MovieChat Forums > Donald Trump Discussion > Regardless of Trump, how do you feel abo...

Regardless of Trump, how do you feel about the whole birthright citizenship thing?

posted 6 years ago by brux (14724)
83 replies | jump to latest

I pretty much detest Trump and everything associated with him.

That said, I don't see a benefit or a reason for the birthright citizenship policy? Am I missing something?

I am not sure of the facts behind it, like how many other countries if any have this policy. I don't really know what it was created for, but in the past it makes sense because a lot of people from other places would move to be in America, or they would be children of people who moves to America.

Today, I don't like that policy because it encourages people who are poor with nothing to come here, jump over the border and have their kid. Then the parents need to be there to take care of the American citizen, and pretty soon anyone can come here.

I love immigration. As a kid my world was all white Americans and American food, and the American way of looking at things. But over time I realized in life and in reading that immigrants and new blood is the spirit of this country.

That does not mean there is no limit to that though, and I think having a limit on immigration is a good idea to give people a chance to settle in and be absorbed.

But this is not an issue I feel has urgency or that I feel that strongly about, but I generally agree with Trump even though all he will will do is make mistakes and insult people and not get anything done.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Well it's in the constitution so I don't know what Trump is smoking thinking he can use an executive order to overturn it.

This is especially comical considering how Trump and the Republican Party accuse Obama of abusing executive authority when he was President.

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

Amendment, not the Constitution proper, but yeah, I agree, Trump is a looney, but I assumed there was not point to state the bloody obvious! ;-)

[–] fishpan (544) 6 years ago

The issue is being put wrongly.

Those parents who move to the US have kids and are doing so because they want to live there and work there and build lives there fine. As a way to prevent the removal or prevent citizenship for groups who were born and live in the US such as Native Americans as was done in the past - birth right citizenship is a must to protect them.

However, rich elites from other nations who send their pregnant wives over to a hotel next to a maternity hospital to ensure that their baby has dual citizenship before whisking them away back to China or Russia or Saudi Arabia - then you have a real argument with regards to birth right citizenship.

But that is not the context this is being discussed, we are discussing it in terms of race and poverty but birth tourism should be discussed but it isn't because the people doing it tend to have money, lots of it.

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

>> Those parents who move to the US have kids and are doing so because they want to live there and work there and build lives there fine.

So, are you talking legally or illegally? If legally then their dependent children would be citizens or on a pathway to citizenship with them. If illegally what positive does making them citizens when their parents are not accomplish?

>> As a way to prevent the removal or prevent citizenship for groups who were born and live in the US such as Native Americans as was done in the past - birth right citizenship is a must to protect them.

Well, this country has let most of us down for a long, long time, but I'd hope that we are not that bad today, but you could be right.

I know people from Europe that go around and do a minimum time at a job in certain countries to earn a pension, similar to what you are talking about. It is not some big noble nationalistic pride thing, it is theft as far as I am concerned.

The way I look at it and have tried to explain it is that you have what you call birth tourism which I think most would beleive is immoral and wrong, and then whatever else there is. I don't think there are any over-riding reasons to keep birthright citizenship, or at least keep it the way it is, but there is at least one reason not to. Summing them up I just think we'd be better without it.

If there is some scenario you can detail viz. Native Americans ... specifically, please explain it to me like I am a 4 year old, because I just do not see it?

[–] fishpan (544) 6 years ago

From my understanding until an act in the 1920's native americans weren't considered US citizens unless they 'naturalised' i.e. left their tribe, took land allotments, married a white person or served in the US military. Basically in practical terms give up their way of life.

Didn't matter if they were born in the territorial US or not, because they were 'citizens' of their tribe and had their own 'sovereign lands' and so were loyal to that supposedly. Didn't matter that if the US government decided to do anything to them there or decide to move them to other 'sovereign lands' as there was basically nothing they could do to stop it.

So basically the 14th amendment didn't count for the indigenous population of the US, until the 1920's and that was in part because so many served during world war 1.

But people can tell me if I'm wrong or not.

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

There is a separate law, and act, and I do not know the name but it gives Native Americans United States citizenship. so that claims does not need the 14th Amendment. Also, in cares like the Lakota, they have it in their treaty that they are American citizens since 1866. Also, there is nothing that says the 14th Amendment cannot be modified ... or "amended" itself.

There is still a problem with Native Americans because the US government will not let them vote without a street address and so many of them do not have specific addresses because they live differently on the reservations than off the reservation.

The subject of Native Americans to me seems like a dodge to avoid the discussion. No one seriously wants to remove American citizenship from Native Americans, but they system does seek to suppress the Native American vote as they do with blacks, other minorities and poor whites.

[–] fishpan (544) 6 years ago

Yes as I said in my reply - the was an act in the 1920's.

But the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, the Indian reservation and treaties all existed in practical terms existed at the whim of the US military - hell wounded knee was 1890. But the court ruling over Wong Kim Ark was 1898. Meaning those who had generations and generations of history in North America had less rights than first generation immigrants on a whim of the US federal government, why because they were less trusted, not white, had to be controlled?

As you said there is a problem with regards to Native Americans voting at present. Part of the fight about the Keystone pipeline involved it going through a debated piece of land.

All of these things should be put into the discussion regarding birthright citizenship because the Native Americans show that the 14th wasn't sacrosanct but also that people born in the US also need the protection of citizenship as well. Because like it or not the US not an unblemished record when it comes to those born within its own borders and it is very easy for governments to turn onto easily identifiable groups when they feel like it - like with voter suppression now.

As for the 14th amendment being able to be modified - it is in the name. But also can you also go onto boards and tell 2nd amendment supports that it can be amended too so we should have a discussion?

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

You need to be clear and not hand-wave about this. What specifically do you predict would happen if there was a change in birthright citizenship ... that somehow Native Americans would not be allowed to be citizens anymore? Honestly, do you think Americans, or Native Americans would stand for that? Why are you using this as an argument to support Birthright Citizenship?

I don't favor amending the Constitution any more. The last Amendments such as Prohibition have been such political messes that it is plain we had brilliant geniuses with amazing foresight and intellect intitially who wrote it, but what we have today are hacks and morons who would likely lose the point and meaning of the Constitution, even faster than we are doing it on our own.