Will ending "birthright citizenship" help to control America's borders?

Great Debates
61

I have not even seen a good way to determine assimilation. It would seem to me that people who speak the language and pay their taxes (even if they don’t file, their employers are withholding the taxes–except for those good U.S. businessmen who pay them under the table), and buy products to live in this country are pretty well along toward assimilating. While the issue of bilengual education is sticky, I have seen no movement to build schools where children are taught only in Spanish–which differs from the 19th century where children were taught in German, French, and other languages for years.

I see no evidence that the assimilation rate is “less than it needs to be” because I see no evidence that it needs to match a particular rate (once we figure out what it even means).

I actually do not yet have strong opinions regarding immigration because, while much of the F.A.I.R. information open to dispute and many of the other sources are clearly xenophobic, I perceive that there may be a case made for immigration control or reform.
I am willing to consider the case for immigration limits.
Unfortunately, when it comes in the form of unsupported assertions that it is “too much” or that “they are not assimilating” my “where is the evidence?” detector starts beeping. Brownsville, Texas had a German speaking community well into the 20th century from an immigration that began before 1850. Detroit had been “American” since the 1790s, yet in 1896 Ste. Anne parish built its new école where, for a few more years students would be taught in French.

I do think a country has a right to control its borders. While there may be a rate of immigration that is too high, the 10.4% level of the 2000 census is sufficiently below the percentages of the first decades of the 20th century (which varied between 13.4% and 14.6%) that I see no reason to panic about these figures. Getting upset about the number of people who speak a language other than English at home seems pretty silly if they are speaking English when they go out to get jobs or run for office.

If the War on (people who use) Drugs has demonstrated anything, it is that trying to stifle illegal imports at the source is guaranteed to fail.

If you really want to stop illegal (or even legal) immigration, then make Mexico and Central America places where people prefer to live.
Now, if you want to start punishing the people who encourage illegal immigration–those paying wages under the table and using endoresements for green cards and H1-B visas as methods to employ slave labor, I will support you. Passing a bunch of draconian laws that punish the people who are most in need of assistance or spending billions to set up a wall with armed guards across the Southwest will not evoke any support from me and making wild claims about how the country is going to hell when I see far more threat emanating from D.C. than from Ciudad Juárez or Cananea will cause me to shrug off those claims as not well thought out.

The last I knew, those “Balkan” cities of Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, and Milwaukee from the early 20th century were safely American. I need to see more evidence that there is a problem than simple cries that “they are not assimilating!”.

62

Repeating this does not make it any truer. tomndebb gave you a cite showing that most Spanish speakers in the country speak English well. This “society in a society” stuff is bunk unless you can prove it. History has shown that this has been said many times before and has been proven wrong many times before.

Thats not what I said at all. I said that the idea that Mexicans are refusing to integrate is more damaging becuase it leads to the label that Mexicans are outsiders refusing to integrate and then that label becomes reality.

In the context that Sharia law is being used in Canada is no more barbaric or inhumane than the Jewish and other religions laws that have been in use. The action by the Canadian government was simply prejudice at work.

I see, how do you suggest they go about the deportation of millions and millions of people? Its simply impossible to do.

That isn’t the argument you were making and the argument I responded to. You said that illegal immigrants cost the government more than they pay in taxes. I responded that this fact is true for many groups, including native born citizens, but there is no movement to deport them.

I reject the notion that immigrants are simply a commodity that we use when we need them. They are people that often times are fleeing starvation, corrupt governments and crushing poverty. I welcome them into my country with open arms, just I would welcome a hungry person into my home for dinner. The idea that the richest nation in the world somehow can’t support an immigrant from one of the poorest countries in the world is ridiculous.

Well in my universe these immigrants are already here. Millions and millions of them. Giving them legal standing prevents abuses by the companies employing them and ends the tragic cases where we find a truckload of immigrants suffocated and dead in the desert.

Wasting my time refuting an exceeding biased viewpoint is something I won’t do.

Well its always nice to hear that someone is offended by a person working their ass of and taking a huge risk to better the lives of their kids. Anyways, its simply a fact that if you systematically deny oppurtunities and thus relegate them to poverty that they will have a higher crime rate.

63

The proposed “implementation of sharia law” was in my home, the province of Ontario. The proposal was actually to allow optional legally-binding arbitration of family-law cases to be based on sharia law. There was so much controversy about the sharia-law-based arbitration–whose interpretation of sharia law would be used, among other things–that the Premier ended up banning all legally-binding family-law arbitration based on religious law, including Catholic, Jewish, and (I think) Mormon. There would be one law for all Ontarians.

64

Huh? You do understand that a person can still be naturalized by other means right? The law currently does not bestow rights of citizenship on 95% of the people on Earth(most of them non-white, a coincidence, I’m sure) :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: . They definitionally cannot be part of your imagined “genetic American race” without following those means. Do you support that? And if so, do you think it is any less racist?

65

That should have been
“trying to stifle illegal imports at the destination is guaranteed to fail.”

66

Why do you even bring this up? It was certainly not the norm. And it was not the case during the great immigration wave just after the turn of the century. That, very successfully, used immersion and assimilation as the model.

You miss my point. The gauge I was using was the growth of Spanish-speaking neighborhoods. If they are growing in size and number, which I think you grant, then the rater of assimilation is too low for the culture to absorb the influx.

You are exactly right. And I think that that would be one benefit from locking the borders and sending illegals back. Without the billions it receives in remittances from the U.S., a substantial part of their revenues if I recall correctly, Mexico would be forced to get its act together. And they would have a cheap labor force to do it. It seems that they could give Asia a run for its money in manufacturing, especially consideriing the reduced shipping costs.

We’re on the same page here. I think this is probably the single most effective measure to take. Although, I’m still in favor of completely controlling the borders, and immigration. What’s the alternative? A tacit acceptance of illegal immigration, which makes it just about legal.

67

As I pointed out to tomndebb, while adoption of the language is an indicator of assimilation, it is by no means a definitive one. Do you deny that their is a society in a society? Have you been to the Spanish-speaking parts of LA? To the Spansih and Chines areas in New York and San Francisco? Have you been to Miami? Do you actually deny both that they exist and that they are growing? Both the data I provided earlier and the census data provided by tomndebb strongly support those hypothoses. Do you have datea to the contrary?

Sorry. I misunderstood you. When I see the Spanish-speaking communities shrinkinig and English signs replacing the Spanish ones in those neighborhoods, I will begin to change my intrepretation of the facts.

Yes, but there was a fear that once the door was opened, more severe, grotesque, barbaric aspects of Sharia law would have to be accommodated, as well. This is the problem with having a society that is “too” multi-ethnic.

Have Congress appropriaite the funds for manpower and vehicles then start, one by one. The only thing we lack is the will. So far.

I’m not sure who you have in mind? But those who arebative and are unproductive are a problem that we are obliged to deal with. That is certainly not the case with those from other countries, particularly those who are here illegaly.

By that logic we should invite and welcome a few billion people from Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe, as well. Right?

Notice you said “a hungry person”, “an immigrant”. You use the singular. And while you might welcome a hungry person into your home, how about his whole family? Or how about if was alone and had snuck in through a window? And what if he/they liked your food so much he/they decided not to leave?

As I mentioned in my reply to tomndebb, I’m all for usiing the laws we have—and stronger ones to discourage and punish those who hire illegal immigrants, as well. And I have a perfect way to reduce deaths involved in sneaking over the border to zero: don’t sneak over the border.

That’s fine. But then you leave it on the table.

You either misunderstood it or chose to mischaraterize what I wrote. Please reread what I wrote.

68

But then you ignore what would happen here:

69

How has the decision been received by Ontarians?

70

Because the more diverse a society is the more important that it have some common threads. Otherwise there is not a national identity, which just makes it harder for others to come and assimilate in the future.

I also cited some of the costs associated on the previous page.

I heading out now, but I direct you here.

71

I said what I mean. This is an attempt to turn a political issue (where you were born) into a genetic issue (who you parents are). It’s only possible application is to maginalize the Americans (people born in the US, who have never known any country but the US) who were born to immigrants, or the children of immigrants, or the children of children of immigrants.

Labelling an American because of who there parents were is racism. It’s disgusting, and I will not stand for it.

It’s a naked attempt to keep the brown people from achieving political or economic power.

72

It IS NOT racism. The policy would cover all peoples equally. If it, in its application, effects one group more than another, that is not necessarily a commentary on the policy.

I think you’re coming to the aid of people who use their babies as anchors to finagle citizenship, and the disrespect for the laws that shows on your part is what is disgusting. But I’ll stand for it. As long as you’re here legally.

73

It’s an attempt to create an American race, in order to exclude brown people and their cultures from it, and you damn well know it. Or else you wouldn’t be going on about “not speaking English at home” or “assimilation”.

As for “anchor babies”, well I’m not convinced they’re a problem, in paticular, but if they are, that’s a legal loophole that can be closed without creating a permanent racial underclass. Simply deport the parents, for example. They can take the kid with them, if they want (the kid, as a US citizen, would be entitled to return later, if it wanted), or they can send the kid to legal relatives or leave it to the American social services. Simple. I’m sure other solutions are concievable as well.

I’m just disgusted by the idea of people born in this country, perhaps born to people born in this country, not having full legal rights as citizens.

74

“As long as you’re here legally”? Isn’t that pretty snarky a comment? What about you? Can you prove your right to be in America? Since you first raised the question, give us evidence you have any right to speak to who should or should not be here.

Further, I was brought up on the “melting pot” concept: that a large part of what made America what it is, is the various elements brought to it by the different ethnic groups that settled it. Even the power that drives your computer is delivered to your house by circuitry invented by a Croatian immigrant.

And “respect for the laws” should above all cover respect for the Constitution. Yet you blatantly advocate “getting around its provisions” by “recent researches by legal scholars.” When I was growing up, my WASP barber and his next-door neighbor the Lebanese-American grocer borrowed a term from Jewish-American usage to describe that: They called it “getting a fixer.”

Oh, and you’ve never addressed Eva Luna’s repeated comments about people who came here legally and with proper permission, but whose visas expired while they were waiting for the bureaucracy to process the paperwork to extend them. Knowing that the spouse of one of the SDSAB was in precisely this fix a couple of years ago, I consider calling such people “illegal immigrants” fairly insulting. And such people do make up a substantial share of the numbers bandied about about people who are “here illegally” – they don’t distinguish between Pablo-who-snuck-across-the-border and Francine-whose-student-visa-paperwork-was-lost-by-the-IRS. Or Dr. Singh who was invited to come to America and join the university’s research team in his specialty and whose work is benefitting the national interest.

75

What data have you provided that shows that these people are not attempting to integrate in society? The only thing that you provided, language, has been thouroughly refuted by tomndebb.

First off, you’re telling me you go through different cities tracking the amount of signs in Spanish? Anyways, those signs probably won’t turn into English and thats not a bad thing. Immigrants need a half-way place to live in order to assimilate into the culture.

Like I said, prejudice.

You’re joking right? The Federal Government is running a huge deficiet and you want them to take on the enormous expense of expelling 10s of millions of people. An action that will have a huge negative effect on the economy. For shits and giggles why don’t you give us an estimate of cost for this enormous undertaking. Don’t forget to include the effect on the economy in this analysis.

The group I am specifically thinking of is Blacks but I am sure there are other groups that fit the criteria.

Heck yeah, there is some beautiful land in Asia that I would be happy to reside in if the entire population left. The non-facetious response would be that America has one of the lowest population per area in the entire world. We can support a lot more people than currently live here.

I certainly did use the singular but then again I am just a relatively poor college student while America is an extremely rich nation. You also erronously think that immigrants will always be hungry and poor. For example, both sets of my grandparents came over as children. They worked relatively crappy jobs in mines and factories while raising 12 children. Of those 12 children, my aunts and uncles, all went to college and are now engineers, architechs and nutritionists. In one generation they went from a net drain on society to a huge net plus. Immigrants that come to this country are the hard workers and most industrious. They instill those values into their children who earn an education and become middle-class professionals. It has happened countless times in the history of America and will continue to happen provided these immigrants have the oppurtunity to advance.

So are you volunteering to go to Mexico and the rest of Latin America to stay in their shitholes instead of pursuing oppurtunities in the richest country in the world. Color me dubious that this will work.

My ass I do, that cite is trash and it should, and will, be roundly ignored.

76

This assimilation argument is as valid today as it was 100 years ago.
It’s bull! 1st gens rapidly adapt to the new culture, but their parents are still from the old country, 2nd gens ARE assimilated.
It takes 30 or 40 years for this to happen, so what, almost 100 years later and we still have the remnants of that eras ethnic enclaves, Jewish delis, and Polish butchers, little Italy’s and Chinatowns, have these people assimilated or not?
Are you really arguing that Mexicans are different somehow?
Assimilation does NOT mean becoming WASPs.

77

I bring up the counter examples to demonstrate that the notion of “immersion and assimilation” is as much myth as reality. The reality is that there were neighborhoods of immigrants who remained insular for more than one generation. They are gone now, but I knew places in Metro Detroit where Polish and Italian were still fluent modes of communication over 40 years after we slammed shut the door around 1920 (and over 70 years after the doors first opened), so why should we be uspset that there are neigborhoods that still speak Spanish only 15 or 20 years after the doors opened, there?

OK, some of those neighborhoods are growing. So what? What is the evidence that they are going to do anything other than become Americans, just like the rest of us? The only group that is actively resisting assimilation that I can see are the Cuban refugees that we welcome. Everyone else is just trying to get in, get a job, and participate in the American dream. (If they were really here for the purpose of staying separate, we should see many of the older ones taking their (“ill-gotten”) gains from American employment and returning home to enjoy their retirement in Mexico with its lower cost of living. Do you have any numbers for that phenomenon?)

As to the notion that Mexico would “get its act together” if it stopped receiving checks from the U.S. on a family by family basis, I think you are letting your passion get in the way of your good sense. Mexico is barely surviving with its (your claim) billions of income from the U.S., yet, in some magic fashion, cutting off that source of income and sending millions(?) of people back to the country without jobs is going to empower the country to magically “get its act together”? I would suggest that there be a plan in place before that occurs before we rely on the wish fairy to make that happen. (Because, if Mexico does not “get its act together” in a matter of months, all the deported millions are going to be back in the U.S. looking for work (that we will happily give them) if they have to swim up the Californian or Texan coasts or up the Colorado River.)

And we have not even begun addressing the people who are here from El Salvador and Guatemala primarily because the U.S. deliberately destroyed their nations’ political and economic infrastructures so that various U.S. companies could make better profits.

78

I think the counter-intuitive solution is for the US to annex Mexico.

“But they’d all come here, then,” you say.

Ah, but then all of Mexico would be subject to the Minimum Wage, and developers would buy underperforming Mexican assets for tiny fractions of what they would cost in the current territory of the United States.

The result would be that the American economic ethic would spread throughout Mexico and transform that region.

It would be a mess, to be sure, but the situation would probably stabalize within 30 years instead of 100. And it also might ensure that American culture would dominate throughout N. America (which I see as desirable).

Should have finished the job in the 1840s.

79

There is no such legal loophole - what you have described is, in fact, the current state of affairs.

80

I know what you said. I asked a question. Are you going to answer it or just pontificate on your delusions?