Birthright Citizenship?

[Brian4Liberty]

Just to play devil's advocate here...

Is Birthright Citizenship fair?

For those who don't know the history of the 14th Amendment (creating Birthright Citizenship), it was ratified in 1868, and was intended to ensure that ex-slaves would be citizens of the US.

Was that fair? Should slaves automatically become citizens?

Slavery doesn't exist in the form that it did in the 1800's. Some would say that it doesn't apply to illegal immigrants of today.

But isn't the illegal immigrant of today essentially a labor slave? They aren't physically chained up or completely controlled, but is that the only criteria? They don't have the rights of citizens (a form of control) and they don't get paid enough to live on. Look at it from the "employer" side...it's cheaper than old-time slaves. They had to provide food, housing and medical care to old style slaves. Now they just pay them a few bucks and can throw them out into the ally at night. And then it is up to the taxpayers to subsidize them and provide medical care for them.

What we have today is "labor" slavery, with the majority of the cost being put onto the backs of the American taxpayer.

If birthright citizenship was fair to slaves in 1868, it is fair to "labor" slaves in 2008?

 

[Fudwamper]

No illegal immigration is not a labor slave.

The person chooses to come here and work because they believe that they can make a better living in America than where they came from. With the help of social service programs they stay. Others work illegally then travel back to their country or send money back to their families.

The way we today are interpreting the 14th we are allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the country because they had a child here.

 

[han_solo]

"labor slaves"???

Stop inventing stupid ass names for people who illegally stole in to the country and broke the law.


They need to go home, stop living off our welfare, and come here in a legal manner if they want to work.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

"labor slaves"???

Stop inventing stupid ass names for people who illegally stole in to the country and broke the law.

They need to go home, stop living off our welfare, and come here in a legal manner if they want to work.

Nice response...you got me there...that's the kind of intelligent response I have come to expect on this forum...not from the majority, but just a vocal minority.

 

[ErikBlack]

The difference is that in 1868 slaves were not still being imported into the country. Once the slaves were granted citizenship that was it, there were no more. It was a one-time deal, sort of like Reagan's amnesty for illegal aliens was supposed to be. I have no problem granting amnesty for illegals that are already here IF there was some way to physically prevent more from coming. Unfortunately, that is not the case and the prospect of amnesty is just another carrot to entice people to enter this country illegally.

However, if you think the Republican party (with the exception of Ron Paul) wants to end illegal immigration think again. Republicans are in bed with the big business interests and they are the ones who benefit the most from cheap labor. Republicans would rather just slap a different name on the practice such as "guest worker program" which would legalize the entire thing. So it would be the exact same scenario with millions of Mexicans pouring across the border, working for substandard wages, not learning English, etc. except now it would be called "legal".

The idea that if it were legal you could screen Mexicans for security purposes is absurd. Where are you going to find out their history? They have been living in poverty in Mexico. Its not like you can run their credit report. They don't have bank accounts, past employment records, etc. Their lives are not lived on paper like ours are. There isn't even any way of proving their identity. How many Juan Gonzales' do you think there are? This will be a convenient excuse to implement a North American ID and take one more step toward a North American Union.

If given the choice between illegal immigration and a legal "guest worker program" I would take the former. But the real solution is to stop the flow of unskilled Mexican workers into this country completely and give those jobs to unskilled American workers at minimum wage.

 

[fmontez]

Obviously the freed slaves had earned citizenship... it should be eliminate now though... it makes no sense.

 

[Mesogen]

Obviously the freed slaves had earned citizenship... it should be eliminate now though... it makes no sense.

So when I have children, how will they "earn" citizenship?

 

[sratiug]

So when I have children, how will they "earn" citizenship?

By being born to American parents.

 

[Kingfisher]

By being born to American parents.

ZACTLY!

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Good post Erik...

The difference is that in 1868 slaves were not still being imported into the country. Once the slaves were granted citizenship that was it, there were no more. It was a one-time deal, sort of like Reagan's amnesty for illegal aliens was supposed to be.

Agreed. And that it also the parallel I was drawing. Once traditional slavery was abolished, illegal workers became the new version of slaves. And like you said, Reagan set them free (again), and the same Amendment to grant citizenship has been applied in both cases. And they are serving the same function in our economy and society.

I have no problem granting amnesty for illegals that are already here IF there was some way to physically prevent more from coming.

That would be hard to swallow. It would be fair to those who have been here most of their lives, working. It would be a crime for people who just rushed in to get their amnesty. And there is no way to tell the two apart. Quite a dilemma.

Unfortunately, that is not the case and the prospect of amnesty is just another carrot to entice people to enter this country illegally.

However, if you think the Republican party (with the exception of Ron Paul) wants to end illegal immigration think again. Republicans are in bed with the big business interests and they are the ones who benefit the most from cheap labor. Republicans would rather just slap a different name on the practice such as "guest worker program" which would legalize the entire thing. So it would be the exact same scenario with millions of Mexicans pouring across the border, working for substandard wages, not learning English, etc. except now it would be called "legal".

The idea that if it were legal you could screen Mexicans for security purposes is absurd. Where are you going to find out their history? They have been living in poverty in Mexico. Its not like you can run their credit report. They don't have bank accounts, past employment records, etc. Their lives are not lived on paper like ours are. There isn't even any way of proving their identity. How many Juan Gonzales' do you think there are? This will be a convenient excuse to implement a North American ID and take one more step toward a North American Union.

If given the choice between illegal immigration and a legal "guest worker program" I would take the former. But the real solution is to stop the flow of unskilled Mexican workers into this country completely and give those jobs to unskilled American workers at minimum wage.

Agreed. All of the other politicians want to continue massive immigration. For their big business special interests and the hope of getting more votes. Can we eliminate politician's incentives to continue massive, uncontrolled immigration?

There are a lot incentives for people to immigrate here. Like Ron Paul has said, the welfare state is one incentive. Like you just said, the promise of amnesty is another incentive.

But let's not ignore the elephant in the room. The number one incentive is the jobs that they know they will get. We can not ignore the employers that knowingly employee illegal aliens (or just play dumb about it). When I take a job, I have to produce a birth-certificate, driver's license and social security card. It's a pain, but if other employers ignore that process, they are just as guilty as the immigrants who come here illegally.

Ron Paul needs to add a plank to his immigration program:

- Enforce laws against employers illegally employing workers.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Obviously the freed slaves had earned citizenship... it should be eliminate now though... it makes no sense.

Of course someone just born here five minutes ago hasn't earned anything (except probably free medical care).

But has someone who has worked their whole life here as an illegal immigrant "earned" citizenship?

 

[TonySutton]

But has someone who has worked their whole life here as an illegal immigrant "earned" citizenship?

We should reward them for committing a crime? Where would you draw the line on that one? I am guessing if we reward some people for committing crimes we should reward others as well...

 

[Brian4Liberty]

We should reward them for committing a crime? Where would you draw the line on that one? I am guessing if we reward some people for committing crimes we should reward others as well...

And what should we do to the people who employed them? They broke the law too...

 

[TonySutton]

If we are not going to enforce the law then we should rescind it. This is a very sore subject for me because when we put laws on the books and then selectively enforce them we are sending the wrong message to our future generations.

In answer to your question, if it can be proven in a court of law that a person knowingly hired illegals then they should be punished as the law prescribes.

 

[Mesogen]

By being born to American parents.

I have some Polish friends who had a baby here. They are not citizens, but their baby is. Are you saying that he shouldn't be a citizen?

 

[PennCustom4RP]

I have some Polish friends who had a baby here. They are not citizens, but their baby is. Are you saying that he shouldn't be a citizen?

depends...are your Polish friends legal resident aliens?

 

[Mesogen]

depends...are your Polish friends legal resident aliens?

Yes, but they are not Americans as the earlier poster required.

So let me get this straight. I want to make sure that I've got RP's position (not the position of posters here) straight.

The ONLY people that would be denied birthright citizenship are children of illegal immigrants?

 

[TonySutton]

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/

Here is his position.

 

[Mesogen]

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/

Here is his position.

Gee thanks. It lists the position as "End Birthright Citizenship."

So if I have kids, they will not be citizens.

I re-read this:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/130/rethinking-birthright-citizenship/

Where it makes clear that the only people who would be denied citizenship would be children born to illegal aliens, even though he doesn't say so explicitly.

No other wealthy, western nations grant automatic citizenship to those who simply happen to be born within their borders to non-citizens.

We are the only wealthy western nation that doesn't have national health care. Does that mean we should?

 

[Gilby]

What is a citizen anyways? Why do we need such a status?

Should I be a citizen of a town, a state, and/or an entire union?

Before the 14th amendment, people were citizens of their state.