Okay. Good luck getting that one passed. But you’re grasping at straws, trying to obscure what is clearly a false equivalency.
“More American” is a silly term, really. But let me address the terrible problem of the millions of U.S. citizens palling around with the Taliban in the caves of Afghanistan: That kid was a U.S. citizen at the moment of his birth. Any mischief he’s conducted since then doesn’t change that, any more than it would for any other U.S. citizen. You don’t lose your citizenship because you turn out to be a dick.
I will gladly leave that end of the debate to you, the one that supposes it’s arbitrary to make the child of U.S. citizens a citizen, and that this may not be a good policy after all. Feel free to blow holes in this silly notion.
If you are born abroad to one American parent, that American parent has to have lived in this country for 5 years, 2 of which have been past that parent’s 14th birthday.
But I really enjoy how your claim that modification of a rule would be unpopular is evidence of anything other than its unpopularity, just because it would be unpopular.
well, we are talking about the class of Americans who are born abroad, and not born in this country.
Seems like they present the same problems of potentially leeching off of government programs that opponents of anchor babyism decry. So, since you’re the one claiming it’s great public policy to give them free gub’ment shit just because they were born to American parents, I’m going to need some evidence of that, or argument on that point, other than “it’s just good, mmkay?”
It’s actually not a false equivalency. It’s a real equivalency, today, under the Constitution. Child born here is just as American as child born abroad to American parents.
This was the question you answered in the affirmative: “So it would be logical to you, at least arguable, that all children born to U.S. citizens ought to have to go through naturalization in order to enjoy the benefits of citizenship?” So clarify, do you believe that’s a reasonable policy, no qualifiers for whether or not the people have lived here? IOW, every child born to U.S. citizens should be naturalized to enjoy the benefits of citizenship–that’s a non-arbitrary, at least reasonably arguable position to take?
How is it any less arbitrary than saying “no child born to two U.S. citizens should be naturalized to enjoy the benefits of citizenship” or “no child born to one US citizen who has lived in this country for 5 years, two of which were after the parent’s 14th birthday, should be naturalized to enjoy the benefits of citizenship”
the suggestion, obviously, being, that all these lines are very arbitrary. There’s no right answer, there’s no clear moral compass pointing you towards immigration perfection, so I’m going to need some compelling reason why moving the arbitrary line away from “illegal babies get citizenship too” makes any sense whatsoever.
Saying “they’re not one of us” doesn’t compel me, and in fact it makes me wonder about the values the person saying this has.
Seriously, I’m not trying to be a dick, but you’re just not answering the question. I specifically said ignore where the child is born–whether in the U.S. or not. If you believe that it’s arbitrary to assign U.S. citizenship to the children of U.S. citizens, I’m asking if that means you think it’s reasonable to make an argument that all children of U.S. citizens (wherever they happen to be born, and including if they’re born in the U.S.) have to go through naturalization to become citizens? That such a policy would be equivalent in every material way to a policy that required naturalization for the children born in the U.S. to illegals? Again, I’m not asking if this is your preference–I’m asking if it’s a reasonable, non-arbitrary position to take.
I know that has a nice racist tinge to it that helps you to knock down this straw man, but nobody’s saying that.
I can’t really follow you, but I’ll try. You’re asking if it’s not arbitrary to force every one who wants to become American, regardless of where they were born or who their parents are/were, to Naturalize?
No, it’s not any more or less arbitrary. Craptastic immigration policy, but not any more or less arbitrary or morally just/unjust than any other line that the authorities draw.
Sure, no one advocating to remove anchor-babyism thinks this, and is content with this as a justification :rolleyes:
actually, while we’re at it, maybe we should force everyone to Naturalize. That way we can impose quality control standards for giving people franchise.
Stratocaster, do you acknowledge that the USA actually holds & administers territory & is the law in that territory? If citizenship is delinked from territory, and US citizens are US citizens no matter where they live, then could a situation arise where a significant proportion of US citizens live elsewhere & a significant proportion of US residents are not citizens? Do you understand why the Constitution was written to avoid this exact problem?
Not following you. I’m advocating a change where all citizenship rules remain except the one that says that you’re a citizen if you’re born here, regardless of your parents’ status. (BTW, I don’t consider this urgent or critical, but the logic appeals to me for all the reasons previously noted.) It’s already delinked from territory–if my wife has a baby outside the states, that kid is a citizen. And I don’t believe the situation you describe is remotely likely, nor do I think that’s what the Constitution guards against. It’s simply a vestige of English common law–i.e., “everybody born here is a subject of the king.”