Citizenship
10/10/11 14:42![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
hikarugenji.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsWe've all heard the calls to repeal the 14th amendment and replace it with something that would deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants. But I heard an extraordinary claim today that I hadn't seen before.
I was listening to a Diane Rehm show from last week; the topic was illegal immigration laws in the US. A caller said (among other things) that the children of illegal immigrants are not citizens. She didn't explain what she meant -- I thought she might be talking about children that were brought illegally to the US at a young age. But one of the panelists, from a conservative anti-immigration group, said that there had been no executive order or Supreme Court decision saying that children of illegal immigrants are citizens.
He didn't explain himself further, but I found this a surprising statement. Of course the way things work now, Supreme Court decisions are more important than the text of the Constitution as interpreted by some random person. But first, who would have standing to challenge someone's citizenship and how would that case work? I guess it would be something like US vs. Wong Kim Ark, although that affirmed birthright citizenship. In other words, Congress would first have to pass a law denying citizenship to children of illegal aliens and then someone would have to challenge that.
Second, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" wouldn't seem to have anything to do with whether the *parents* are illegal immigrants or not.
I was listening to a Diane Rehm show from last week; the topic was illegal immigration laws in the US. A caller said (among other things) that the children of illegal immigrants are not citizens. She didn't explain what she meant -- I thought she might be talking about children that were brought illegally to the US at a young age. But one of the panelists, from a conservative anti-immigration group, said that there had been no executive order or Supreme Court decision saying that children of illegal immigrants are citizens.
He didn't explain himself further, but I found this a surprising statement. Of course the way things work now, Supreme Court decisions are more important than the text of the Constitution as interpreted by some random person. But first, who would have standing to challenge someone's citizenship and how would that case work? I guess it would be something like US vs. Wong Kim Ark, although that affirmed birthright citizenship. In other words, Congress would first have to pass a law denying citizenship to children of illegal aliens and then someone would have to challenge that.
Second, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" wouldn't seem to have anything to do with whether the *parents* are illegal immigrants or not.
(no subject)
Date: 10/10/11 07:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/10/11 07:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/10/11 07:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/10/11 02:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/10/11 05:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/10/11 11:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/10/11 16:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/10/11 02:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/10/11 17:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/10/11 02:59 (UTC)Since when? How so?
(no subject)
Date: 11/10/11 03:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/10/11 13:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/10/11 00:37 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/10/11 15:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/10/11 23:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/10/11 02:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/10/11 03:09 (UTC)My preferred approach would be to redefine who gets it. There are many countries in the world who don't automatically grant citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. People who have illegally entered and are illegally residing in the United States may feel entitled to citizenship for their children. They may feel entitled to many things. I believe that a country has a greater responsibility to its own citizens than it does to people who violate its borders, and I don't see any justification, beyond inertia (or tradition if you prefer), for continuing the practice.
As for the specific question of whose citizenship should be revoked, I think treason and similar crimes are justifiable grounds.
(no subject)
Date: 13/10/11 06:27 (UTC)"I believe that a country has a greater responsibility to its own citizens than it does to people who violate its borders, and I don't see any justification, beyond inertia (or tradition if you prefer), for continuing the practice."
That may be so, but it is also totally beside the point. We currently don't have this practice -- we don't offer citizenship to anyone that enters the country illegally unless they return home and apply the normal way. We are talking about people who are already defined as US citizens, who have not committed any crimes. If you want to stop granting citizenship to this class of people in order to punish or deter their parents, fine, but let's be explicit about what this is.
As for what other countries do, that's a totally different issue. Germans can collectively decide what it means to be German, and what the requirements for becoming German are. French, Canadians and Japanese can all do the same thing. But each country (including, or maybe especially, this one) ought to make that entire process of obtaining citizenship reflective of an ideal community that we want to build, whatever it happens to be in our collective hearts and minds. Most countries in the world do not grant automatic citizenship to anyone born within its physical borders (actually, I am not sure which countries practice this other than the US), but then again, the US is different from other countries in a number of ways; that difference doesn't say anything about whether we should or should not adopt characteristics of those other countries though.
(no subject)
Date: 14/10/11 00:22 (UTC)I am advocating no longer giving citizenship to anyone for the sole reason that they are born on American soil. I don't see any reason for the country to hand out citizenship, and its many expensive benefits, to the babies of foreign tourists, legal migrants or illegal immigrants because of an accident of birth and geography. I especially don't agree with the argument that crimes should be rewarded with such a lucrative and important reward. And finally, I disagree with those who deny a voice to those who express a desire for change to the country's laws.
We are talking about people who are already defined as US citizens
If such a change were put into effect, it would not affect those who are already defined as US citizens; they aren't born yet. Anyway, my point is that the definition should be changed.
each country ... ought to make that entire process of obtaining citizenship reflective of an ideal community that we want to build, whatever it happens to be in our collective hearts and minds.
Your whole argument is that the definition of who is entitled to become an American citizen cannot be changed, cannot even be debated. "Our collective hearts and minds", presumably, refers to you and to those who agree with you.
(no subject)
Date: 14/10/11 00:41 (UTC)Is someone denying a voice to anyone in this discussion?
You argue that the definition should be changed, but the major justification you cite for this is that you don't want to reward these people's parents for breaking the law. I posit that we ought not be in the business of punishing people for their parents' crimes, and should decide to grant citizenship to this class of people without consideration of their parents' legal status, intentions or criminal records. That goes for the children of legal migrants as well. In any case, I am not really aware that this is a huge problem, the hysteria over anchor-babies aside, at least not a big enough one to justify the potential harm a change might bring (i.e., the injustice of deporting someone that was born and grew up in this country, those that were born and have only ever lived here not having access to all the rights and resources as everyone else, etc.)
"Our collective hearts and minds", presumably, refers to you and to those who agree with you.
Quite the chip on your shoulder there. I'm only saying that we don't need to reference what country X believes it means to be a citizen of that country in order to determine what it means to be an American.
Yes, I am arguing from a biased viewpoint based on my idealization of this country, but since there is no objectively right or beneficial way of defining citizenship, we all just have to come to some agreement that (most of us) can live with.
(no subject)
Date: 14/10/11 01:03 (UTC)If so, then you appear to be coming around to my way of thinking. I believe that Americans have the right and the duty to discuss, understand and agree on who is invited to join the ranks of American citizenry. Earlier, you seemed to be arguing that citizenship for people born on American soil was beyond discussion, that "by definition", the admissions criteria could not be altered or debated.
(no subject)
Date: 14/10/11 02:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/10/11 14:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/10/11 00:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/10/11 01:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/10/11 03:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/10/11 05:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/10/11 14:26 (UTC)