchor babies" when we knowingly accept 8 month preggo foreign girls for temporary "visits" .
> ...



Am I drunk or is Trench actually on the right side of this one?

Trench.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Aug 27, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Am I drunk or is Trench actually on the right side of this one?
> 
> Trench.



I'm basically a Path To Citizenship guy, but only if it's coupled with a seriously overhauled security/entry system.


----------



## Dcm81 (Aug 27, 2015)

As a foreigner I never really understood the whole "born in the US = citizenship" thing. From my standpoint, all it does is offer people a loophole to having their children become U.S. citizens.

Somewhat OT but what interests me much more as a foreigner reading this:



russmuller said:


> This is a built-in feature of our government (like the amendment process itself) to prevent the constitution from becoming stale and irrelevant in a changing world.



is the right to bear arms and yada, yada. How is that not stale and unfitting in the modern world?


----------



## celticelk (Aug 27, 2015)

As far as I know, the factor that's had the single biggest impact in reducing illegal immigration in the past decade is the 2008 economic downturn. If there are no jobs, people stop coming. The lesson here is that those who want a reduction in undocumented immigrants should forget about better border security and start cracking down on employers. It's cheaper and more effective. Republicans will never argue for this solution, though, because it's insufficiently xenophobic and targets business owners.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Aug 27, 2015)

celticelk said:


> Republicans will never argue for this solution, though, because it's insufficiently xenophobic and targets business owners.



it should also be pointed out that the Democrats will also make no moves to fix it as latino populations tend to expect greater levels of social safety nets and thus are more apt to vote Democrat in elections. 

i would put myself in the column of build a wall and stick to current enforcement laws with an added guest worker program. 

the latter would accomplish a few things 1) regulate the cheap laborers which are currently being exploited 2) provide better screening for medical issues and sanitation 3) immediately take the money out of the pockets of mexican drug gangs which are currently making money ferrying people across the border via smuggling routes. 

no one wants to talk about it, but our current system seriously empowers the wrong people.. however if you discuss it frankly you're accused of hating refugees and are some form racist. 

... while we're at it we should probably streamline the immigration system.. 7 years is a little much in the modern age


----------



## asher (Aug 27, 2015)

Could someone actually define what they see as the problems of (illegal) immigration are?

Is there a problem with actually embracing our history of (..more or less) embracing people with open arms?

Much of the source of immigration from Mexico is incredible, incredible gang violence, as well as generalized economic misfortune. Not that we can just go solve that, but there's a genuine humanitarian sense to a significant portion of it.


----------



## Millul (Aug 27, 2015)

We in Europe (and here in Italy in particular) are facing a similar problem, and similar discussions, due to ongoing poverty, violence and unrest issues in SSA, north Africa, and more recently Syria, which have caused a surge of illegal immigration from these areas...but it's only people trying to escape poverty and death!

Angela Merkel just proclaimed that Germany will welcome people fledging from the Syrian conflict - I was really surprised, in a positive way, by such a statement...I hope she'll be able to stand by it!


----------



## TonyFlyingSquirrel (Aug 27, 2015)

Sorry, we're full, can't fit anymore unless you apply first & go through the process.

This problem has been in existence since 1492 & hasn't stopped and our people have been fighting terrorism ever since.

This isn't the land of the U.S. Govt. It's the land of the people that the Creator gave it to thousands of years ago to steward. One cannot own the land, we are only stewards.

How then can the U.S. Govt claim that it is theirs? 

Did they buy it?

Did they trade for it?





There, now that my militant cultural tendency is out of the way...

Look at the math.

If you have $10 in your pocket and you want something that costs $15, you wait. Pure and simple.

We have more people in the U.S. than we have resources for, and immigration is only part of that puzzle. Importing more than we export reduces jobs in the U.S. If more jobs existed in the U.S., then we could allow with a greater degree of practicality for more applicants to be awarded citizenship. The system is indeed flawed when it allows for people to exploit loopholes over and over again simply to get their foot in the door and milk resources at the taxpayers expense with no expectation to contribute themselves.

I admittedly do not have all the answers, but I do agree that Trump understands math quite well and how to manage on a large scale. While I certainly don't agree with him on many, many other issues, that much is true when it comes to managing a large infrastructure, and once you remove the emotion from it, it starts to make some practical sense.


----------



## lemeker (Aug 27, 2015)

The way I feel about is if you want to come over, come on over. Just do it legally. Take the time to learn to read and write the language. I agree the current "path" could be revamped so it doesn't take so long. It shouldn't take as long as it currently does, but hey our politicians priorities are in order....

The only reason I feel this way is that if I were to move to another country, I'd expect to have to be held to the same standards. Then again, I have never lived outside of the US, so what the hell do I know...right!!!


----------



## asher (Aug 27, 2015)

TonyFlyingSquirrel said:


> Sorry, we're full, can't fit anymore unless you apply first & go through the process.
> 
> This problem has been in existence since 1492 & hasn't stopped and our people have been fighting terrorism ever since.
> 
> ...



Columbus Day, aka Native American Genocide Day?

Colonists took the land by force, and then took over the rest of the country by force from its residents. I'm not sure what the hell you're getting at.



> Look at the math.
> 
> If you have $10 in your pocket and you want something that costs $15, you wait. Pure and simple.
> 
> We have more people in the U.S. than we have resources for, and immigration is only part of that puzzle. Importing more than we export reduces jobs in the U.S. If more jobs existed in the U.S., then we could allow with a greater degree of practicality for more applicants to be awarded citizenship. The system is indeed flawed when it allows for people to exploit loopholes over and over again simply to get their foot in the door and milk resources at the taxpayers expense with no expectation to contribute themselves.



That's not actually how the math works. That's a grossly oversimplified model of import/export and manufacturing and completely ignores that most of these immigrants wind up working terrible service jobs or backbreaking agricultural work.

Not to mention *they're not costing taxpayers money*; they're actually paying taxes on every single item they buy without seeing the benefits.

You also need to be specific about which resources you think we don't have enough of, because I can almost guarantee it's actually a question of distribution, not supply.



> I admittedly do not have all the answers, but I do agree that Trump understands math quite well and how to manage on a large scale. While I certainly don't agree with him on many, many other issues, that much is true when it comes to managing a large infrastructure, and once you remove the emotion from it, it starts to make some practical sense.



Trump's driven his companies bankrupt something like 9 times. He's a terrible businessman. Ignore all the bluster.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Aug 27, 2015)

Boy..I was a drunk idiot last night


----------



## russmuller (Aug 27, 2015)

Dcm81 said:


> is the right to bear arms and yada, yada. How is that not stale and unfitting in the modern world?



That's a whole 'nother can of worms that goes into some of the hot-button areas of the American cultural psyche. The Onion had a great piece recently that exemplified our insanity with the headline "*It's Our Duty To Support The Troops And The Second Amendment In Case We Ever Need To Kill Them All*."

A significant portion of the population views the right to bear arms as a part of our identity, and there are reasonable arguments to be made at many different points along the spectrum from banning guns to the status quo. But the short answer is that it's culturally ingrained, and I don't expect we'll ever see the same restrictions you find in Japan, the U.K., or Australia. But that's getting off topic.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Aug 27, 2015)

asher said:


> Could someone actually define what they see as the problems of (illegal) immigration are?
> 
> Is there a problem with actually embracing our history of (..more or less) embracing people with open arms?
> 
> Much of the source of immigration from Mexico is incredible, incredible gang violence, as well as generalized economic misfortune. Not that we can just go solve that, but there's a genuine humanitarian sense to a significant portion of it.



a couple practical reasons really. 

having a controlled flow of immigration helps local municipalities adequately budget for ESL programs for children. I live near Providence in RI and its pretty well known as a sanctuary city. there are 130 languages represented in Providence, and our schools really cant keep up, which hurts every child in the system not just the ones who don't speak the language. 

In the past when America was accepting mass immigration from Italy, Western Europe and Ireland we had Ellis Island. Besides giving new arrivals an iconic shot of Lady Liberty, it was also a quarantine zone. 

now im not saying we need to set a modern human rights violation on the border and keep people in cramped quarters until they sweat out whatever is in their system, but some form of medical screening should needs to be in place. 

Not trying to say Mexicans and Latinos are all filthy and disease ridden, but there are solid links to the Enterovirus being connected to the kids who were being fostered in different states after the huge wave of child migration last year. 

having some medical screening helps prevent outbreaks. (CDC link on the issue for those interested U.S. &#8211; Mexico Cross-Border Health | Gateway to Health Communication | CDC) 

Criminal checks are another, i know its part of the Trump mantra, but it is a legitimate concern in border communities. Even with enforcement some would slip through the cracks, but with 21st century technology it would help dissipate migrant fears if we had eyeballs doing background checks. 

and lastly, i look at the issue of illegal immigration being more of a failure of American immigration policy. if more people are finding it easier to just to get green cards and overstay than to actually go through the legal process then we need to look at our policies and fix them. 

if you bring immigration into the 21st century: streamlining the application process, guest worker programs for workers who are just sending money home. etc. this problem would disappear.


----------



## russmuller (Aug 27, 2015)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> a couple practical reasons really.
> 
> having a controlled flow of immigration helps local municipalities adequately budget for ESL programs for children. I live near Providence in RI and its pretty well known as a sanctuary city. there are 130 languages represented in Providence, and our schools really cant keep up, which hurts every child in the system not just the ones who don't speak the language.
> 
> ...



Great contribution to the discussion!

I would also like to add that the majority of criminal activity coming across the border from Mexico is from drug cartels. A much-needed revision of America's drug policies could significantly disrupt the incentive these organizations have to siphon billions of tax free dollars out of the country each year.


----------



## metallkrieg (Aug 27, 2015)

As an European:

You have thousands of people entering your country. They are entering your country right now. What are you going to do? You have two options:

1. Build a wall: Like the Berlin Wall or the wall that separates North and South Korea. <sarcasm>Those are great examples to follow...</sarcasm>

2. Embrace them, streamline the naturalization process and welcome more tax payers.

To the people saying that they have no problem as long as immigrants follow the legal route: please, go to the border and tell them yourself. You'll find out very quickly that the legal route is not on par with reality.

We are starting to go through the same thing here in Europe, however our politicians are, for the most part, ignoring the subject. Italy and Greece are taking the hit and the rest of the countries, in this current anti-europe climate, are turning a blind eye.

Also, please: if you think Trump is a ****head, please don't to refer to him. American politics is a circus. It doesn't matter what you say, what matters is the airtime you get. More airtime = more votes. So please, don't feed to trolls.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Aug 27, 2015)

russmuller said:


> Great contribution to the discussion!
> 
> I would also like to add that the majority of criminal activity coming across the border from Mexico is from drug cartels. A much-needed revision of America's drug policies could significantly disrupt the incentive these organizations have to siphon billions of tax free dollars out of the country each year.



yeah that would definitely help for border security. Revamp immigration policy and then cut off drug money through better policy and you've essentially made the legal route convenient.... whereas now it just sucks


----------



## celticelk (Aug 27, 2015)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> it should also be pointed out that the Democrats will also make no moves to fix it as latino populations tend to expect greater levels of social safety nets and thus are more apt to vote Democrat in elections.



Citation needed. Like African-Americans, Latinos tend to be culturally conservative, and thus *ought* to resonate more with Republican culture-war policies. My perception of the situation is that Latinos tend to vote Democrat because Republican politicians for decades have been only marginally less xenophobic than Trump, and because they know that crackdowns on undocumented immigrants (as opposed to crackdowns on employers) will inevitably target Latinos as a group, because profiling is cheap and easy, and are understandably wary of that outcome given the example of community-law enforcement relations with African-American populations. The prime exception to this voting pattern has been the Cuban exile community, largely due to their fervent anti-Communism.


----------



## tacotiklah (Aug 27, 2015)

Alex Kenivel said:


> I just think there's too many fvcking people everywhere..



This is something I can agree with.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Aug 28, 2015)

celticelk said:


> Citation needed. Like African-Americans, Latinos tend to be culturally conservative, and thus *ought* to resonate more with Republican culture-war policies. My perception of the situation is that Latinos tend to vote Democrat because Republican politicians for decades have been only marginally less xenophobic than Trump, and because they know that crackdowns on undocumented immigrants (as opposed to crackdowns on employers) will inevitably target Latinos as a group, because profiling is cheap and easy, and are understandably wary of that outcome given the example of community-law enforcement relations with African-American populations. The prime exception to this voting pattern has been the Cuban exile community, largely due to their fervent anti-Communism.



Harvard Study: Yes, Illegals Help Get Democrats Elected | Truth Revolt


----------



## tacotiklah (Aug 28, 2015)

Anytime I hear anyone bitch about immigrants, this comes to mind...


That's what anti-immigration people sound like to me. Maybe instead of scapegoating people that actually care about improving their life, sack up and fix your own damn life. Stop blaming other people for your own crappy life.


----------



## celticelk (Aug 28, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Harvard Study: Yes, Illegals Help Get Democrats Elected | Truth Revolt



Different question. I'm talking about why Latinos vote Democrat, not whether undocumented immigrants vote.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Aug 28, 2015)

celticelk said:


> Citation needed. Like African-Americans, Latinos tend to be culturally conservative, and thus *ought* to resonate more with Republican culture-war policies. My perception of the situation is that Latinos tend to vote Democrat because Republican politicians for decades have been only marginally less xenophobic than Trump, and because they know that crackdowns on undocumented immigrants (as opposed to crackdowns on employers) will inevitably target Latinos as a group, because profiling is cheap and easy, and are understandably wary of that outcome given the example of community-law enforcement relations with African-American populations. The prime exception to this voting pattern has been the Cuban exile community, largely due to their fervent anti-Communism.



This is a good point, but it's a mistake most north americans make because we are generally ignorant of the culture past our southern border. 

while many latinos are culturally conservative as a result of Catholicism, it only pertains to social issues i.e. abortion, gay marriage etc.

however when it comes to politics, latin cultures are very socialist. i want to avoid painting with a broad brush, but in many latin american countries and mexico the patronage system is alive and well (wealthy political figure provides employment and necessities through social programs, mirroring the age old practice of wealthy land owner employing peasants to farm his crop... which still happens today). 

look at the governmental systems in all the countries, and while the democratic process prevalent, socialism and wealth redistribution (or the promise of it) is very present in the culture; it also helps explain why many latin countries are so corrupt but that's another discussion. 

so when migrants travel from these countries they seek out opportunity mainly, but often gravitate to the same message they heard back home, not because they are suckers for campaign promises and cheap smile (every politician ever), but because culturally this is what's expected. 

Cuba and Argentina are outliers in this regard because other countries in south america see them as more european than mesoamerican. 

in the example of Cuba, that was a very conservative economy for the wealthy class before the communist revolt. when cubans fled to america, florida got an injection of all the wealthy, business minded cubans; hence the strong GOP support. 

the problem the GOP has had courting the latino vote has been they treat all brown people the same based on past experience, but the truth is there is so much cultural contempt between countries over the southern border (combination of racism and class-ism), that comparing a mexican a cuban is actually an insult. 

tl;dr Pre-revolution Cuba = very western very capitalistic; very much an exception to the rule in spanish speaking american countries.


----------



## celticelk (Aug 28, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Harvard Study: Yes, Illegals Help Get Democrats Elected | Truth Revolt



Also, Horowitz's click-bait title and summary is incorrect: the published study is titled "Do non-citizens vote in U.S. elections?" (_Electoral Studies_, v. 36, 2014), and the authors specifically address this question:



> About one percent of the respondents in each survey identified themselves as non-citizen immigrants (339 in 2008, 489 in 2010).In both years the sample likely includes individuals drawn from more than one category of non-citizen (ranging from permanent resident aliens to those on short-term student visas). In the context of the 2010 CCES, it is possible to identify the exact citizenship status of some respondents because many provided an open-ended response about their citizenship status when asked why they did not vote. For instance, I'm a permanent resident, I have a green card, waiting on US Citizenship to come through! and most commonly simply, not a citizen. No individual specifically identified themselves as an illegal or undocumented resident, although one did indicate that he or she hadn't voted because the individual didn't have green card [sic] yet. It is possible that some respondents were without any documentation whatsoever (popularly called illegal aliens), though this cannot be confirmed or rejected with the information available as no respondent specifically self-identified themselves as illegal or undocumented (but many did not specifically identify themselves as having permanent resident status).



The study authors also don't purport to show that voting by non-citizens actually helped Democrats get elected; they observe a skew in non-citizen voting preferences toward Democrats, and then demonstrate that several recent elections were close enough that voting by non-citizens *could* account for the victory margin for Democrats in those elections. Note: "could," not "did."

TL;DR: Read the study, not what your partisan news source says about it.


----------



## asher (Aug 28, 2015)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> This is a good point, but it's a mistake most north americans make because we are generally ignorant of the culture past our southern border.



Latinos will vote Democratic on economic issues (as to your previous assertion, they won't "do nothing", they want to make the process smoother), but the Catholic vote is indeed socially conservative, as you noted; Prop 8 in California leaned pretty heavily on the Latino Catholic vote.

But given that the GOP's xenophobia is going through the megaphones now, I expect they'll much more solidly vote Democratic, and hopefully turn out in greater numbers too.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Aug 28, 2015)

asher said:


> Latinos will vote Democratic on economic issues (as to your previous assertion, they won't "do nothing", they want to make the process smoother), but the Catholic vote is indeed socially conservative, as you noted; Prop 8 in California leaned pretty heavily on the Latino Catholic vote.
> 
> But given that the GOP's xenophobia is going through the megaphones now, I expect they'll much more solidly vote Democratic, and hopefully turn out in greater numbers too.



i don't trust either party to do anything as both require crisis and disenfranchisement as aids to their political messaging machines. 

it also shouldn't be forgotten that the immigration rhetoric is shared across party lines. talk to any Blue Dog Democrats or blue collar union types who are decedents of immigrants from 100 years ago to several decades ago and they see cheap labor as a threat to their livelihood.


----------



## asher (Aug 28, 2015)

Blue Dog Democrats don't exist any more. They either ran as Republican racist-lite and lost or became actual Republicans.

Also, no, that's bull. Please show me where Democratic governments are engaging in disenfrachisement? Or Democratic groups are encouraging it, instead of fighting it?

Or did you mean they benefit from being able to talk about it as a problem? They benefit more from actually getting higher voter turnout.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Aug 28, 2015)

asher said:


> Blue Dog Democrats don't exist any more. They either ran as Republican racist-lite and lost or became actual Republicans.
> 
> Also, no, that's bull. Please show me where Democratic governments are engaging in disenfrachisement? Or Democratic groups are encouraging it, instead of fighting it?
> 
> Or did you mean they benefit from being able to talk about it as a problem? They benefit more from actually getting higher voter turnout.



i was referring to Blue Dog voters and union types who i frequently speak with in my state, not actual politicians. sorry for the confusion.

as for the bit about disenfranchisement part: its a strategy i picked up after reading a lot of Zizek in college. 

you can't have the mantra of "the opposing party has forgotten you, you're a sleeping giant that can't be ignored" or my favorite "the system is broken i can fix it" mantras without scenarios actually existing that allow for a candidate(s) to campaign on. 

both parties have had ample opportunities within the last 20 years to fix this problem as it became increasingly apparent this would start coming to a head (each party had a super majority once). but they didn't fix it. the GOP wants the 2nd coming of the Cuba migration (which won't happen for reasons stated above) and the DNC needs another stable voter base as pendulums have been swinging wildly since the 80s. 

both parties need these majorities for Senate control specifically to get the judicial powers firmly fixed to one side. 

with over 11 million potential voters on the table (both parties aside form the fringe on the GOP have discussed amnesty pretty frequently), i don't see the powers that be capitulating to any complete, common sense measures for some time.


----------



## asher (Aug 28, 2015)

Ah, gotcha 

Of course, those union types should be pushing for better labor and hiring regulation by the federal government so abusing illegals would be way harder, but...


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Aug 28, 2015)

Union fella over here. 

We're not afraid of immigrants, we're afraid of illegal, exploited immigrants. 

It's hard to unionize when you're afraid of getting arrested and deported.

The more folks who want to come here and work the better so long as they can fight for a proper wage and treatment.


----------



## troyguitar (Aug 28, 2015)

tacotiklah said:


> Anytime I hear anyone bitch about immigrants, this comes to mind...
> 
> 
> That's what anti-immigration people sound like to me. Maybe instead of scapegoating people that actually care about improving their life, sack up and fix your own damn life. Stop blaming other people for your own crappy life.




Pushing for legal reforms that you support *is *doing something about it, is it not?

I find the concept of anchor babies disgusting myself. If you're here illegally it makes sense that anything you bring with you (fetus included) is also here illegally and should be deported along with you.


----------



## Rev2010 (Aug 28, 2015)

russmuller said:


> On the flip side, many other countries do not have birthright citizenship. If I fathered a child with my girlfriend while on vacation in Germany, it would not be a German citizen. I'm curious what the rest of you think about this issue



Even though you appear adamant in your opinion, I personally believe if someone is vacationing over here or visiting and they pop out their child the child shouldn't be automatically a US citizen. Just sounds silly - "Happened on our land so it's ours!". On the other hand, what's so special about being a US citizen other than having our rights whilst living in the country? The right to vote? OK, so a foreigner's child that was born while visiting the US has the right to vote. Also seems odd no? What if they never experienced or bothered to take part in our politics then one day decided to vote because something was popular in the media? On the flip side, what are those oh so small votes going to matter anyhow? Even regular citizen votes count very little compared to electoral votes. So either way it really matters very little.

Welfare... would a child that was simply born in the US and immediately brought back home to live a full life be entitled to welfare if they decided to come back over here out of personal necessity? I don't know the answer to that, but IMO if the answer is yes they'd be granted welfare than I personally don't think that is right being neither they nor a single member of their family has ever paid a dime in taxes to our country. So thinking about a child born on a lay over flight to some other country getting instant citizenship just seems rather disconcerting. Again though, *I* don't actually know all the merits citizenship entails. If it's just the rights and protections of our laws well then I don't really see much problem with it. If it means you're entitled to come back over whenever you want and take from the system when you or your family have never put a dime into it, well then I don't think it's right.

Either way, the thought of instant citizenship being born on a stop over flight to some other country just sounds silly. It almost sounds religion influenced in a sense, and we all know a large degree of founding fathers were religious individuals, common for the time.

All that said, we're all citizens of the world, so no matter where I've travelled I've always thought of it as I'm still home. Unfortunately, having separated civil societies still keeps up segregated in terms of government, freedoms & liberties, economies, etc.


Rev.


----------



## celticelk (Aug 28, 2015)

In my mind, "anchor baby" is the modern equivalent of "welfare queen": a strawman threat invented by the right to justify their policy preferences. The fact is that having a US citizen child won't save you from deportation (https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/01/08/border-enforcement-policies-ensnare-parents-us-citizen-children), and US citizens can't sponsor their parents for green cards until they turn 21 (Will having U.S. citizenship children prevent deportation of undocumented immigrant? - Nolo.com) - and even then, the process is neither automatic nor instantaneous. That's not an anchor. It's barely a pool noodle.


----------



## asher (Aug 28, 2015)

Not to mention, like those imaginary young bucks with their Cadillacs and t-bone steaks, for every actual fraud there's another 99 illegal parents who are working their asses off for their kids to have a better shot here.


----------



## troyguitar (Aug 28, 2015)

celticelk said:


> In my mind, "anchor baby" is the modern equivalent of "welfare queen": a strawman threat invented by the right to justify their policy preferences. The fact is that having a US citizen child won't save you from deportation (https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/01/08/border-enforcement-policies-ensnare-parents-us-citizen-children), and US citizens can't sponsor their parents for green cards until they turn 21 (Will having U.S. citizenship children prevent deportation of undocumented immigrant? - Nolo.com) - and even then, the process is neither automatic nor instantaneous. That's not an anchor. It's barely a pool noodle.



Who cares about the parents? The babies are the ones getting free automatic citizenship with no strings attached. They should have to wait in line with their parents. Call them whatever you want, granting them citizenship makes no sense.

Deporting their parents while keeping them here is stupid, keep the families together.


----------



## estabon37 (Aug 29, 2015)

troyguitar said:


> Who cares about the parents? The babies are the ones getting free automatic citizenship with no strings attached. They should have to wait in line with their parents. Call them whatever you want, granting them citizenship makes no sense.
> 
> Deporting their parents while keeping them here is stupid, keep the families together.



I understand the 'keeping families together' part, but...

Isn't citizenship by birth a blanket law? Jus soli.

I may be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure the law that gives citizenship to children of migrant parents is the same law that gives citizenship to children of non-migrant parents. Compared with the historical alternative (jus sanguinis) it's less complicated and in my mind tougher to exploit (not just in terms of clear-cut citizenship status, but also in terms of preferential treatment of citizens).

My partner and her four siblings were born in Massachusetts to Australian parents, and have held dual citizenship for their entire lives. She has spent half her time here and half her time there. I know she misses the US, and she'd love to go back, but taking me along would likely be a huge pain in the arse. It took her parents months to migrate even with a pretty large company working hard to get them in (in the 1960s), and if John Oliver's experiences are anything to go by, that hasn't changed. My partner's sister is a qualified teacher in Australia and England, but had a tricky time getting her qualifications recognised in the US even though she had experience and was living in the country as a citizen that was born there. So, she drove a bus. This is one of the reasons only one out of the seven family members currently still lives in the US. Even with citizenship, the amount of red tape means it's barely worth the effort. 

So, it isn't exactly "no strings attached".


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Aug 29, 2015)

estabon37 said:


> So, it isn't exactly "no strings attached".





The right over here is pretty good at glossing over that. That legal citizenship is really just a small part, and just the beginning. 

It's framed as anyone born here can just stroll on back into the country, buy a house and a gun then vote for the other guy while collecting food stamps and social security so they can pay to have thier whole extended family shipped over to become citizens. 

Needless to say, it's not that easy.


----------



## tacotiklah (Aug 30, 2015)

I feel that if you're born in the US, regardless of your parent's status, then you're a natural US citizen. I feel the government has no right at all to deport natural US citizens, and this whole "anchor baby" crap is basically an excuse to do just that. Now as for the parents, there should be an easier, more streamlined path to citizenship. I live in a border state, and I still feel that people need to let up on this hatred for Mexican immigrants. Let's be real here, nobody is pulling this .... with Canadian or Asian immigrants. To my mind, this all stems from prejudice and bigotry against Mexicans. In my 30 years of life, I've yet to ever meet ONE hispanic family gaming the system to be lazy. In fact, it's just the opposite. I've seen them take on horrible jobs for well below minimum wage, and bust their asses doing the work of several people. This is why companies keep exploiting them. 

I get why there are limits on who we let in, but seriously... 
Either we come down hard on all immigrants equally or we stfu with all this hypocrisy and cherry picking.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 30, 2015)

tacotiklah said:


> Let's be real here, nobody is pulling this .... with Canadian or Asian immigrants.



Au contraire. Asians do it, and Americans _do_ complain about it:

Born in the U.S.A.: Birth tourists get instant U.S. citizenship for their newborns - Rock Center with Brian Williams

Not making a value judgement here, though. They tend to be wealthy Asians and probably contribute to the economy more than they drain it while they're here. I'm just pointing out that people don't just complain about latinos doing it. They complain about latinos _more_, sure, probably in part because of racist preconceptions, and in part because there's just more of them.


----------



## MFB (Aug 30, 2015)

asher said:


> Could someone actually define what they see as the problems of (illegal) immigration are?



My only gripe with immigration, is that so many of the people I've had to serve during my time in retail, spoke absolutely ZERO English; which, as you might have guessed, makes it an absolute nightmare when you work in a specialized department and they have questions.

How much is this?
What's it's features?
How long is the battery life?
Etc...

All go unanswered because I look like a schmuck standing around waiting for a translator and the best I can say is either "one moment", "library", or "cheesy pants" in Spanish.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Aug 30, 2015)

MFB said:


> My only gripe with immigration, is that so many of the people I've had to serve during my time in retail, spoke absolutely ZERO English; which, as you might have guessed, makes it an absolute nightmare when you work in a specialized department and they have questions.
> 
> How much is this?
> What's it's features?
> ...



First world problems.  

"Yeah, screw them trying to get a better life in an awesome country, they might make me feel awkward at my low paying, temporary service job." 

Almost 20% of legal residents of this country don't speak English as a first language, and that number creeps up every year. We don't have an official language, as much as rednecks like their "No Habla" bumper stickers, so the burden is on everyone to try and make it work. 

I lived in Florida for 20 years, so I can relate to experiences you've had, but overall I must say that the greater majority of immigrants really tried to at least learn the basics of communication with the minority (typically older folks) just not being able to pick it up. 

But really, the problem isn't people choosing not to learn the language it's that we, as a country, provide so little resources for new immigrants to learn English. We have token ESL programs that are simply underfunded and outdated both on the public level for adults and in the schools for children. Unfortunately, the second you purpose funding these sorts of things people freak out, "muh tax dollers!". 

Private language instruction is not at all cheap, so I don't know how folks can expect immigrants to afford it. Even the cheaper options, like software based things like Rosetta Stone ($220 just for part 1 of 5), are't usually affordable for many.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Aug 30, 2015)

I don't get why you guys don't put some money into proper education for immigrants though. My old high school used to host language classes during the evening, attracting mostly mothers of middle eastern families. The kids went to school, dads learnt what he needed to learn on the job and this way, the moms were able to learn the language as well.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Aug 30, 2015)

UnderTheSign said:


> I don't get why you guys don't put some money into proper education for immigrants though. My old high school used to host language classes during the evening, attracting mostly mothers of middle eastern families. The kids went to school, dads learnt what he needed to learn on the job and this way, the moms were able to learn the language as well.



Because _those who vote_ are too selfish and short sighted to see the advantages of proper, free education. 

Heck, we can hardly educate our natural born, English speaking kids.  

It's a money thing. The second you tell old white people that a near insignificant amount of their taxes may go to helping young, not-white people they get all worked up, regardless of any benefits they themselves would receive second hand.


----------



## MFB (Aug 30, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> First world problems.
> 
> "Yeah, screw them trying to get a better life in an awesome country, they might make me feel awkward at my low paying, temporary service job."
> 
> ...



I'm not saying "screw them", nor do I expect it to change, it's just one of those things ya know? I've heard first hand accounts of Americans looking like assholes when we go to foreign countries because we have a tendency to say, "They don't speak English, how am I supposed to do anything?" - when in reality, you're visiting THEIR country. Or if we do try to speak their language, like say French, it's deemed so piss poor that they'd prefer us to not even try. 

It's also not like it's isolated to just me who has to deal it, I imagine that happens anywhere they go that someone they're dealing with doesn't have a fluency in Spanish; supermarket, clothing stores, movies, etc... 

What I AM saying, is that if you're an older generation moving here, make your primary language available in the household but take advantage of the public schooling and have them learn English as well there. Every school I've been to, as well as friends who lived in other cities growing up, had ESL programs. Even if they (the programs) are on the weaker side, if they can get basic sentences out and rudimentary words, they'll learn through talking with other kids and people, and eventually reach a more traditional/conversational level.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Aug 30, 2015)

MFB said:


> I'm not saying "screw them", nor do I expect it to change, it's just one of those things ya know? I've heard first hand accounts of Americans looking like assholes when we go to foreign countries because we have a tendency to say, "They don't speak English, how am I supposed to do anything?" - when in reality, you're visiting THEIR country. Or if we do try to speak their language, like say French, it's deemed so piss poor that they'd prefer us to not even try.



There's a big difference between living in a first world nation and deciding to go on a luxury trip to another country and being a poor immigrant from the third or developing world trying to make a better life for themselves in the first world. 

If I go to Germany or France or Brazil and don't at least make an effort given my large amount of resources, then yes, I'd be an asshole. 

But tell that to the guy trying to save his family from cartel violence or those trying to escape parts of the Middle East at the moment. They just don't have the resources. 



> It's also not like it's isolated to just me who has to deal it, I imagine that happens anywhere they go that someone they're dealing with doesn't have a fluency in Spanish; supermarket, clothing stores, movies, etc...



Once again, first world problem. The fact it's even being posed as an "issue" worth mention reflects a lot on what people really value. 

It's not like a large portion of recent immigrants are pushing to have everyone speak Spanish, which is another myth. There are groups pushing for dual language recognition, but most are long time, natural residents and with a projected 35% or more rate of folks speaking Spanish in this country in a decade, they're going to be right anyway. 



> What I AM saying, is that if you're an older generation moving here, make your primary language available in the household but take advantage of the public schooling and have them learn English as well there. Every school I've been to, as well as friends who lived in other cities growing up, had ESL programs. Even if they (the programs) are on the weaker side, if they can get basic sentences out and rudimentary words, they'll learn through talking with other kids and people, and eventually reach a more traditional/conversational level.



"The plural of anecdote is not data."

The fact of the matter is, ESL programs in this country are under-funded, under-offered, and outdated. 

The issue is that ESL programs are meant to work two fold: 1) teach the student rudimentary English, 2) educate the student with course work. That's a system that just doesn't work. 

What you're left with are students who speak just enough English that other sources and agencies won't help them and then you're surprised they don't do well in other subjects in school. 

And that's just for younger people, if you're in your 20's or older you're pretty much screwed. 

As long as folks cringe at the idea of offering free language education payed for by taxes folks lose the right to complain about folks not speaking English.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 30, 2015)

Personally, I'll never understand why Spanish isn't a mandatory second language that's taught along side English (yes, yes I know why, but it's still dumb).

Most first world nations teach, fully, more than just their home language and even if we exclude immigrants from the equation there are a ton of Spanish (and Portuguese) speaking nations surrounding us.

As for immigrants, most of them speak Spanish better than English. If you're looking for a job in a border state your job offers double just by knowing Spanish and as an employee/employer on both fronts it is nothing, but beneficial to know more than just English. After all, these people wouldn't magically start speaking English; they just wouldn't be your customers, which is a lost sale. The one complaint I do find amusing is when people get upset by jobs for bilinguals being offered over English only. Talk about projecting ones own inadequacies. For the record, I don't speak Spanish.


----------



## MFB (Aug 30, 2015)

> The fact it's even being posed as an "issue" worth mention reflects a lot on what people really value



Once I saw the word issue come up, I went back and double-check the quote from Asher, and something definitely got misconstrued which is probably why this went in a more harsh road then I intended; I don't consider this an "issue", more just a "it'd be nice if..." sort of scenario. I recognize all the points you're making, and it's absolutely a first world problem no contest, which is why I tend to use the word 'gripe' for those circumstances more than 'I have a problem with...'


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 30, 2015)

Now here's a tangent I can appreciate! Ah, language and language education. Both are near and dear to my heart.

When I was in high school, my civics class was divided into groups and we each had to think of an issue to try to convince the rest of the class to accept. I managed to talk my group into choosing "Mandatory second language education for all grades," but by the end of the class debate, even my own group had turned against me . Expectedly (and perhaps understandably), students aren't in a hurry to have another mandatory class added to their workload, haha.

I also got into a rather heated drunken debate with a friend about it once. He thought that to make language education mandatory at all levels would be supporting illegal immigration, because it'd make it easier for immigrants to live here. I suppose in a round about sort of way that's true, but so far away from being the point that it kept the debate from moving forward at all because neither of us was willing to work past that point .

Now, I'm an ESL teacher living in a country where I barely speak the language, so I understand both the ins-and-outs of language education, and the life of an immigrant who has trouble functioning in the common language of the country. As is the case in the US, there are language classes here I could take, but they're neither free nor conveniently located or common/frequent enough for everyone who needs them. I'm actually a bit ashamed that my Korean skills aren't better than they are considering how long I've been here, but that has taught me about how much one can expect a person to be familiar with a language simply by being exposed to it regularly. I can get around, but I can't have much of a conversation or deal with more complex tasks like banking or hospital visits unless I've got someone to help translate.

I've also become intimately familiar with the skill levels one can expect from language students, so I know that even with regular classes, some people just don't give a sh!t. I've had students who have had regular English lessons several times a week for four years that still can't count past ten or read the alphabet. Of course, some kids really are interested or really do care, and the same can be said for adult students who take it because they want to rather than because they have to, and they pick things up much more readily and in turn find much more success using the language out in the "real world." 

I... think I let that get away from me a bit .

Cliff's Notes: Language classes are important but not always effective, and living in a country where you don't speak the language and access to language instruction is limited at best is awkward and frustrating.

No back to your regularly scheduled programming.


----------



## troyguitar (Aug 31, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> As long as folks cringe at the idea of offering free language education payed for by taxes folks lose the right to complain about folks not speaking English.



Easy problem. Big ole bill establishing English as the official language of the country. No citizenships, green cards, or driver's licenses without English proficiency. You fail the English test 3 times and you're deported. Tie ESL funding to that bill and white folks everywhere will support it.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 31, 2015)

It's a bit too late for that in this generation. Many people live here already that are citizens AND don't speak English (or good English).

This doesn't just apply to people from Mexico either. For instance, I know a lot of Vietnamese families who are here legally and the people who are 40 and up in those families can't speak a single word of English.


----------



## troyguitar (Aug 31, 2015)

It doesn't have to be retroactive.


----------



## estabon37 (Aug 31, 2015)

troyguitar said:


> Easy problem. Big ole bill establishing English as the official language of the country. No citizenships, green cards, or driver's licenses without English proficiency. You fail the English test 3 times and you're deported. Tie ESL funding to that bill and white folks everywhere will support it.



Yeah, we have a citizenship test in Australia. Only 1.1% of applicants fail the test, which only comes in English (I'm pretty sure) and if you fail it three times, you're out. So, it's not exactly an effective social sieve. 

It's also tricky to define 'proficiency'. Realistically, we've probably all met people that wouldn't pass an English proficiency test who were born in English-speaking countries and don't speak another language. Being incapable of speaking or writing a language shouldn't exclude one from participating in society, which is why we don't exclude deaf/mute people, or those whose mental health prevent them from communicating effectively. 

Realistically, this is as much about culture as it is language.


----------



## TonyFlyingSquirrel (Aug 31, 2015)

troyguitar said:


> Easy problem. Big ole bill establishing English as the official language of the country. No citizenships, green cards, or driver's licenses without English proficiency. You fail the English test 3 times and you're deported. Tie ESL funding to that bill and white folks everywhere will support it.



While I think that "Enqlish as a requirement" is _ideal_ for mainstream society, I have some friends who's grandparents still only speak their own language like Navajo, Lakota & Cherokee and have rarely left the reservation but perhaps only for visiting other relatives. Taking that into consideration, English as a required language is a _hard sell_ for some of the more traditional groups of our people.


----------



## celticelk (Aug 31, 2015)

troyguitar said:


> Easy problem. Big ole bill establishing English as the official language of the country. No citizenships, green cards, or driver's licenses without English proficiency. You fail the English test 3 times and you're deported. Tie ESL funding to that bill and white folks everywhere will support it.



I find this amusing if only because it's a big-government solution that would immediately be taken up by politicians who otherwise loudly beat the "free market rules!" drum.


----------



## troyguitar (Aug 31, 2015)

estabon37 said:


> Yeah, we have a citizenship test in Australia. Only 1.1% of applicants fail the test, which only comes in English (I'm pretty sure) and if you fail it three times, you're out. So, it's not exactly an effective social sieve.
> 
> It's also tricky to define 'proficiency'. Realistically, we've probably all met people that wouldn't pass an English proficiency test who were born in English-speaking countries and don't speak another language. Being incapable of speaking or writing a language shouldn't exclude one from participating in society, which is why we don't exclude deaf/mute people, or those whose mental health prevent them from communicating effectively.
> 
> Realistically, this is as much about culture as it is language.



Proficiency has already been defined, there's a standard exam already used by many (most?) universities in the country.

TOEFL: Home


----------



## Rus (Aug 31, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's a money thing. The second you tell old white people that a near insignificant amount of their taxes may go to helping young, not-white people they get all worked up, regardless of any benefits they themselves would receive second hand.


Yeah, why won't they pay to have themselves replaced? Racists.


----------



## tacotiklah (Aug 31, 2015)

troyguitar said:


> Easy problem. Big ole bill establishing English as the official language of the country. No citizenships, green cards, or driver's licenses without English proficiency. You fail the English test 3 times and you're deported. Tie ESL funding to that bill and white folks everywhere will support it.



Ignoring the fact that doing this would basically be antithetical to the cultural diversity of the US that has been in place since prior to its founding, I can see this causing many native born US citizens getting deported thanks to our failing education system. Also, with the way a lot of these "citizenship" tests are put together, the majority of US citizens themselves cannot even pass it. 

Though with the current political climate going on here, my being deported to Canada might not be such a bad thing.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Aug 31, 2015)

Rus said:


> Yeah, why won't they pay to have themselves replaced? Racists.



Old people are always going to eventually be replaced. It's called the circle of life.


----------



## tacotiklah (Aug 31, 2015)

Or circle of death, depending on your outlook of life.


----------



## celticelk (Aug 31, 2015)

troyguitar said:


> Proficiency has already been defined, there's a standard exam already used by many (most?) universities in the country.
> 
> TOEFL: Home



The TOEFL is geared to the needs of university students; it's probably too rigorous to use as a general-citizenry test. I would bet that there are native English speakers on this board that would have difficulty scoring a passable grade on the TOEFL.


----------



## asher (Aug 31, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Old people are always going to eventually be replaced. It's called the circle of life.



"Progress advances one funeral at a time."


----------



## troyguitar (Aug 31, 2015)

celticelk said:


> The TOEFL is geared to the needs of university students; it's probably too rigorous to use as a general-citizenry test. I would bet that there are native English speakers on this board that would have difficulty scoring a passable grade on the TOEFL.



So what's your better solution?

I think it's just fine to have stricter standards for immigrants. Look at Australia, they seem to do OK with it (having stricter standards in general, their English requirements in particular are not strict).

It's not like we're in dire need of more immigrants - what's the harm in having higher standards?


----------



## asher (Aug 31, 2015)

troyguitar said:


> So what's your better solution?
> 
> I think it's just fine to have stricter standards for immigrants. Look at Australia, they seem to do OK with it.
> 
> It's not like we're in dire need of more immigrants - what's the harm in having higher standards?



It's not like we're in dire need of fewer immigrants - what's the harm in having higher acceptance?

If there are two equally valid statements, always choose the option motivated by compassion for other people.


----------



## troyguitar (Aug 31, 2015)

We have tons of segregation already, allowing more people in who can't even speak the language just makes it worse. That's one of the ways we are harming ourselves.

Do we want to be a melting pot or a bunch of different communities that don't mix?


----------



## estabon37 (Aug 31, 2015)

troyguitar said:


> So what's your better solution?
> 
> I think it's just fine to have stricter standards for immigrants. Look at Australia, they seem to do OK with it (having stricter standards in general, their English requirements in particular are not strict).
> 
> It's not like we're in dire need of more immigrants - what's the harm in having higher standards?



We're really not 'doing ok with it'. Apart from the fact that our stance on border protection has led us to committing human rights abuses at our offshore detention centres (particularly on Nauru, and in our plan to send refugees to Cambodia of all places), it's kind of hard to claim that our 'higher standards' actually lead to a more integrated society. 

The problem with testing is that most languages have two technically distinct sets of rules: written and spoken. Being able to read and write a language is not the same as being able to speak it, and as the TOEFL websites shows on their 'sample test' page, it's a written test. I'm an English teacher. I've taught students from China that write better essays than half the class combined, but couldn't respond to any questions I asked them because they didn't have a clue what I was saying. Hell, I tested pretty well on Indonesian when I was a high school student myself, but I've never been able to speak more than a broken sentence about how cute a dog is. Look up some basic info on linguistics; written language and spoken language are treated quite differently (or ask GMTim - pretty sure he knows this stuff way better than I do).

Furthermore, if I were a betting man, I'd bet that every person that has contributed to this conversation has at some point in their life 'crammed for a test' and then forgotten most of what they were trying to learn. I got a decent mark in Business Management in my final year of high school. I've since sat in on a couple of Business Management classes to fill in for teachers when they're away, and I have yet to stumble upon anything that I even remotely remember from that class. I passed it by learning what I needed to know for each and every assignment, and then immediately forgetting it because I kind of disliked that class. There's nothing stopping anyone with internet access from using Duolingo (or whatever site) to get the basics down, pass a language test, get into a country, and immediately stop practicing the language.

Last point. The US, like many Western nations, has an aging population. You're not actually replenishing your workforce in skilled industries at the rate that baby boomers are retiring from them, and in opposition to the common theory that immigrants take all the low-skill jobs, there's a decent amount of evidence that they're replenishing a lot of high-skill jobs that Americans aren't choosing for their careers. The American economy relies on immigration.


----------



## troyguitar (Aug 31, 2015)

estabon37 said:


> We're really not 'doing ok with it'. Apart from the fact that our stance on border protection has led us to committing human rights abuses at our offshore detention centres (particularly on Nauru, and in our plan to send refugees to Cambodia of all places), it's kind of hard to claim that our 'higher standards' actually lead to a more integrated society.
> 
> The problem with testing is that most languages have two technically distinct sets of rules: written and spoken. Being able to read and write a language is not the same as being able to speak it, and as the TOEFL websites shows on their 'sample test' page, it's a written test. I'm an English teacher. I've taught students from China that write better essays than half the class combined, but couldn't respond to any questions I asked them because they didn't have a clue what I was saying. Hell, I tested pretty well on Indonesian when I was a high school student myself, but I've never been able to speak more than a broken sentence about how cute a dog is. Look up some basic info on linguistics; written language and spoken language are treated quite differently (or ask GMTim - pretty sure he knows this stuff way better than I do).
> 
> ...



OK I'm a moron who is wrong about everything...

What is the solution?

It's easy to pick at the thoughts of others, please share your thoughts since you know so much more than the rest of us about this. Why aren't you in charge? What should we do?


----------



## flint757 (Aug 31, 2015)

Chill man. Just because people aren't agreeing with you doesn't mean they're calling you an idiot.

A solution doesn't have to exist for there to be evidence saying something else doesn't work, or rather might not work.

Your sarcasm is just unnecessary...


----------



## troyguitar (Aug 31, 2015)

flint757 said:


> Chill man. Just because people aren't agreeing with you doesn't mean they're calling you an idiot.
> 
> A solution doesn't have to exist for there to be evidence saying something else doesn't work, or rather might not work.
> 
> Your sarcasm is just unnecessary...



Are you saying that a solution does not exist?

Is the current situation the best we can do?


----------



## asher (Aug 31, 2015)

It's pretty clear exactly what he's saying...


----------



## JSanta (Aug 31, 2015)

I am not sure how many of the people here have parents (or relatives) but both my my parents immigrated from the former Yugoslavia, legally. My dad, after 36 years finally became a citizen (not relevant to this conversation, I am just extremely proud). 

I don't have an answer to fixing our immigration problem; I don't particularly care for illegal immigration either because of how hard it was for my parents to come here. But the answer is not kicking everyone out or completely shutting our borders. Part of the problem is the complete bureaucratic nightmare anyone has trying to get a visa in this country. I think our leadership could do a lot to make a legal path easier, and not turn a blind eye to the refugee crisis Europe is currently taking the brunt of. As a nation we are better because of the vast array of individuals that bring their culture here. 

In my parents case, learning English was a must because Hungarian and Serbian really aren't common outside of those respective areas, and I agree being able to function linguistically even at a basic level is important. 

Having a family of all immigrants, I know what they all want. The opportunity to be productive and part of a country that protects them. I understand the initial concept of this thread was birthright citizenship, but the problem is not "anchor babies."


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 31, 2015)

Regarding increased communication, I still think education is a large part of the solution. As has been suggested in this thread, increased access to English classes would be an important step. However, as I also suggested, I think second language education for native English speakers would also be a huge benefit. In fact, I think _third_ language education would be ideal. 

I'm absolutely sure it won't happen in my lifetime, but I think Spanish should be a mandatory subject across all grades in all schools. In addition to that, though, I think students should be required to take a third language, maybe starting in middle or high school. Perhaps it could be whatever random language their schools offer, but ideally, local governments would research what languages are most common in their part of the country/state/county/district/whatever, and offer those languages. That would lead to situations like students in, say, partsof California with high numbers of Vietnamese or Chinese speakers studying those languages, or people in places like Dearborn, MI, which has a strangely high population of Arab immigrants, studying Arabic (though lol @ a government trying to convince taxpayers that they need to be teaching their kids Arabic ).

Isn't that how some countries in Europe already do it? Perhaps a European can chime in? I think the situation in places like Finland is that English is mandatory from an early age, and then at another point later on in their education, the students choose another language to study, like Swedish or Russian, depending on where they live. Is that the way of things? How about in other European countries?

I realize of course that that's a hard sell. I don't expect it to actually happen. I think it'd be of great benefit, though, both educationally and culturally. Frankly, many in this country could do with a nice helping of increased cultural understanding, actual language ability benefits aside. With increased knowledge and communication comes increased understanding, and I believe that instead of trying to shut ourselves off from people who don't speak, live, or think the same way we do, we should be building bridges to increase cooperation. There are plenty of countries out there with multilingual populations that get along just fine, and the only things keeping us from being likewise are stubbornness, fear, apathy, and laziness.


----------



## JSanta (Aug 31, 2015)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Regarding increased communication, I still think education is a large part of the solution. As has been suggested in this thread, increased access to English classes would be an important step. However, as I also suggested, I think second language education for native English speakers would also be a huge benefit. In fact, I think _third_ language education would be ideal.
> 
> I'm absolutely sure it won't happen in my lifetime, but I think Spanish should be a mandatory subject across all grades in all schools. In addition to that, though, I think students should be required to take a third language, maybe starting in middle or high school. Perhaps it could be whatever random language their schools offer, but ideally, local governments would research what languages are most common in their part of the country/state/county/district/whatever, and offer those languages. That would lead to situations like students in, say, partsof California with high numbers of Vietnamese or Chinese speakers studying those languages, or people in places like Dearborn, MI, which has a strangely high population of Arab immigrants, studying Arabic (though lol @ a government trying to convince taxpayers that they need to be teaching their kids Arabic ).
> 
> ...



I completely agree. Most of my family speaks a minimum of three languages, my father actually speaks four. Arguments were always fun! Learning new languages opens us up to the world and different cultures.


----------



## estabon37 (Aug 31, 2015)

troyguitar said:


> OK I'm a moron who is wrong about everything...
> 
> What is the solution?
> 
> It's easy to pick at the thoughts of others, please share your thoughts since you know so much more than the rest of us about this. Why aren't you in charge? What should we do?



I'll ignore the barbs and attempt to answer the questions.

The first may seem to be unrelated, but it kind of 'loops' back on itself in a way that should theoretically assist immigration: bring civics and citizenship education back to schools in a big way. This is an idea I've been chasing for a couple of years, and I'm trying to write a research proposal through my university to find a means of making this a bigger part of the senior school curriculum in my state. The short version: since the late 70s, education systems (outside of Asia and Scandinavia) have been cutting back on time spent studying societies, cultures, and politics, because it seemed like a better idea to feed the labour market and post-compulsory education. In other words, schools have been redesigned over time to create good workers and good academics, but not good citizens / people. We're at a point where unemployment is rising, and university is inaccessibly expensive and high-skilled jobs now often require more than a bachelor's degree. There's no social requirement for schools to churn out automatons any more (it's a shame that it ever seemed necessary), so what do we teach students instead? Culture and cultures. Languages. Society and the social spheres. Politics and philosophy. The things that will allow them to shape the places they live, and communicate effectively with places they don't live. Essentially, we've realised that teaching specific skills and knowledge has limited usefulness; *we're better off teaching students how to teach themselves and each other*. With more and more businesses emphasising communication and creative / critical thinking skills over job-specific skills, it would seem that everybody would win, including migrants and those that live in proximity to large groups of migrants. A little understanding goes a long way, and if we had a generation of young people that were decent communicators and critical thinkers, then every interaction with a migrant would be a potential learning opportunity. Going to an English class once or twice a week couldn't possibly be as effective as being surrounded by people that understood the language well enough that they could help you learn as part of every conversation.

So, as a few others have said, education reform in public schools would work wonders. Unfortunately, this means getting politicians and voters to see the 'bigger picture' in order to make the necessary changes to the curriculum, which means getting it into the public consciousness, which usually means making it prominent in media / social media, which usually means making it entertaining / interesting. That's tough. In this sense, the only 'solution' I can think of would be to 'raise the standards' in the entertainment industry. I'm hopeful Colbert might go some way towards achieving that goal in a mainstream setting, but I'm not holding my breath. 

Apart from that, I guess it's about looking at the thought process that supports strict border control. Joseph Carens makes some very compelling arguments in favour of open borders. For one thing, it would increase individual liberty: if an individual and a business come to a mutually beneficial agreement, and neither is engaging in illegal activity, why should nationality matter? Economically, the taxes stay in-country, and the disposable income of the employee would likely stay in-country. It's also possible (or even likely) that loosening migration laws around the world would drastically increase GDP on a global scale. 

Then again, maybe we're thinking too 'internally'. Why do people want to leave their nations? In all likelihood, it's because they're not enjoying a high quality of life. So wouldn't it make sense to increase their quality of life to lessen their incentive to leave? Is there anything that our countries are doing to theirs to cause them grief? Having participated in the recent wars in Afghanistan, I'm of the opinion that Australia has a duty of care to the people of that country, and if we're not going to increase their quality of life within their own borders, maybe we should be allowing more of them to live within ours. For all the money we spend standing on our borders pointing weapons in every possible direction, the amount we spend trying to improve the lives of those trying to get in is fucking abysmal.

I'll admit that I don't know much about the subject, and that maybe nothing I've offered in this post actually constitutes a 'solution'. Having said that, pouring more time and effort into controlling borders has clearly not worked in the past, and we have no reason to think it will work in the future. As JSanta said:



JSanta said:


> Having a family of all immigrants, I know what they all want. The opportunity to be productive and part of a country that protects them.



Those that dedicate their lives to studying and reforming immigration have generally come to the same conclusion. Why would a successful country built on the opportunities given to immigrants be fearful of what might happen if they continued the trend?

EDIT: Spelling (oh, the irony)


----------



## asher (Aug 31, 2015)

Sorry, bone to pick:

Why does nation matter?

Labor regulations.

I'd like to live in the libertarian ideal world where employers don't hold almost all the power in the relationship, especially with low skill low wage labor. And a pony.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 31, 2015)

Well we could incentivize businesses to stay put by simply mandating that what they pay Americans is exactly what they would have to pay their outsourced labor. That would remove some of the incentive for moving production to other nations.


----------



## asher (Aug 31, 2015)

this is going off topic, but:

I'm not sure how that doesn't lead them to move EVERYTHING.

Is the idea that American workers will complain too much (aside from the fact that it'd be light years below federal minimum wage)? Or that the minimum wage floor will raise the outsourced labor wages?


----------



## flint757 (Aug 31, 2015)

Not sure what you mean. I'm saying that we could regulate outsourced labor so that it will cost US companies more to pay their outsourced labor (the pay would be the same or more, but the product would be further from its customers). This would keep companies from building facilities arbitrarily in other nations, unless done for a viable reason (like maybe assembling vehicles in the country they are going to be sold for instance).

They move labor across borders to pay laborers less 9/10. If they can't pay them less they have no reason to move.

[EDIT]

This removes some of that power you referred to from the employers.


----------



## asher (Aug 31, 2015)

That's really easily defeated by setting them up as contractors, which a lot of apparel companies do _anyway_.

But I really do think this is a different thread topic, sorry!


----------



## UnderTheSign (Sep 1, 2015)

In response to Tim, here in the Netherlands and I think a lot of other European countries English is taught as a second language. We started in the last two years of elementary school, age 9-10. In high school, at least the highest two levels (high school is divided in 3 levels here), French is mandatory in the first 3 years. German is added in year 2 and the last two years when you choose your 'direction', you have to pick one of them. 

In Finland and Sweden it depends on where you live. There's a large area of Finland that borders Sweden where they pretty much all speak Swedish and other similar areas they have Swedish as a second language. I think (but am not 100% sure) the same goes for the areas bordering Russia. I know Germans that leave in towns that border France and they have France as a second language. So yeah, it's pretty common here. 

Hell, when I was still in university studying English and worked at a college, students following trade related courses had German as a mandatory language as well. Their reasoning? We deal with the Germans a lot, learn their darn language, you're gonna need it. The same colleges taught Spanish as an option as well. 

That said I can resonate the points made here earlier about students cramming the night before and not remembering dong later on. I still help out on oral English exams at that college and the students are only a few years younger than me (18-22ish) which means they've been taught English for at least at 10 years. Some of the middle eastern students, I can imagine if they have some trouble - for many it's their third or fourth language. But it's mostly the Dutch kids, who literally don't know anything but Dutch after those 10 years, that screw up all the time. And that's after a lifetime of not only being taught the language but also having it in their lives through TV, the Internet, games, etc...


----------



## Millul (Sep 1, 2015)

Here in Italy, English is taught starting from 3rd grade, but not many hours a week are dedicated to language lessons, nor many of the kids care.
From middle school on, we can also choose to study other languages (German, French or Spanish), but only English is mandatory.


----------



## vilk (Sep 1, 2015)

I know we're kinda moving away from the language topic, but as a former ESL teacher I just wanted to say: some people can't learn another language. I think that as we're all people who enjoy reading (online, at least) it might be easy for us to forget that many, many people only _barely_ have a grasp on their first language. People pay a lot of money and get quality education for YEARS and still can't speak. And to suggest that somehow they don't deserve the opportunity to live here because of that is kinda heinous.


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 1, 2015)

vilk said:


> I know we're kinda moving away from the language topic



It's moved away from more than that lol. The original topic was about "birthright" citizenship and it turned into an all out general immigration discussion 


Rev.


----------



## flint757 (Sep 1, 2015)

It wouldn't be SSO if the topic didn't drift.


----------



## asher (Sep 1, 2015)

I actually think birthright citizenship is intricately tied with immigration as a topic and extremely difficult to untangle - especially in the particular political context that started this topic.


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 2, 2015)

asher said:


> I actually think birthright citizenship is intricately tied with immigration as a topic and extremely difficult to untangle - especially in the particular political context that started this topic.



I think it's very easy to discuss one without the other. The question was how do you feel about birthright citizenship?, meaning anyone regardless of the situation that is born here has instant citizenship. I'm *ALL* for immigration, my mother came from Germany! Most of my best friends had parents or family members that came from Greece, Italy, Poland, Norway, Ireland, etc. My mother-in-law came from Poland with her brother when they grew up and my father-in-law is from Croatia. That said, do I think a birth that occurs on a vacation or stop over flight should be considered in instant citizen? No, not really, sounds silly to me. But again, what harm does it really do? The OP also presented the question, "What did I ever do to deserve citizenship in the USA besides being born here?" which is an excellent question! The only thing I can think to say is his parents were likely already living and working here and paying taxes and he obviously is living here and most likely grew up here, so he spent his life here. Perhaps the clause can be modified to something still very open and flexible but not so "Tada! You're in instant citizen". Why couldn't they make it that if you are born here and spend the first year, or whatever arbitrary number of years, of your life here _then_ you become a citizen?

Again though, it really depends on what exactly we gain out of citizenship other than the common factors such as right to vote and all that. Think about this... a person that is not born here but has spent all of their life here cannot run for President of the United States... but a baby born on a stop over flight or on vacation and that has never lived a day in their lives here can? Again, just sounds silly to me.


Rev.


----------



## vilk (Sep 2, 2015)

CNN's Jeff Yang said:


> It's not about money. It's not about the strain on America's social safety nets or overcrowding in American schools or any of the other excuses that have surfaced in the toxic conversation around immigration reform. No, what's pushing candidates to talk about anchor babies and the elimination of birthright citizenship is the same old thing that drives too much of the modern Republican agenda: Fear of a nonwhite nation.



This is what I've always thought, too. I was wondering what some other people's thoughts on this are? I'm sure there has to be some amount of people who want to deny this.


----------



## TonyFlyingSquirrel (Sep 2, 2015)

This was a non-white nation to begin with.


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 2, 2015)

vilk said:


> This is what I've always thought, too. I was wondering what some other people's thoughts on this are? I'm sure there has to be some amount of people who want to deny this.



I think this is a huge factor especially among older conservative types. I'm sure if you talked to them strictly about immigration from predominately white regions like most of Europe they'd respond positive and open mindedly. The instant you start talking about Mexican, Indian, and Middle Eastern immigration forget about it. Their immigration "opinions" will likely be the opposite. There are some factors though that lend to that prejudice. *Not* suggesting it's right or valid!, just pointing out the obvious that there is definitely bias based on several factors.


Rev.


----------



## Dog Boy (Sep 2, 2015)

After the Election the whole issue will go away...jus sayin


----------



## vilk (Sep 3, 2015)

Why do you think so? I mean, I get that that is a pattern--but you could also say it about pretty much any topic people bring up while campaigning.

More and more and more people are coming to this country. I get the impression that immigration is going to be kind of a big project for whoever wins the next election, kind of like ACA for Obama or War on Terror for Bush. If it isn't, it's probably going to turn into an issue pretty soon, as the margin of immigrants will gradually become too much of the population living within the USA to be swept under the carpet. Especially if you look at how fast Mexicans and Indians have babies. And I know THAT too is something people have been saying for years, but you gotta remember this is one of those graphs where the line has an exponential curve.


----------



## tacotiklah (Sep 3, 2015)

Here's the real heart of the issue...
Census Data Confirms: Hispanics Outnumber Whites In California : NPR


It all comes down to the fact that rich white politicians are scared to death of the fact that white people will become a minority in this country, thus changing voting demographics. So the campaign to demonize what is likely to be the voting majority very soon is on. Even traditionally "red" states like Texas, are about to switch over to blue if this demographic trend continues. 

So now with the moneybags southern career politicians, they realize they may get the boot out the door and are whipping people up into a frenzy that hispanics are bad people. They're even trying to convince people to deport NATURALIZED American citizens just because they have darker skin. Jerkfaces like Trump think that we should have a scaled up version of the berlin wall all across our southern border, but is okay with having plenty of places where you can walk freely to and from Canada with no oversight at all (which I'm all for, but am making a point here).

How are atrocities committed? The first step is always the same; dehumanize a class of people so that consciences and cognitive dissonance can be averted.


----------



## TonyFlyingSquirrel (Sep 3, 2015)

tacotiklah said:


> How are atrocities committed? The first step is always the same; dehumanize a class of people so that consciences and cognitive dissonance can be averted.



It's happened here before, it's bound to happen again. It's the "American" way, but not the Native American way.


----------



## celticelk (Sep 3, 2015)

TonyFlyingSquirrel said:


> It's happened here before, it's bound to happen again. It's the "American" way, but not the Native American way.



That's humanity. I doubt your ancestors were exempt.


----------



## flint757 (Sep 3, 2015)

That's what every single society that has ever existed has done towards their enemy (including Native Americans towards other Native Americans of different tribes). Political/religious figures all throughout history have set out to make war, violence and crime against others more black and white than they really are. It'll never stop happening either considering how effective it is. I mean it definitely works. Look how many parts of the world treat people who are Muslim or the witch hunts of the medieval and colonial days or how people just assume if your Mexican your in the US illegally (or simply Hispanic and thus look similar to a Mexican for that matter). It's like catnip to people who choose not to think deeply about the issues at hand.


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 3, 2015)

celticelk said:


> That's humanity. I doubt your ancestors were exempt.



Yeah, let's not even get into the way different tribes of American Indians warred with each other. I always have to shake my head when people try to act like their people's are exempt from human atrocities. On the fourth of July I had to comment on a friend's Facebook share about how we shouldn't celebrate due to the attroicites that occurred in occupying this land. While there's no denying what occurred and no pride in it I did point out that America is not at all alone in such things. All cultures have a history of heinousness. The Romans, the Germans, the Norwegians, the Africans, the Egyptians, etc. It's sad but true. It is in NO way just the "American" way. 


Rev.


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 3, 2015)

tacotiklah said:


> It all comes down to the fact that rich white politicians are scared to death of the fact that white people will become a minority in this country, thus changing voting demographics.



I agree, I think this is a driving factor, though no whites want to admit it, lest they sound racist. 



tacotiklah said:


> So now with the moneybags southern career politicians, they realize they may get the boot out the door



I haven't researched the numbers but I'd wager that the largest amount of wealthy people in this country are liberal.



tacotiklah said:


> Jerkfaces like Trump think that we should have a scaled up version of the berlin wall all across our southern border, but is okay with having plenty of places where you can walk freely to and from Canada with no oversight at all



Oh so true. On the flipside, illegal Mexican immigration counts for something like 52%. Last I checked Canadian/European illegal immigration was less than 5%. Let's deal with facts over our emotions. 


Rev.


----------



## tacotiklah (Sep 3, 2015)

Nah, our countries' wealthy leans mostly to the right. Mainly because the party politics favors taxing them less and making everyone else take up the slack, then blaming those on the lowest rung for collapsing under the weight of it all. 
In fairness, we have liberal wealthy peeps too and a majority of them piss me off as well. Namely because they'll champion rights for low income people without actually doing anything about it.


Edit: Also in fairness, America's politics tend to be so far to the right of the rest of the developed world (with some exceptions, such as Russia and China) that being for anything other than merciless capitalism is considered extremely liberal.


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 3, 2015)

tacotiklah said:


> Nah, our countries' wealthy leans mostly to the right. Mainly because the party politics favors taxing them less and making everyone else take up the slack, then blaming those on the lowest rung for collapsing under the weight of it all.



Do you sincerely believe that to be true? Can you explain why liberal companies like Apple exhibit the exact same traits? Every corporation and wealthy elite no matter liberal or conservative seem to want that. Liberal corporations/executives/politicians still game the system, they just do it in different ways. 



tacotiklah said:


> In fairness, we have liberal wealthy peeps too and a majority of them piss me off as well. Namely because they'll champion rights for low income people without actually doing anything about it.



Agreed 


Rev.


----------



## flint757 (Sep 3, 2015)

What defines Apple as liberal aside from their products being popular with youthful people? Everything I've ever read about Apple is how cutthroat they are as a company. Companies championing positive social issue /= liberal. Someone for instance could very well be very conservative when it comes to money, business, taxes, etc. and still think gay rights, women rights, ending war, etc. are issues worth backing, if only because it will help their position in the marketplace (positive marketing).


----------



## estabon37 (Sep 4, 2015)

Rev2010 said:


> Why couldn't they make it that if you are born here and spend the first year, or whatever arbitrary number of years, of your life here _then_ you become a citizen?



Sorry for the 'aside' here, but any age above zero leaves open the possibility that a person can be left stateless, which leaves them pretty severely un- or under-protected. If anybody requires the legal and social protection of a nation-state, it's children, as they're not capable of legally or socially defending themselves. 

This is what always made me uncomfortable about the _Starship Troopers_ method of citizenship: by forcing inhabitants to 'earn' citizenship, you're most likely to exclude those that are least capable of earning the title, and therefore really likely to create or increase massive social and economic inequality. 

The deadshits that call themselves the Australian Government recently simplified the process of revoking Australian citizenship (because we apparently had that option, because we suck). Amongst the stringent criteria that might cost one their citizenship is the following:



> the Minister is satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest if a person remains an Australian citizen


Holy shit. That looks scary. As the kind of guy that likes to highlight the massive inadequacies of our government, this seems like it's putting too much power in the hands of one guy, so I figured it's perfect ranting material. I bet there's even crazier stuff built into it...



> the Minister cannot revoke a persons citizenship if they have disclosed all relevant information, and citizenship has been granted. Additionally, the _Australian Citizenship Act_ (the Act) prevents a Minister from revoking a persons citizenship if he or she is unable to become a national or citizen of another country, and in such a case, the Minister cannot cancel the persons citizenship status. One of the more interesting aspects of the Act can be found in s 35(1)(b) and s 35(2), which states; that a person ceases to be an Australian citizen if they choose to serve in the military of another nation that is engaged in armed conflict with Australia.
> Revoking a persons citizenship is a serious undertaking and the action can only be carried out under limited circumstances. Also, allow us to reemphasise that if you are a citizen by birth, or have already been granted citizenship legitimately, you will remain an Australian unless you choose to renounce your citizenship.


(from Can You Ever Lose Your Australian Citizenship Status?)

Oh, so birthright citizenship actually protects two generations of people from the potential overreach of the one person that could effectively single-handedly destroy a person's life if they chose to. 

The amount of people that are abused and exploited on this planet as a result of their murky citizenship status is already too high. In a choice between (thousands of?) children being born during holidays to exploit a citizenship loophole and (millions of?) children being born without the most basic legal protection, I think we're better off just telling the exploiters they're ....ty human beings and moving on.


----------



## asher (Sep 4, 2015)

flint757 said:


> What defines Apple as liberal aside from their products being popular with youthful people? Everything I've ever read about Apple is how cutthroat they are as a company. Companies championing positive social issue /= liberal. Someone for instance could very well be very conservative when it comes to money, business, taxes, etc. and still think gay rights, women rights, ending war, etc. are issues worth backing, if only because it will help their position in the marketplace (positive marketing).



Apple's a terrible, terrible company in many respects, from bullying other companies (Amazon book publishing) to pioneering no-competition agreements that suppress worker wages (with pretty much everyone else in the Valley) to, well, Foxconn...


----------



## tedtan (Sep 4, 2015)

tacotiklah said:


> Even traditionally "red" states like Texas, are about to switch over to blue if this demographic trend continues.



I'm not sure that I agree. I'm in Texas and while I see a large number of Mexican and other Hispanic people with some liberal tendencies, a surprising number of them are very conservative in many ways and end up voting republican. For example, most Mexican men I've met are very anti gay rights, very macho and anti women's rights, very pro business and very pro gun rights. Also, most Mexicans I've met are very anti government handouts; they believe people should bust their butts working and look down on people taking welfare of any kind. I realize I'm painting with a very broad brush here, but these cultural beliefs lend many to vote conservative even if they may otherwise look like they'd vote liberal.




Rev2010 said:


> I haven't researched the numbers but I'd wager that the largest amount of wealthy people in this country are liberal.



I think you're probably right here simply because, statistically speaking, most wealthy individuals are self made, first generation new money.


----------



## asher (Sep 4, 2015)

That depends on how you define "wealthy".

Because the very top is like, 95% inherited wealth. I'd imagine that extends quite a ways downwards.


----------



## flint757 (Sep 4, 2015)

I've seen both sides in the Hispanic community. I think the main linking factor for specifically Mexicans to Democrats has more to do with positions on their race, nationality and immigration more so than beliefs or values though.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 4, 2015)

flint757 said:


> I've seen both side in the Hispanic community. I think the main linking factor for specifically Mexicans to Democrats has more to do with positions on their race, nationality and immigration more so than beliefs or values though.




With guys like Trump scaring the hell out of them it's hard to see them ever changing sides as a whole.


----------



## tedtan (Sep 4, 2015)

asher said:


> That depends on how you define "wealthy".
> 
> Because the very top is like, 95% inherited wealth. I'd imagine that extends quite a ways downwards.



I'm not so sure. If you take a look at the 2015 Forbes list of richest people, quite a few are self made (Gates, Buffet, Ellison, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Page, et. al.). And if we shift the definition of wealth down to "millionaire" then it's even more likely to be self made wealth.


----------



## tedtan (Sep 4, 2015)

flint757 said:


> I've seen both side in the Hispanic community. I think the main linking factor for specifically Mexicans to Democrats has more to do with positions on their race, nationality and immigration more so than beliefs or values though.



Definitely. But I don't see Donald Trump getting that far in the grand scheme of things. He's popular now because people know his name and he knows how to manipulate media and topics to gain PR advantage. Someone like Jeb Bush would be a better choice for the republicans (especially if he weren't tainted by association with his brother). Regardless, I doubt we'll see a right wing hard liner as the GOP candidate, much less actually elected.


----------



## vilk (Sep 8, 2015)

It might seem very tin foil hat of me to say so but I'm sure that the people with the most most most wealth have all found ways to keep their names out of any lists, make it a point to hide their vast wealth


----------



## John_Strychnine (Sep 13, 2015)

Trying to sort this out now. My grandfather unfortunately died during Viatnam and is buried at the Golden Gate in San Francisco. My mum is 56 years old and we only just these past few months were able to locate the rest of his family thanks to more information coming about through records being put up through the internet. 

How much of a ball ache is it to go through the whole aquisition citizenship bull....?


----------



## ArticulateMadness (Sep 29, 2015)

My personal opinion:

The 14th Amendment was intended to give the slaves and their descendents some time of legal rights within a very prejudiced and segregated country. And it still didn't do anything but put them on the hook for more exploitation of their labor and skills, and make them pay taxes. When you get right down to it, having "anchor babies" simply means providing more people you can tax when they get working age. Ever heard of FACTA? America is one of two countries in the WORLD where when you leave and said I'm done, you still on the hook for paying taxes in your absence. So you're taxed in the country you're in, and then America, and then taxed on the tax to the other country. All these "illegals" getting free benefits when they go home are going to get the bill - then America will confiscate their land. See in Mexico, you can't own land unless you're a citizen - UNLESS its lost in debt. With the extradition rules, nothing they can do about America's conquest to land grab.

I have a friend in Italy. Dual citizen. Born in Abruzzo. Never stepped foot in America. Speaks no America English (speaks british English). Mother was from America. Father from there. Turns 25, and gets hit with a 12K tax bill from unpaid taxes since he started working at 16 from the US ofA. Bank accounts frozen. Assets frozen (he inhereted some land upon his nonno's death). How the hell is that right? He's grandfathered into citizenship from his mother. The US even has a SS number on him and EVERYTHING. He knew nothing about it. Now his life is hell.

Trust when I tell you, that 14th Amendment is about keeping money coming in.


----------

