I wouldn’t know about the USA, but in France, they abolished birthright citizenship, one of the argument presented was boatloads of pregnant mothers coming to France so that their children would be a french citizen and that themselves, having custody of a french child, couldn’t be expelled.
However, at this time, this argument was strongly disputed, by people stating that this practice was actually quite uncommon. The reality was apparently that a number of illegal immigrant who came in single eventually settled down with someone, had kids and only then, incidentally, became impossible to expell. So, it wasn’t really a deterent for illegal immigration at the first place. It just allowed to expell a limited number of illegal immigrants generally present in France for quite a long time when the mother (or father, but most immigrants are male) didn’t have citizenship either.
This law (french citizenship is a legal, not constitutionnal, matter) fitted well in the “stop immigration” rethoric of the (corrupt) interior minister of this time, hence it nevertheless passed easily.
So, I would tend to be warry about this kind of allegations.
No, it has not, really:
………………Latin__…Northern
YEAR…Total…Europe…Asia…Africa…Oceania… America…America…Unknown
1990* 19,767,316 _4,350,403 _4,979,037 __,363,819 __,104,145 _8,407,837 __,753,917 __,808,158
1980* 14,079,906 _5,149,572 _2,539,777 __,199,723 __,_77,577 _4,372,487 __,853,427 __,887,343
1970* _9,619,302 _5,740,891 __,824,887 __,_80,143 __,_41,258 _1,803,970 __,812,421 __,315,732
1960* _9,738,091 _7,256,311 __,490,996 __,_35,355 __,_34,730 __,908,309 __,952,500 __,_59,890
Nativity of the Population and Place of Birth of the Native Population: 1850 to 1990
Now, you could say that the phenonenon had its roots in the 1960s, but by 1970, there were still fewer than 2 million Latin American immigrants. Then it did a bit of (scary) doubling up to 1990, but then the rate actually fell in the 1990s, so that by 2000, instead of the 17 million Latin American immigrants that the doubling would have predicted, we had only 14,477,000 foreign born from Latin America.
Nativity, Place of Birth of the Native Population, and Region of Birth of the Foreign-Born Population: 2000
You want them out of their neigborhoods by the second generation? The first generation of substantial size only dates to the 1980s and I certainly see evidence that they are moving out, if by nothing more than the number who now live in Ohio and Michigan.
I’m afraid I still see this aspect of your argument as little more than emotional overreaction without a basis in reality. It seems to be a part with this comment:
To pretend that the Chinese “cordon[ed] themselves off” or that they are invisible, today seems just odd. They did not cordon themselves off, they were compelled to live in ghettoes with restrictions on their ability to purchase land. And I have no idea where you hang out that you do not see ethnic Chinese Americans, but I see them all over–and Ohio is hardly their point of immigration. Aside from a couple of very old and very well-established Chinatowns (San Francisco), most of the Chinatown neighborhoods, today, seem to comprise a handful of markets and restaurants (with the owners driving in from the suburbs along with the rest of us to work each day).
The Japanese and Koreans never developed the same enclaves because, by the time they were even let into the country in serious numbers, most of the punitive property laws had been removed (and, of course, we were able to disrupt the Japanese communities by the simple expedient of stealing their homes, then telling them to scatter out and find new ones where ever they might be able after 1945).
Thanks for the link. The argument for allowing it was stronger than I though. I found the “Comments by the Publis” particularly instructive.
Here is what the BBC has to say about immigration into the UK.
Of particular interest is the British Immigration Map. Including the 155,000 people from the USA that came to live here (0.27% of the population).
There is also an article discussing the integration of immigrants.
Or how about Super-diversity or Multiculturalism.
I believe that immigration has made our country a better, more varied place…
Bugger, screwed up the links, can someone fix this for me?
I guess you’ve never been to Bensonhurst!
No I’m saying you don’t see the whole picture!
No.No.Maybe?
Your personal observations (of which I have imperfect knowledge) may lead you to an incorrect conclusion. Interesting?
Yes.
It’s only convincing if I ignore all the cultural islands that you ignore.
Will you change your mind if I show you all the non-Spanish speaking cultural islands that you don’t seem to be bothered by?
But the only ones that you seem concerned with are the Spanish speaking ones, WHY?
Yes, since your personal experience is limited.
Canada is not dealing with Sharia law, and never has, so if this is your measure of insanity, rest easy. The idea was never more than a proposal by a single member of an opposition party in one province, Ontario, and the premier officially rejected even consideration of the notion nearly two months ago.
Ontario does not represent all of Canada, and a proposal by a member of the second-ranking opposition party in a provincial legislature does not oblige the country to accommodate anyone or anything.
From a Sept. 11, CBC story:
You make this statement, and then provide a link to an article in which a Canadian province had to deal with Sharia law.
I’m not sure what your point is? Have you read the thread? Did you see how this came up? Did you read the other articles which links had been provided?
Ontario didn’t deal with Sharia law. Ontario dealt with the proposal put forward by an opposition member of the legislature pushing its adoption, which received a lot of coverage because of its nature. To say that Canada — never mind the province — is making accommodation for Sharia law merely because of a proposal put forward by some obscure out-of-power party member is akin to saying the U.S. federal government and all state governments must accommodate the same proposal — or any other — put forward by some obscure Democrat in a Republican-dominated state legislature. The possibility of it becoming law was even less likely because the proposal was made by a third-party-ranking opposition member. In the extremely unlikely event it had become a bill, it would have had to face a vote against it by the Official Opposition members as well as the government members.
Any proposal made by any opposition member isn’t a bill, nor is it a law, nor is it likely to be. In the case of adopting anything like Sharia law, the reverse of any accommodation everywhere else — in either country — would be the reality.
Any member of a law-making body at any level, can propose anything. Equating the likelihood of some shoot-from-the-mouth proposal becoming a bill then a law because of the amount of the ink it generates only sells more newspapers.
Aside from that, there is the possibility that the premier of Ontario engineered this tempest-in-a-teapot controversy, or at the least took advantage of the opportunity, to get rid of all such religious courts. Sharia law was dealt with only as far as using it as a catalyst. If so, the plan worked admirably.
This is an interesting insight. Thanks.
Regarding my posts on the subject, I was simply saying that Canada, Ontario if you like, was put in a position to have to figure out what to do. I did not mean to say, and don’t think I did, that Sharia Law was put on the books. We are in agreement on the facts.
I think this issue is noteworthy, though. Given what has happened in Holland, and France (current riots aside even), I think the instances of western countries having to deal with the issue of Sharia law (determining of they will accommodate it and to what extent) will be increasing.
Ireland got it right. And the world still spun on its axis.
If it was okay for Ireland to take control of their immigration, the United States deserves the same right.
End of story.
Why exactly do you see this as desirable?
Diplomats that receive diplomatic immunity are not “subject to the jurisdition” of the United States. Currently, childred born in the United States to foreign diplomats are not granted citizenship.
Illegal aliens are clearly subject to US jurisdiction, and are routinely arrested, jailed, deported, etc.
I too have kicked around this idea in a term paper half a lifetime ago, but the idea touches on the real issue that the Mexican government is not doing enough for its own people to keep them employed. Outsourcing has helped some, but the ogliopoly market keeps unemployment high, and Presidente Fox is all too happy to let his people flee the country to seek employment elsewhere and count on the billions of dollars in remittances sent back to his country…why would he stop a cash cow like that? Why not let other countries deal with his working poor and so he can sit on his ass and do token little or nothing? If we were to stop the illegal immigration, then Fox (and his successors) would actually HAVE to address their own problem or face a revolution in the not to distant future.
To make the illegal immigration issue an issue of race is just plain ignorant…the issue is making a country being responsible for its own people, not dump them off on a doorstep of every other country. Fox and his corrupted government is not doing enough for the people of Mexico. There’s even a double standard going on in Mexico when it comes to immigration law…the Mexican government upholds their laws, especially (and brutally) with illegal immigrants coming from Guatamala, Honduras, El Salvador, etc. Excuse me, but can someone tell me who are the real racists?
This is my first impression of the question, without even reading the OP.
No.
People don’t immigrate to a country just because their children can be citizens. They emigrate from their countries looking for opportunity. So any direct effect on immigration would be close to nil.
However, there would, without birthright citizenship, be as many children born to immigrants as there are now. They would no longer be counted as Americans, but as foreigners, making the numbers look bigger. And they would presumably be denied basic civil rights by the racist/nativists that manage to gain power (always a risk with local democratic institutions). This would cause a lot of problems.
So the net effect on immigrants, their children, & the society as a whole would, I think, be worse.
How?
So orphans can be deported as foreigners? 
US immigration policy towards Mexico has always been guided by racism.
You two are carrying your share of the white man’s burden, Kipling would be proud. And many Americans get upset when Latin Americans call them " imperialista yanqui,".
That’s it? Any substantiation? Or just commentary and snipes from the sideline? :rolleyes:
What kind of substantiation do you need? Do you believe the USA’s history of racist immigration policy is some obscure fact hidden away in it’s history? It may be an ignored fact or a fact many Americans, especially white Americans might not like to admit but a fact nonetheless. A simple Google search with the keywords <American racist immigration history> will give plenty of links to peruse at your leisure.
As far as my “snipes” go, I’m assuming you are talking about my comment on the posts of YR and Aeschines.
The dictionary defines imperialism as such:
- “the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence”*
If you can show me how talk of annexation of another country doesn’t fit into that defintion then I’ll withdraw my “snipe”.