BobLibDem has shown it is quite common.
But the problem you mention is a GOP boogeyman.
I guess I’m “right” being a Libertarian. So my most left view is pro lgbtq+ I suppose.
Not entirely.
Birth tourism is a real thing.
I think Libertarian is classically “right” on economic issues, especially low government interference (tax, regulation) with business, but classically “left” on social justice issues, especially equal rights.
The Koch brothers are/were in this category. They mostly sided with Republicans, but were for same sex marriage. Not sure how they felt about the injustice of restricting LGBTQ+ rights, but I’m sure they thought it was bad for business.
Nearly 4,000,000 births in the USA. 40000 of them “birth Tourism”. I repeat, GOP boogeyman.
Not that it does not occur, just like that there are a handful of document voter fraud cases each year, but that it is not a significant problem.
I never got the GOP complaint about “birth Tourism,” I mean not only is it a small amount as DrDeth points out, it’s so economically Darwinistic they should be applauding. I mean, someone who fly internationally to the US, stay a few months to have the child, and go back is certainly not going to be the usual ‘scum from a s***hole country’ they decry. It’s the sort of people they claim they want… unless it’s not so much about the wealth of the party in question, but perhaps about other factors?
I do notice that the ongoing trends have been more to complain about ‘anchor babies’ rather than birth tourism, but that’s a separate kettle of fish.
I could see that what you described is a problem. In that scenario, you’d have US citizens who have lived their entire life abroad, and know nothing of our culture, but are full citizens with all the rights that that entails. If it were large numbers, I’d get why people were upset about that.
Jus soli is important for the exact opposite group of people. Those who were born here, have lived their entire lives here, but - were it not for jus soli - would be unable to participate in our democracy because of who their parents are. We should expand jus soli to include folks who came here as children (ie, the dreamer program), not abolish it.
A real thing, but not a bad real thing.
On the left.
- If nuclear power is considered right wing, then that.
- Softer on gun control than a lot on the left.
Not so much, since quite a few nations make you choose.
I think you’re making a slightly different flavor of the “in practice, it doesn’t matter because…” argument. The more standard one is “there aren’t many people doing it.” Yours is “even the ones who did it will likely opt for their home citizenship anyway.” I agree with these arguments. I just think that if those conditions were to change for whatever reason, and we actually had a large number of US citizens who lived their entire lives abroad and didn’t share our culture, etc, that would be a problem. It was an argument against @ParallelLines, not you.
I’m not saying any problem could not be a bigger problem if circumstances change. I am saying that as the situation stands now it’s not only minor, but compared to the stated goals of the Republican party (having well-off, educated immigrants) it would be even less of an issue. And yes, I cannot prove the income or education level of such tourists, but the costs for legal international travel plus a months stay is generally respectable.
Having said all that, I’d definitely consider some modifications to the reported issues in Saipan, and I would actually look at the language of a new legal definition similar to most of Europe, where birthright citizenship applied only if one (or more) parent is a legal citizen or permanent legal resident. I think the reason most (not all) traditional Left leaning individuals worry about ending birthright citizenship is it leaves the children of illegal immigrants at risk of not being able to seek safety from criminals, treatment in medical circumstances, or ever being able to secure education. So the children, who are blameless are going to suffer the most, with the possibility of becoming an unescapable, barely tolerated second class resident with no legal recourse.
Okay, enough with the hijack. So TL;DR - it’s an incredibly minor issue as it currently stands and I suspect the traditional RW objection has more to do with racism/bigotry than the possible real issues @Do_Not_Taunt describes.
Would they be immigrants, though? My understanding of ‘birth tourism’ is that the family goes home shortly after the birth. So you get a new US citizen, but not a new US resident.
Oh, no doubt.
To the extent it is a thing, yes, they’re complaining about ‘immigrants’ in the sense that those who benefit from ‘birth tourism’ can come back in anytime as ‘citizens’ and take advantage of all that . . . whatever they think being a US citizen gives them. A better passport? Maybe. Traditionally it’s for the US education or to secure an advantage for other family to gain citizenship in the same sense as the dreaded ‘anchor baby’. (oooh, scary bugaboo)
Yes, rates for university education are often lower for US citizens than non-US citizens, but if so, that’s a long term investment indeed. Here’s a decent CNN article on it and recent (Trump era) changes to the the rules -
A couple very pertinent lines-
The White House announced Thursday that the State Department “will no longer issue temporary visitor (B-1/B-2) visas to aliens seeking to enter the United States for ‘birth tourism.’”
Visitors to the US will be denied temporary visas if it’s found that the “primary purpose” of travel is for obtaining US citizenship for a child by giving birth in the United States, according to an amended State Department regulation to be published Friday. The rule does not apply to the 39 countries – most of which are in Europe – that are part of the Visa Waiver Program, a State Department official confirmed in a briefing call with reporters Thursday.
So yeah, to be honest it’s largely (not-exclusively) targeting Chinese ‘birth-tourism’ to the US. Again the benefits gained seem relatively minor as noted above, and the risks as well, although the article does mention
By obtaining a child’s US citizenship through “birth tourism,” foreign nationals are able to help that child “avoid the scrutiny, standards, and procedures” would normally be undergone, if someone seeks to become a US citizen through the naturalization process, according to the State Department.
So again, a non-zero number of issues, but the emphasis still seems to be about political grandstanding against China more than anything else.
Honestly, I do think Do_Not_Taunt raises better points that Right Wing does - and I’m speaking as someone who has a LOT of family with dual citizenship. All of my cousins do, as my aunt moved to Israel when I was around three. So I have three in my family, who look at US issues from the POV of how they affect Israel’s interests. Which isn’t wrong - they live and have their families there, and they all left the US (except for visits and university) when they were between 10 and 6.
But it makes some family chats hard when they wanted us to support Trump for his stance on Israel, but weren’t worried about all the ways that Trump was absolutely terrible (before and after he was elected) to United States interests.
I would identify as being on the far left.
I don’t like it when people use profanity in front of children. I think people should take their marriage vows seriously. I pray a lot.
I wouldn’t consider any of these to be uniquely “conservative” attitudes, but some may disagree.
If we’re talking about narrowly defined political issues, so the question is “On which issues do you prefer the Republican position to the Democratic one?”, there are no such issues.