US citizenship thread

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Ok, this is different from immigration.

    This happened in Germany.
    Two German-born terror suspects to be deported - BBC News

    Two German-born wannabe islamofascists were planning an attack. One's parents were from Nigeria, the other's parents were from Algeria. The men were not convicted, in fact charges were dropped. They are considered "dangerous" though. So, Germany wants to deport them and banish them forever from Germany. It is possible, in part, because Germany (along with many other countries) confers citizenship differently than the US.

    This kind of thing could basically not happen here because of the constitution. Someone born here is a citizen. But, clearly, this isn't the only way to determine citizenship. It has been discussed whether to change that constitutional provision (or ignore it).

    Curious to what extent INGO sees any issues with this.
     

    Expat

    Pdub
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    23   0   0
    Feb 27, 2010
    108,727
    113
    Michiana
    I have decided to take the position that our concept of citizenship due to place of birth is incorrect. If someone is here illegally, why can they or their progeny profit from that illegal act by receiving citizenship. Don't we have exceptions in contract law for fraud? So why no defenses to citizenship?
     

    injb

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 17, 2014
    389
    28
    Indiana
    I have decided to take the position that our concept of citizenship due to place of birth is incorrect. If someone is here illegally, why can they or their progeny profit from that illegal act by receiving citizenship. Don't we have exceptions in contract law for fraud? So why no defenses to citizenship?

    By that reasoning virtually everyone should be deported. Most people here are descended from people who either came without permission, or received permission from someone who was descended from someone who came without permission.

    In any case, the idea that someone should be forced to go and live in a foreign country despite having done nothing wrong is anathema to the notion of justice.
     

    Woobie

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 19, 2014
    7,197
    63
    Losantville
    Ostracizing or banishment is a very very old form of punishment. So it really isn't "unusual" in a historical context. And it isn't any more cruel than imprisonment. Calling it deportation brings with it citizenship baggage.

    I frankly don't like the way we confer citizenship, but I don't think that will be changing any time soon.
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,612
    149
    Valparaiso
    Nope.

    Born here- citizen. IMHO that's the way it should be. If we have criminals and terrorists we don't want in society, that's what prisons are for. We should not make our citizens other people's problems.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    I have decided to take the position that our concept of citizenship due to place of birth is incorrect. If someone is here illegally, why can they or their progeny profit from that illegal act by receiving citizenship. Don't we have exceptions in contract law for fraud? So why no defenses to citizenship?

    Mostly because of the constitution. It is as clear as language allows on this. Born here, citizen here.

    For naturalized citizens, there are mechanisms for stripping citizenship that has been obtained by fraud. Difficult to be born here by fraud. :)

    Ostracizing or banishment is a very very old form of punishment. So it really isn't "unusual" in a historical context. And it isn't any more cruel than imprisonment. Calling it deportation brings with it citizenship baggage.

    I frankly don't like the way we confer citizenship, but I don't think that will be changing any time soon.

    The 2 main issues I see on this:
    1) Philosophically, this is part of what America is. It doesn't matter where you're from, or how you got here, if you're born here, you're one of us.

    2) Practically, this is an easy rule to administer. If we take it away, then we have to have a new rule. So, INGO, what would the new rule be? Born here AND either parent must be a US citizen? What about foreign-born adoptions by US citizens? That'd be an easy exception, but I don't want to assume INGO would favor it. :)

    And, it is worth noting that it would take a constitutional amendment to remove this birth by citizenship rule, although the replacement could probably be a statute that could be periodically amended.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113

    injb

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 17, 2014
    389
    28
    Indiana
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...irthright-citizenship/?utm_term=.5a7cddbca24a

    I have decided to agree with the cited opinion against birthright citizenship, made my Eastman, since it achieves my desired end. I read this some time ago, Kirk may have linked it at some point, and found the argument compelling.

    The argument made by Eastman linked from that article is nothing but circular reasoning.

    He does not get to vote, or serve on a jury; he cannot be drafted into our armed forces; and he cannot be prosecuted for treason if he takes up arms against us, because he owes us no allegiance

    Erm, yes that's because he is not a citizen. It can't be the reason that he isn't a citizen at the same time.
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    In no way should this be taken as a position statement, but rather an exploratory.

    I think that it is indeed possible to be born here by result of criminal activity, though not on one's own part, but that of others.
    I know there is a principle by which a convict cannot profit from the fruits of his crime. That is, OJ couldn't write the story of Nicole and Ron's death and receive royalties for the book, movie, etc.
    I know that the parents who do the "anchor baby" thing have committed a criminal act under the laws of this country.
    I know that some of those parents benefit by the fact that while they can be deported, their child cannot, as a citizen, and thus, rather than a) split a family and b) add a child into "the system", the family is allowed to remain here, benefiting from the fact that they are in America, in and of itself, not even addressing the welfare/social aid systems of which they may partake, or may not. (That is to say, if a wealthy couple with a work ethic were to come here illegally, have a baby, and thus, remain after discovery, they might not choose to take advantage of the public aid programs like Medicaid, TANF, WIC, welfare, etc., but they still benefit just from living here. Such a couple might contribute to the community far in excess of what they receive from it as well, but that doesn't change the fact that they are here in violation of the law.)

    So, how do we address this? Can we say that a person who is born here of parents, at least one of whom is here legally, can remain? What of those on temporary visas? They're here legally, but not for long.

    Or is the solution to say that yes, they are citizens, but those that are not stop receiving benefits (monetary, anyway) when they stop being here lawfully, and remove the incentive. We don't as a group DISincentivize their presence, but we stop making it easy to remain. Maybe we say, for those who bleat, "What about the chillllldrennnnnnn?", that if they wish to accept and sponsor a family, a child, whatever, they may do so, privately, and in doing so, accept responsibility for the actions of those they sponsor.

    Note that I'm not saying this needs to be government action, but acts of private citizens. We would need to remove government aid (extorted from all of us) from the equation, however.

    Blessings,
    Bill
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    In no way should this be taken as a position statement, but rather an exploratory.

    I think that it is indeed possible to be born here by result of criminal activity, though not on one's own part, but that of others.
    I know there is a principle by which a convict cannot profit from the fruits of his crime. That is, OJ couldn't write the story of Nicole and Ron's death and receive royalties for the book, movie, etc.

    That's a statutory thing. When mass media became accessible to people, (big) government said that there are certain people who shouldn't be allowed to profit from their experiences. Like certain inmates.

    That's a statutory exercise which couldn't overcome the constitutional issue.

    I know that the parents who do the "anchor baby" thing have committed a criminal act under the laws of this country.
    I know that some of those parents benefit by the fact that while they can be deported, their child cannot, as a citizen, and thus, rather than a) split a family and b) add a child into "the system", the family is allowed to remain here, benefiting from the fact that they are in America, in and of itself, not even addressing the welfare/social aid systems of which they may partake, or may not. (That is to say, if a wealthy couple with a work ethic were to come here illegally, have a baby, and thus, remain after discovery, they might not choose to take advantage of the public aid programs like Medicaid, TANF, WIC, welfare, etc., but they still benefit just from living here. Such a couple might contribute to the community far in excess of what they receive from it as well, but that doesn't change the fact that they are here in violation of the law.)

    So those are lines that need to be drawn.

    So, how do we address this? Can we say that a person who is born here of parents, at least one of whom is here legally, can remain? What of those on temporary visas? They're here legally, but not for long.

    Or is the solution to say that yes, they are citizens, but those that are not stop receiving benefits (monetary, anyway) when they stop being here lawfully, and remove the incentive.
    Quick clarification: do you mean that the non-citizen parents should not receive benefits or the citizen-child should not?

    There's also a question as to whether it really matters, in the sense that if a citizen-infant's non-citizen parents do not receive benefits, then you're basically allowing the child to suffer.

    Societally, we may now be ok with that, but historically we have not been.

    We don't as a group DISincentivize their presence, but we stop making it easy to remain. Maybe we say, for those who bleat, "What about the chillllldrennnnnnn?", that if they wish to accept and sponsor a family, a child, whatever, they may do so, privately, and in doing so, accept responsibility for the actions of those they sponsor.
    But again, the child is a citizen just like every other child citizen.

    Oh, and for the "bleating" comment, I'll simply retort that your proposal is not only unconstitutional but unChristian, if you believe Christians should live their faith in their voting and policy advocacy. :)

    Note that I'm not saying this needs to be government action
    Actually, you are. :) Government action will be necessary to:
    a) change the current system;
    b) administer the new system.

    There is no getting away from government action in this arena.

    , but acts of private citizens. We would need to remove government aid (extorted from all of us) from the equation, however.
    From all citizens, or just those of non-citizen parents?
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    ...
    Quick clarification: do you mean that the non-citizen parents should not receive benefits or the citizen-child should not?
    I mean that the non-citizen, once no longer here legally, should not be receiving benefits from a system they didn't pay into in any way.
    There's also a question as to whether it really matters, in the sense that if a citizen-infant's non-citizen parents do not receive benefits, then you're basically allowing the child to suffer.

    Societally, we may now be ok with that, but historically we have not been.
    I'm not ok with allowing the child to suffer, but that wasn't my decision to come here for the purpose of having a baby so that the family couldn't be kicked out as the criminals they are. There's really no way around that for the people who intentionally cross the border unlawfully to have a baby inside our borders.
    But again, the child is a citizen just like every other child citizen.

    Oh, and for the "bleating" comment, I'll simply retort that your proposal is not only unconstitutional but unChristian, if you believe Christians should live their faith in their voting and policy advocacy. :)
    I'm not a Christian. :) I do take your point, though, to a point. I don't see the unConstitutionality of it, nor do I consider it irreligious (in any "flavor" of religion) to expect people to be a part of the system in all respects, paying into it and making it work for others as well, before taking benefits from it. Taken to an extreme, we could say it was unChristian or even just irreligious to allow people in other countries with lower standards of living (LOTS of places like that!) to continue in whatever squalor they may exist. Unfortunately, we can't make the poor rich by making the rich poor.
    Actually, you are. :) Government action will be necessary to:
    a) change the current system;
    b) administer the new system.

    There is no getting away from government action in this arena.
    Well, OK, yes, we would have to have laws to repeal the current laws and end the welfare system's activity for those who are not here legally. As I said, though, we don't need gov't action to say that if the Smith family wants to sponsor and take responsibility for the Rasputin or the Hinajosa or the Koplinski families, they may do so. (names chosen to show this isn't just about Mexican families, it could be anyone. And yes, to MAKE the Smiths responsible for the (whatever) family members would probably take law, but none is required if they're doing it of their own volition.
    From all citizens, or just those of non-citizen parents?

    We would need to stop extorting from all of us. This is where the Smiths would step in and start offering help, if they chose to do so.

    Again, all of what I've said is exploratory on my part, not policy statements.

    Blessings,
    Bill
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    I mean that the non-citizen, once no longer here legally, should not be receiving benefits from a system they didn't pay into in any way.

    Ok, in the re-reading, this is where I think I got confused.

    If a non-citizen leaves, they don't get any of that. I'm not even sure a citizen-child would, if they don't actually live here.

    Perhaps if you gave an example?

    I'm not ok with allowing the child to suffer, but that wasn't my decision to come here for the purpose of having a baby so that the family couldn't be kicked out as the criminals they are. There's really no way around that for the people who intentionally cross the border unlawfully to have a baby inside our borders.
    For my purposes, in this thread, I don't even care about them. Its more about the actual citizen and how citizenship is determined.

    I'm not a Christian. :)

    You know what - now that you mention it - I'm kicking myself because I actually knew that. Apologies for that. :)

    I don't see the unConstitutionality of it, nor do I consider it irreligious (in any "flavor" of religion) to expect people to be a part of the system in all respects, paying into it and making it work for others as well, before taking benefits from it. Taken to an extreme, we could say it was unChristian or even just irreligious to allow people in other countries with lower standards of living (LOTS of places like that!) to continue in whatever squalor they may exist.

    Indeed, and as a policy matter (I know you keep saying you don't want to deal with policy, but that's really what we're talking about) :) the US has been one of, if not THE, most generous countries when it comes to charity abroad. State sponsored and all. Probably to a fault.

    But let's save that for a different thread, eh? :)

    We would need to stop extorting from all of us. This is where the Smiths would step in and start offering help, if they chose to do so.

    So let's focus on the citizenship part. As a citizen, there are certain benefits attached to that status. By law - constitutional and otherwise - those benefits cannot be imparted differently to and among citizens and all citizens are entitled to equal treatment under the law.

    Without a constitutional amendment, we cannot justify treating citizen-children of non-citizens different than citizen-children of citizen parents.

    Again, all of what I've said is exploratory on my part, not policy statements.
    You keep saying that, but.... ;)

    Seriously, part of what I'd hoped to prod is a discussion of alternatives and how they would work.
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    31,886
    149
    Columbus, OH
    I don't especially like birthright citizenship, but I am loath to muck about with the constitution to fix the problem. I say stand the 'for the children' argument on its head. The child is a US citizen, but in order to not break up the family, deport them all (think the Elián González rationale). At such time as the child attains the age of majority he may apply for re-admission to the US (without the parents) and start proceedings here to get his parents admitted (subject to whatever restrictions on legal immigration apply to their country of origin) or the parents are free to join the queue for legal admission at any time while the child is growing up, but no preference would accrue from being parents of a citizen.

    If one parent was already a citizen, allow the other parent probationary green card status with the stipulation that naturalization must occur within a set period or the non-citizen parent can/will be deported. The probationary status granted the non-citizen parent can also be revoked for cause (criminality, for instance). If the interest of not breaking up a family is to be paramount, then deport minor citizens so as to remain in the custody of the parents
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    ...The child is a US citizen, but in order to not break up the family, deport them all ...

    Conceptually, what would be the basis for deporting the US citizen?

    Neither I nor the constitution is saying "not breaking up the family is paramount." Rather, my interest is in fairly treating US citizens.
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    31,886
    149
    Columbus, OH
    Was not Elián González a citizen the moment he stepped on US soil. Was he not returned to a non-citizen parent in another country in recognition of that individual's parental rights?

    Precedent has been set, keep the family together - somewhere else. The child cannot utilize its citizenship until attaining majority so parental rights prevail - somewhere else
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Was not Elián González a citizen the moment he stepped on US soil. Was he not returned to a non-citizen parent in another country in recognition of that individual's parental rights?

    Precedent has been set, keep the family together - somewhere else. The child cannot utilize its citizenship until attaining majority so parental rights prevail - somewhere else

    Your teal is messing with me, so I can't separate quotes. :)

    No, Elian was not a citizen. He was a refugee. So, he was allowed to be here in the immigration sense. I believe he had family members who were US citizens (naturalized and born). He was returned to his non-citizen parent who had custody of him pursuant to legal process (in Cuba).

    That case is kinda the opposite of the citizenship by birth.
     
    Top Bottom