https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tr ... 27610ae4f4

This will likely be a controversial topic, but what are your thoughts? I remember years ago seeing an expose on tv about anchor babies, and I thought it was wrong for pregnant foreigners to come to the US to give birth just so their child could gain citizenship. It's one thing if it's purely happenstance but another thing entirely when it's deliberate. I haven't done any research on the matter but how many other countries automatically grant citizenship to non-citizens who are pregnant and give birth in that country?

Sounds like a 14A violation and a violation of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952.

If we want to get rid of birthright citizenship then we need to amend the Constitution. Trying to do it by executive order is a violation of the Constitution and an attack on American citizens. It cannot be tolerated.

Eris wrote: Tue Oct 30, 2018 11:33 am If we want to get rid of birthright citizenship then we need to amend the Constitution. Trying to do it by executive order is a violation of the Constitution and an attack on American citizens. It cannot be tolerated.

Exactly and that involves Congress and the states, not the president.

But Trump thinks he can do it by fiat, aka, EO.

He can do anything he fuckin' wants, if Congress and the Courts won't stop him.

Carl_Spackler wrote: Tue Oct 30, 2018 10:24 am https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tr ... 27610ae4f4

This will likely be a controversial topic, but what are your thoughts? I remember years ago seeing an expose on tv about anchor babies, and I thought it was wrong for pregnant foreigners to come to the US to give birth just so their child could gain citizenship. It's one thing if it's purely happenstance but another thing entirely when it's deliberate. I haven't done any research on the matter but how many other countries automatically grant citizenship to non-citizens who are pregnant and give birth in that country?

Those cases are few and far. What is more likely is the undocumented immigrant coming here to work in jobs most Americans won't take gets pregnant and has a baby. So what happens now is the parent that is undocumented get deported and the child being a US citizen is ether placed with relatives that are documented or in foster care and thus becomes more of a burden on the state.

YankeeTarheel wrote: Tue Oct 30, 2018 11:49 am But Trump thinks he can do it by fiat, aka, EO.

He can do anything he fuckin' wants, if Congress and the Courts won't stop him.

Yeah, this.

All scribbles on pieces of papers called “laws” actually need people to enforce their importance in/for society. If the Executive branch overreaches either Congress or the Courts have to push back to have a balance of power. Barring that Turnip can do whatever he wants with EO’s.

Unfortunately we have had several examples of Presidents bombing foreign countries and waging war without seeking approval from Congress with no serious pushback.

Of course the final pushback comes from the people. It was massive protest that prevented Obama from bombing Syria several years ago.

I’m going off on a tangent. There should be no difference between naturalized citizen and one born here. Time requirements to hold office should start rolling from the date of naturalization. I have relatives that came here specifically from Finland to give birth. So one of my cousins who has not lived here nor is likely to could in theory run for the highest office in the land and I never can even though I’ve been a citizen since 1974. We have an inherently unequal citizenship structure. The whole thing should be reworked. In principle I see nothing wrong with granting citizenship by both birth and parental affiliation. I do see a problem with inequality.

No controversy at all. We have a Constitution. The current president would be acting well outside his constitutional authority if he tried to change this with his magic crayon.

AndyH wrote: Tue Oct 30, 2018 2:23 pm No controversy at all. We have a Constitution. The current president would be acting well outside his constitutional authority if he tried to change this with his magic crayon.

Happens to gun owners in California all the time. At least we got the sanctuary state thing.

Trump was saying that he had asked people about this and they had said he could do this. "They" is the name he gave the voices only he hears. Related to "many people".

Who know’s, “they” could also be the voices in his senile head.

dougb wrote: Tue Oct 30, 2018 2:31 pm Trump was saying that he had asked people about this and they had said he could do this. "They" is the name he gave the voices only he hears. Related to "many people".

Actually, there's a couple of "Conservative" (ie reactionary/fascist) lawyers that have given him that idea, one of whom is Michael Anton, formerly on the Dump's NSC.

We have a Constitution, which is pretty specific, but they argue was for former slaves. But we also have Federal legislation, passed in 1952, that MORE specific, and, clearly, doesn't apply to former slaves (only a few were still alive then).

To actually address Carl’s OP question...

Dark blue is unrestricted Birthright Citizenship (Jus Soli) like in the United States. Light blue has some form of it.
More in Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

I have no strong opinions on this issue though I’ve thought a great deal about it. I am a naturalized citizen (not by birth on soil) and belong to one of the ethnic groups that arguably take the greatest advantage of America’s policy of Jus Soli (Chinese). I’ve also lived in Japan and met a third generation Chinese born there who spoke nothing but Japanese and never left the country yet who was forced to carry a 外国人登録証明書 “foreigner registration card” like mysel, not allowed to naturalize to become a Japanese citizen.

I feel a country that has lots of land needs people while those that are overpopulated already might want to restrict nationality rights. People are unusual things in that they can be miracles fountains of creativity or burdens on society, sometimes both at the same time (like Vincent Van Gogh). However a country that chooses to reflect its welcoming of immigrants will naturally encourage people to settle there. But you simply can’t discourage immigration and reap the potential benefits that immigrants offers...

I believe America is the world economic leader based off the innovations of its people, likely 75% of which are immigrants or the sons/daughters of immigrants (1st or 2nd generation) and 99% trace their roots to immigrants within the past 200 years. Anyone who thinks that is a long time has simply become fully “Americanized” and forgot the history of their ancestors.

I'm sickened. This would be a violation of the Constitution and could directly affect people I love. Who gets citizenship then? Anyone born here could be stripped of citizenship if the government takes a fancy, and that's not just the children of immigrants. I have a niece who is a citizen by birthright, her parents came on a work visa. She has never lived anywhere else. My kids have one immigrant parent, which country do they belong to? Is one US citizen parent enough? How many generations are we going to go back to enforce this repeal? And who is going to stop the orange menace from making this law by decree? Then we are forced to defend the constitution through the courts. This was never intended to happen.

Actually, the idea, in our modern tech age, that a nation can have "too many people" is just not, IMHO, supported by evidence. In 1990, NYC had about 7 million people and over 2400 murders. Now, there are 8.6 million and the murder has been below 400--by that one measure alone, it's a better place to live.

We have our problems in NJ, but as the densest state we have some of the best (and worst) schools in the nation. We are about 1/9th the area of Kansas, but have over 3x the population. The median income is $13,500 more than Kansas. Our state is pretty much solvent and teachers aren't fleeing. Kansas is virtually bankrupt and they've been losing teachers like crazy.

I've come to believe that people are a resource.

Bisbee, you were from China, I believe. A nation with roughly the same area as the US, but 5 times as many people. Regardless of the tyrannical government, and the HUGE abuses to workers and the environment, the Chinese economy has exhibited explosive growth over the last 35 years. EVERYTHING now says "Made In China". I don't believe they could have achieved that without the world's largest labor pool.

No one wants to say so, but Japan is probably THE most racist society among the so-called "Western Democracies". It's not clear it's benefited them.

GoldenRetrieversRule wrote: Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:02 pm I'm sickened. This would be a violation of the Constitution and could directly affect people I love. Who gets citizenship then? Anyone born here could be stripped of citizenship if the government takes a fancy, and that's not just the children of immigrants. I have a niece who is a citizen by birthright, her parents came on a work visa. She has never lived anywhere else. My kids have one immigrant parent, which country do they belong to? Is one US citizen parent enough? How many generations are we going to go back to enforce this repeal? And who is going to stop the orange menace from making this law by decree? Then we are forced to defend the constitution through the courts. This was never intended to happen.

Scares the shit out of me, too. My younger son is an immigrant, adopted by us as an infant, and brown-skinned. We would and will do ANYTHING to protect him, because this is scary. Because he's only 13, we wanted to be sure he had proof of citizenship, so we got him a passport card, as he's too young for other picture ID or a driver's license. A passport card's not quite the same as a passport, but it's a hell of a lot more convenient. You can use it for ID getting on a domestic flight, going by ground to Canada or Mexico, or as your passport on a Caribbean cruise.

Yes, I love Japan but recognize it has a very racist national policy who’s bird has come home to roost. They have experienced economic stagnation for well over the past decade (moving into two) and now suffering a crisis of depopulation. Schools in most of the countrysides are closing after the last students graduate with literally zero children coming in after them. And they still have some of the oldest (and rapidly growing) aging population needing more and more services for everyday living. Japan is now actively encouraging immigration to fill those service sector jobs and relying on an economic boom from overseas tourists to boost its flagging manufacturing (and still nascent) tech industry. Over time it will face growing pressures for its own style of immigration reform.

If you value the 2nd, you'll defend the 14th.

I'm thinking this is yet another of the shit-stain's red-herrings, to create controversy and trying to get more ReTrumplicans to the polls to "fight off them traitor libtards!"

Bisbee wrote: Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:50 pm Yes, I love Japan but recognize it has a very racist national policy who’s bird has come home to roost. They have experienced economic stagnation for well over the past decade (moving into two) and now suffering a crisis of depopulation. Schools in most of the countrysides are closing after the last students graduate with literally zero children coming in after them. And they still have some of the oldest (and rapidly growing) aging population needing more and more services for everyday living. Japan is now actively encouraging immigration to fill those service sector jobs and relying on an economic boom from overseas tourists to boost its flagging manufacturing (and still nascent) tech industry. Over time it will face growing pressures for its own style of immigration reform.

I've read about some of it, I didn't realize how fast the population was declining and geriatrics growing. The immigration they are encouraging, is that only those of Japanese ancestry and are they offering citizenship as part of immigration? Germany as an example, has a who separate class of individuals who emigrated to that country to work in the service sector but citizenship is very difficult to obtain.

Just saw this on NHK. A good look at the Japanese government’s concern for increased immigration and the pressures for more foreign workers of all nationalities in their country. Specific statements were made that this is NOT immigration policy reform (meaning no workers will be offered a path toward Japanese citizenship).

LDP approves bill to accept more foreign workers
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20181030_46/

Bisbee wrote: Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:25 pm Just saw this on NHK. A good look at the Japanese government’s concern for increased immigration and the pressures for more foreign workers in their country. Specific statements were made that this is NOT immigration policy change, no workers will be offered a chance at citizenship.

LDP approves bill to accept more foreign workers
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20181030_46/

I love Japan but recognize it has a very racist national policy who’s bird has come home to roost.

Workers in the first category, with a certain level of skill, will be granted up to 5 years of residency status. The second-category workers, with higher skill levels, will be able to reside longer, and can be accompanied by family members.

Residence status for workers is currently limited to highly skilled personnel such as university professors. Starting next April, the status will be expanded to other fields.

So it's just allowing foreign workers to reside and work. Different culture, different laws. Tks

Can we think how dull the US would be had we limited immigrants to only those people from the United Kingdom during the 19th century.

TrueTexan wrote: Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:07 pm Can we think how dull the US would be had we limited immigrants to only those people from the United Kingdom during the 19th century.

It's not as if it wasn't tried. Ever seen Gangs of New York?