If you were correct, then there would be some sort of relationship “between the size of a country’s social safety net as a percentage of GDP and whether they have jus soli citizenship”. Richard Parker is asserting that there is no such relationship. Thus your explanation does not match the facts, assuming he is correct.
Yes, I forgot how the Saudis and the rest of the Middle East are so generous with their immigration policies.
No. There is no need to put a percent of GDP qualifier on it. The attractiveness of the safety net is the operative quality. Whether or not the country can actually pay for it, or if it will bankrupt them is irrelevant.
But he’s not right even as he states it.
Seriously? Are you really going to suggest that nobody can even mention the possibility of racial resentment, even in those incredibly oblique terms, without running afoul of the rules?
That’s bonkers, Scylla. And no, I’m not calling you clinically insane, I’m just saying that your argument is bonkers.
Huh? That’s suggesting that citizenship is a one-way street, that we all line up at the trough come meal-time and eat what the government in its beneficence produces from its magical slop-chute.
In reality, of course, immigrants add to the “stuff you get by being a citizen” by contributing the “stuff you contribute by being a citizen.” They pay taxes, and especially pay taxes when you make it easy for them to be documented.
At least, that’s true for the material “stuff you get by being a citizen” like roads. For the non-material “stuff you get by being a citizen,” like free speech and anti-discrimination laws, the cool thing about them is that they’re not finite. It costs not a single extra penny to give free speech to every extra immigrant who enters the country, and I lose not one iota of my own free speech rights when a new person moves here.
It’s a crazeballs idea.
I disagree. Adults generally follow laws and social norms for reasons other than fearing punishment. For example, see how many people will obey a stop sign in the middle of the night in a deserted area. Yes, it may not be 100%, but it sure is a lot.
To the extent that people cannot be expected to follow the law unless they are smacked on the hand for violating it, then we aren’t really a society.
Support for the “Welfare magnet”
So, are you saying that you don’t believe the US was industrialized until the early 30’s? Because either you are saying that, despite the US being one of the major industrial powers even at that time, or that you are shifting the definition around. The US had very minimal social safety nets or social programs prior to that. By that definition, China isn’t industrialized either, as, contrary to what seems to be popular belief, China doesn’t have a whole bunch of social programs for the majority of it’s citizens. Mexico has the same per capita GDP as China and arguably a better social program system for a larger majority than China does. I don’t know about Brazil, but I’d guess even in the mess they are in their’s would be comparable to China.
I’m trying to understand where you are coming from, as it doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense unless you ARE talking about ‘industrialized’ to mean 1st world western nation.
Sorry, but if there was no punishment for bank robbery, I would be trying to rob banks until I had enough money to retire.
If this went to the SCOTUS and the rules in favor of it, does it mean they just invalidated the Legislative and Judicial Branch, as they just set a precedent that an executive order supersedes the Constitution?
Cite that people’s immigration decisions are primarily based on comparing social safety nets for citizens? AFAICT, people choose immigration destinations based mostly on economic opportunity, freedom to express their religious/political views, and practical considerations such as existing ties to other immigrants, especially family members.
I hope it doesn’t need pointing out that nobody who attains citizenship by virtue of jus soli actually chose to be a citizen of that particular country. Your argument rests on the supposition that non-citizens disproportionately seek to immigrate to jus soli countries so that their hypothetical future children will automatically get citizenship benefits. I’m not persuaded that that factor outweighs the other issues mentioned above.
Huh?
Dance dopers, dance!
That’s just silly. Any such order Trump signs would be to turn blue into red.
Can somebody explain how this would work in practice? Would hospitals have to start checking the citizenship of people before filing the birth certificate? Hospitals are not subject to following Executive Orders, as far as I know. Why would they? How does it work in other countries where birth doesn’t grant you citizenship?
10 most generous welfare countries.
Doesn’t say anything about jus soli status there. So even if immigrants are more attracted to certain countries for the practical reason that social support systems are better there, that doesn’t mean that jus soli citizenship is itself a significant attraction.
You win the thread.
Was this supposed to be a link? This link, for example?
I feel like I’m on the flat earth message board again.
Yes.
You probably couldn’t see it due to your leftis bias.