Kids who were born on American soil didn’t come here so they could get that sweet sweet welfare money. They didn’t come here at all. They were born here. They didn’t choose anything.
So making them non-citizens helps, how?
As for the idea that if we don’t make these people citizens we’ll stop the demographic shift that will eventually lead to whites being less than 50% of the population, how does making these people non-citizens help?
They’re already here. We’d have to actually kick them out of the country if we wanted a whiter country. Excluding them permanently from citizenship just creates a permanent underclass of non-citizens. Your parents came here as non-citizens. You were born, but since your parents weren’t citizens you’re not a citizen. And when your children will be born, since you’re not a citizen, they won’t be citizens either.
Again, we have to actually cleanse the country of these people if we want to make America whiter, making them non-citizens makes the citizenry of the country whiter but it doesn’t make the population whiter.
And if the problem is impoverished Guatemalans and Mexicans sneaking into the country and then giving birth to future welfare recipients, well, why exactly do you think these guys are sneaking into the country? To get welfare? They can’t get welfare, they’re illegal aliens. To get welfare for their kids? How do they sign their kids up for welfare if they’re illegal aliens? To wait until their kids are 18, then tell the kids to sign up for welfare?
If the complaint is that these kids are going to schools and driving on roads paid for by american taxes, do you think only citizens are allowed to go to public schools or drive on roads?
If the problem is that we need to deport these parasites, and we can’t do that if they’re citizens, then why is it that we can’t seem to deport their parasitical illegal alien parents? If we can’t seem to round up their swarthy parents and send them back where they came from, when are we gong to get around to deporting the kids back to Mexico, where they’ve never been?
As to your boogeyman about “immigrants come here to get welfare,” you seem to be missing the factual matter that the migrants in the news appear not to be coming here for economic reasons, but to see asylum from violence in their home countries. This is easily shown by the fact that the apprehensions that have been in the news have been generally voluntary: the migrants want to get into the United States, surrender to authorities, and then apply for asylum, as opposed to slinking over the border unnoticed and getting rich on illegally-obtained food stamps.
If people can’t even distinguish between “they are coming to pick our fields, oh noes!” and “they are running for their lives!” then I suggest that such persons have no place in this conversation. (I include the President among those who deserve to be excluded from this topic.)
I was saying that the argument you outline, the one that is not your argument, is an argument that is really about racial resentment with some post hoc efforts to map it onto some kind of economic difference between countries.
You keep shifting this argument that is not yours, so I’m not sure what you’re claiming any more. I am sure that all versions of it fail on two facts: (1) immigrants improve our economy; and (2) the historical reasons for different citizenship rules are largely about the history of colonization of the western hemisphere and not about economic development, as born out by any effort to test your theories with actual data about countries that isn’t cherry-picked.
I wonder if the Sovereign Citizen types might pick up on this?
“No, officer, you can’t arrest me, because my parents were illegal aliens. I am therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and I refuse to create joinder by…Hey! Ow! OW!”
Once again, I suggest you learn something about the topics you speak of in this thread. Not only on the question of why people obey laws (hint: it’s for more reasons than just fearing punishment) and why migrants are coming to the United States.
Not one of those ten countries has unrestricted jus soli citizenship. So what exactly is the argument you’re trying to make about jus soli citizenship?
Most adults follow laws and social norms for reasons other than fearing punishment. Some, however, do not, and those few are, in fact, limited in their actions only insofar as others limit them. And unfortunately, one such individual is currently serving as the President of the United States.
As to how the Supreme Court might contort the plain reading of the text, remember that Kavanaugh once ruled that immigrants who work for somebody don’t count as “employees”, and are therefore not subject to any of the laws protecting the rights of employees. I wouldn’t put it past him to rule that “persons” in the 14th Amendment means “citizens”, and that it therefore just says “Only citizens are citizens”.
For one, they believe that the laws have moral legitimacy.
An example of the principle is a man considering whether to cheat on his wife. He has high confidence that he could have a dalliance every now and then with zero chance that his wife would find out. But, he believes it is morally wrong to do so. This person may choose not to cheat on his wife not because he fears divorce, but because he doesn’t want to do something wrong.
Of course, this man’s best friend may not be cut out of the same cloth. The friend may have no qualms whatsoever about breaking a promise to his wife, but he does fear divorce. Perhaps he thinks he just can’t get away with it. And for this reason, this degenerate might not cheat on his wife.
Sadly, the friend in this scenario probably believes that everyone is like him, such that the only reason that any man wouldn’t cheat on his wife is for fear of getting caught.
There are of course other reasons why people generally follow laws and social norms, but this is just one example.
I put it in quotes to express a concept. Please don’t take punctuation as an insult.
Absolutely 100% no. The constitution would be totally worthless if all it took to nullify something it explicitly and unambiguously says (“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”) was an executive order from a president.
I’m not convinced it does overrule the Constitution
Bingham never wrote “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” with illegal immigrants in mind. It was only extended to all people born in the US in the Wong Kim Ark case … or was it. It was very clearly established that Ark’s parents were legal residents of California at the time as part of the ruling and although not citizens they, by nature of their residency, were in the country legally. I submit it is still an open question if parents without legal residence can have children be natural-born citizens.
Also, there are many problems with the actual decision as written.
*Ii is interesting that Justice Gray pointed out the verbiage of the amendment was well understood by the Framers of the Constitution considering they had no part in writing the amendment.
*It relies heavily on British common law as if this amendement were written early in our country’s history (see above)
*It makes flat-out errors of fact
Ummm … children of slaves? Dred Scott anyone?
*He quotes Kent which would imply that under the 14th Amendment anyone born in a conquered part of the US during war would NOT be an NBC. Any children born in occupied territory during WWII? Sorry, you’re Japanese.
*He relies on the Slaughterhouse Cases. Yes, one of the worst decisions in SCOTUS history formed a basis of this ruling.
*In multiple places it discusses that the parents “are domiciled” in the US. What does it mean to “be domiciled” [note passive tense]. Legally here? Of course. Illegally here? I don’t know. Just crossed the border 5 minutes ago? Nope.
But for me, here is the one line from the decision that says Kim does NOT apply to children of illegal immigrants.
The United States does not “permit” illegal immigrants to reside here. They can be deported.