I don’t think you have any idea what that term means.
Wait, you’re claiming that the US is industrialized? Ridiculous. Everything we use is made in China, Japan, or Mexico.
How exactly would the United States be better off if we eliminated Birthright Citizenship? What would we gain? How would our country be better off?
Yeah, we’d be able to deport people back to Mexico who have lived their entire lives in the United States. So technically that’s not deporting them back to Mexico since they’ve never been there. How would our country be better off if we could deport these kids?
Not to get off-topic, but ‘industrialized’ is an ambiguous term. I guess if you just mean the G8 which is one reasonable definition, then yep. Just the US and Canada. If you make it the G20, then Argentina, Mexico and Brazil get added to the list. The dividing line between jus sanguinis and jus soli countries is based more on hemisphere than economies though. The Americas are largely jus soli. Everywhere else largely isn’t.
The industrial sector of many G20 countries is larger than that in G8 countries–which are mostly post-industrial economies. Surely if industrialized means anything, it means the percentage of the economy of a nation that is industrial, no? Maybe there is also a GDP component, but then several of these countries also satisfy that. By any definition that calls the US industrialized as of 1960, these nations are also industrialized.
As you say, not that it matters. But if the idea is to show that as economies advance they move away from birthright citizenship, that claim is very weak. Instead, there is clear history that explains which are which.
Would you also consider it within the scope of presidential powers to sign executive orders closing newspapers, banning firearms, or requiring people to house troops in their homes? Surely a president can just clear up some ambiguities on what speech or the press is, what a firearm is, or what a troop or a house is.
This thread sailed right past this statement, but this is how it is in practice. No one is going to stop thump from doing anything.
I’m pretty sure what he was saying is that when the court is stacked not to do its job and congress isn’t willing to impeach, the balance of powers breaks down and due to that the balance of law breaks down, resulting in essentially unrestrained presidential power. (For as long as the courts and congress play along, anyway.)
Well, you sailed right past it into ridiculousness. Czar war right…the president can do anything he or she wants, unless he or she can’t. Trump is no more able to do anything he wants than any other president, and plenty of people are actively stopping him from doing any number of things he wants to do. Even thing he CAN do he’s been resisted on because he was too stupid to ask how to do it right in the first place.
The obvious ‘benefit’ for advocates of this view is that it staunches the demographic realities of US population growth. Most likely within 25-30 years, the US will cease to be majority white. Somewhere in the latter half of the 21st century whites will no longer be the largest ethnic group and probably sometime in the early 22nd century, whites will be a significant minority and the country will largely be Hispanic and Asian. I think that there are people who feel that such a situation is essentially the ‘end’ of their conception of the United States. Eliminating birthright citizenship would likely buy them another century or so and depending upon birth rates of current minority citizens might keep them as the largest single ethnic group for as long as we could project. They would see this as a benefit.
That isn’t exactly what that part of the amendment means. The Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to, for instance, the child of a foreign ambassador, or a foreign leader who is on state business in the United States. It originally did not apply to American Indians, either; that changed in 1924, but until then it was assumed an American Indian owed allegiance to his Indian nation, not the USA. The idea is not that the USA cannot enforce the law against such people, because it obviously can; the idea was that they clearly owed allegiance to a different sovereignty at birth.
The child of parents from, say, Germany, who had come to live in the USA was assumed to owe allegiance to the United States, not Germany. The concept of “illegal immigrant” didn’t really exist in 1866 when the amendment was written, so it just wasn’t a concept they bothered to create an exclusion for.
The importance of this amendment really can’t be overstated. It’s not merely a civil protection; it’s a foundational statement of what the United States is about. There’s a reason Canada also has birthright citizenship, and Australia does to some extent, and south Africa, and indeed almost all New World countries; it’s a statement that those nations are not defined by Blut und Boden, but by an aspirational concept of civil and equal citizenship, a citizenship that exists as the right of the citizen, not a favor of a king.
My guess is that the person posting it was really just saying that Europe which is supposedly a liberal paradise is not jus soli, so why should we be. He was just using ‘industrialized’ as code for ‘predominantly white wealthy countries.’
It’s not my argument, but the argument is that as an industrialized and developed first world economy, we provide our citizens with an attractive safety net of social programs. These place a burden on the country economically.
It is therefore necessary to have strong requirements for citizenship to protect our ability to continue to provide these benefits, else they be overwhelmed by the influx seeking them.
Sure. He can also sign one making red blue.
The question is what can he make stick.
I’m asking him if he perceives there are any limits to what the president can rightfully order, in the spirit of Youngstown Sheet and Tube in which it is noted the power of the president is the greatest when he acts under authorities given by Congress, and at its lowest when he acts in contravention of such.
If we have entered a phase of the American experiment in which the Executive Branch need not exercise any discipline in enforcing the law unless they are compelled to by other branches – even notwithstanding the president’s oath to faithfully execute the laws – then I welcome Scylla’s affirmation that we should regard the supreme officeholder as being no better than a feral child, now and for the foreseeable future.
And I see that you’ve answered the question.
Would you say as a philosophical principle that I’m free to murder people until the police stop me?
Not so much.
This is racial resentment masquerading as serious policy analysis. There is no statistically meaningful relationship between the size of a country’s social safety net as a percentage of GDP and whether they have* jus soli* citizenship.
Unfortunately.
That’s the way it actually works.
I hope you just didn’t call me a racist. Did you?
Do I really need to explain why you are completely wrong here?
The more stuff you get by being a citizen, the more people want to be a citizen. Then you have to make the choice of giving less to everybody, or limiting who can be a citizen, or trying to give it to everybody who wants it.