[kenberg]

blackshoe, on 2015-August-20, 18:11, said:

The fourteenth amendment nowhere mentions slavery or slaves. The relevant (to this discussion) text is: "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."

Are illegal aliens subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? IANAL, but I believe they are. Are the children of illegal aliens, born in the United States, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? IANAL, but I believe they are. If so, they (the children, not the aliens) are by the quoted sentence above, citizens of the United States and of the State in which they live. The only way to change that is via a Constitutional Amendment. I would not support such an amendment.

Right, it does not mention slavery. I am guessing that the freeing of the slaves played a role in writing and passing it. There was a huge problem, or I assume that there was, as to just what status the former slaves had, now that they were no longer property.

This guess seems reasonable to me, historians no doubt have a more learned take on it.

Whether or not this is so, we are still free to examine the way it is playing out in our modern world. I seriously doubt that the intention was to give citizenship to children born of illegal aliens, wiht the result that the children cannot be deported and then the mother cannot be deported without depriving the child of a mother. This would be dumb.

So I am guessing they were concentrating on the status of the freed slaves and did not envision the developments of today.

Whatever they were thinking, we can re-think it.


There are various possibilities for a more sensible approach, but the one that seems to combine simplicity with sense is to give citizenship to the child of a mother if the mother is legally entitled to be here, and not give citizenship to the child if the mother is not legally entitled to be here.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2015-August-20, 19:45, said:

Right, it does not mention slavery. I am guessing that the freeing of the slaves played a role in writing and passing it. There was a huge problem, or I assume that there was, as to just what status the former slaves had, now that they were no longer property.

This guess seems reasonable to me, historians no doubt have a more learned take on it.

Whether or not this is so, we are still free to examine the way it is playing out in our modern world. I seriously doubt that the intention was to give citizenship to children born of illegal aliens, wiht the result that the children cannot be deported and then the mother cannot be deported without depriving the child of a mother. This would be dumb.

So I am guessing they were concentrating on the status of the freed slaves and did not envision the developments of today.

Whatever they were thinking, we can re-think it.


There are various possibilities for a more sensible approach, but the one that seems to combine simplicity with sense is to give citizenship to the child of a mother if the mother is legally entitled to be here, and not give citizenship to the child if the mother is not legally entitled to be here.

Concerning the 14th amendment, my understanding is that due to the Dred Scott ruling by the Supreme Court there was no other way to guarantee citizenship to ex-slaves born on U.S. soil than Constitutional amendment, so although it does not mention slaves or slavery it was most certainly the reaction to U.S. legal history concerning slaves that propelled its passage.

[Winstonm]

This from Nornan Ornstein, a well-respected conservative scholar:

Quote

The Republican Party has become a radical insurgency – ideologically extreme, scornful of facts and compromise, and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition. Securing the common good in the face of these developments will require structural changes but also an informed and strategically focused citizenry.

www.amacad.org/content/publications/pubContent.aspx?d=1057

[hrothgar]

jonottawa, on 2015-August-20, 11:42, said:

Trump is right on the most important issue of our time, illegal immigration. His policy is spot-on: Trump's Immigration Plan

Trump's immigration plan is mindless impotent posturing:

Let's start with this whole "wall" idea. The overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants in the US are individuals who are overstaying their visas.
I wouldn't say that a wall is useless, however, at best it qualifies as theater rather than a meaningful solution.

Then there is this whole plan to force Mexico to pay for the (useless) wall. Trump really might want to read up on little things like NAFTA and the US trade commitments. Most of Trump's plan to put pressure on Mexico is illegal.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2015-August-20, 21:17, said:

Concerning the 14th amendment, my understanding is that due to the Dred Scott ruling by the Supreme Court there was no other way to guarantee citizenship to ex-slaves born on U.S. soil than Constitutional amendment, so although it does not mention slaves or slavery it was most certainly the reaction to U.S. legal history concerning slaves that propelled its passage.

On this we agree.

However. They could have accomplished the same thing by writing the law as i suggest. If the mother was here legally, the child is a citizen. The mother, when a slave, was not here willingly but she was here legally. So her child is a citizen.

I strongly suspect that they simply did not think this through properly.

We of course are not the only country ion the world. be of interst to know what policies elsewhere are. Consider the flood of refugees into Europe. Some go through the legal process but others just land.Suppose mother X arrives illegally on the shores of Italy, or Greece, or Turkey. She arrives, she goes through no legal process entitling her to stay, she gives borth. The child is an Italian or Greek or Turkish citizen? I don't know, but if so it strikes me as bizarre.

Basically, our current policy is: The child is legally allowed to stay here, the mother is not legally allowed to stay here, sending the mother back and keeping the child here is repulsive, so we just say the hell with it and let them both stay. When a lot is so stupid that enforcing it goes beyond reason, it seems to be time to change the law.

[kenberg]

hrothgar, on 2015-August-21, 04:20, said:

Trump's immigration plan is mindless impotent posturing:

Let's start with this whole "wall" idea. The overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants in the US are individuals who are overstaying their visas.
I wouldn't say that a wall is useless, however, at best it qualifies as theater rather than a meaningful solution.

Then there is this whole plan to force Mexico to pay for the (useless) wall. Trump really might want to read up on little things like NAFTA and the US trade commitments. Most of Trump's plan to put pressure on Mexico is illegal.

I would not expect a wall to be worth the effort. And, honestly, it seems silly. I confess I have not studied the practicality of it, but I am highly skeptical.

It would be useful to look at just what the problem is that we are trying to solve.

Drug dealers: Well, drugs are a problem and drugs will continue to be a problem as long as there is a substantial market. A wall might, or might not, shift the problem. It will not solve the problem.

Other criminals: I am opposed to criminal behavior. But with the immigrants, legal or illegal, it's not that "some may be good people", rather it is that the vast majority are just trying to make a better life for themselves, same as everyone else. I don't mean to minimize criminality, certainly not rape and murder, and gangs such as MS are a problem, butI favor dealing directly with criminals and, importantly, spending money in ways proven to guide young people to a better path.

Job displacement, especially of minorities: The evidence on this is mixed at best, but I saw something that high school drop-outs are adversely affected. Well, the fact is that high school drop outs are in for a tough time no matter what, and we need to do something to help young people do better. From what I have seen of some high schools in sme areas, I can understand dropping out. They suck. We cannot entirely stop people from making bad choices, but it might help if we offered them better choices. We need to work on this.

Of course this is a partial list. But I think we would be very disappointed when we find what a wall would actually do.

[mike777]

Politicians do a lot of dumb things but this attack on birthright citizenship is among the worst, very worst.

Bithright citizenship is a big part of what makes America great. Many countries do not have this.

I expect to not agree with all policies a politician may run on but this is a breaking point. I could never and would never support anyone who wanted to even suggest changing this.
---

As for the side discussion on the 14th amendment. Keep in mind the main purpose was to overturn Dred/Scott. That decision, the worst in the history of the Supreme Court,said children of Free blacks or any blacks could never be a citizen.

https://en.wikipedia...ott_v._Sandford

[mike777]

kenberg, on 2015-August-21, 05:43, said:

On this we agree.

However. They could have accomplished the same thing by writing the law as i suggest. If the mother was here legally, the child is a citizen. The mother, when a slave, was not here willingly but she was here legally. So her child is a citizen.

I strongly suspect that they simply did not think this through properly.

We of course are not the only country ion the world. be of interst to know what policies elsewhere are. Consider the flood of refugees into Europe. Some go through the legal process but others just land.Suppose mother X arrives illegally on the shores of Italy, or Greece, or Turkey. She arrives, she goes through no legal process entitling her to stay, she gives borth. The child is an Italian or Greek or Turkish citizen? I don't know, but if so it strikes me as bizarre.

Basically, our current policy is: The child is legally allowed to stay here, the mother is not legally allowed to stay here, sending the mother back and keeping the child here is repulsive, so we just say the hell with it and let them both stay. When a lot is so stupid that enforcing it goes beyond reason, it seems to be time to change the law.

to answer your first issue, yes the baby born this way is a full US citizen with all the rights and obligations of such. This is a good thing, whether bizarre or not, a very good thing

Your second issue is a difficult one, I do not have a perfect answer or solution. The imperfect answer is in some cases both stay and in some cases as a practical matter both go or the child stays with another legal relative. Hopefully the child will return as an adult and the mom and dad can come back in some legal way.


IN no case is even suggesting getting rid of birth right citizenship a good answer.

[jonottawa]

mikeh, on 2015-August-20, 16:52, said:

what a truly, truly bizarre view of the world you must have to believe that illegal immigration into the US is the 'most important issue of our time'.

How would that compare to the fact that right now we are living through what is possibly the faster-occurring mass extinction event of all time, other than the (probable) asteroid impact that killed off the dinosaurs (other than the ones that evolved into birds)?

Personally, I think that global warming (the real term, not this mealy-mouthed, neutral sounding 'climate change') is the most important issue of the past 50,000 years, but that's just me, I suppose. It is nothing to compare to the possibility that that dark-skinned fellow cutting your neighbour's yard lacks a visa.

See, even Mikeh, one of the most brilliant people I know, has been brainwashed by decades of CBC Koolaid. That's why it's fruitless for me to try to debate the issue.

Since I like Mike so much, I'll give it a go:

First, 'global warming' became 'climate change' when there were freak cold events and people used those freak cold events to ridicule 'global warming.' So it's not about mealy-mouthed, it was a case of the Al Gores of the world covering their butts.

Second, if you believe pollution & mass extinction are huge problems (& I do, I would also wager I have a significantly smaller carbon footprint than 99% of the people on this forum, including you.) then it is only logical to investigate the cause of these problems. In a word, what's the cause?

Overpopulation. You'd never know that if you get all your information from the MSM, but if you stop & think about it for 5 minutes, it's self-evident. Sustainable development with zero population growth should be the goal of any sane individual who cares about the future of our planet & the people who will populate it.

The first world has been very responsible with respect to solving the problem, maintaining very low (in some cases sub-replacement) birth rates.

The rest of the world hasn't.

Your solution is to let all the countries of the first world be flooded with 3rd world immigrants until they become 3rd world countries with 1st world carbon appetites & with NO appetite for curbing global warming.

I would call that solution bizarre.

tl;dr If you don't understand the connection between immigration & climate change, I suggest you turn off the CBC for a few days & have an independent think.

Here's a neat article about what happened to the Crocodile Hunter's daughter when she sent an essay to Hillary about overpopulation. A brief excerpt from Bindi's essay: "I believe that most problems in the world today, such as climate change, stem from one immense problem which seems to be the 'elephant in the room' that no-one wants to talk about. This problem is our ever expanding human population. We are experiencing Earth's sixth mass extinction right now. ..."

Here's a cool nature video. See if you can identify its relevancy to this discussion.



Or this ad:

https://vimeo.com/11212514

[mike777]

jonottawa, on 2015-August-21, 10:12, said:

See, even Mikeh, one of the most brilliant people I know, has been brainwashed by decades of CBC Koolaid. That's why it's fruitless for me to try to debate the issue.

Since I like Mike so much, I'll give it a go:

First, 'global warming' became 'climate change' when there were freak cold events and people used those freak cold events to ridicule 'global warming.' So it's not about mealy-mouthed, it was a case of the Al Gores of the world covering their butts.

Second, if you believe pollution & mass extinction are huge problems (& I do, I would also wager I have a significantly smaller carbon footprint than 99% of the people on this forum, including you.) then it is only logical to investigate the cause of these problems. In a word, what's the cause?

Overpopulation. You'd never know that if you get all your information from the MSM, but if you stop & think about it for 5 minutes, it's self-evident. Sustainable development with zero population growth should be the goal of any sane individual who cares about the future of our planet & the people who will populate it.

The first world has been very responsible with respect to solving the problem, maintaining very low (in some cases sub-replacement) birth rates.

The rest of the world hasn't.

Your solution is to let all the countries of the first world be flooded with 3rd world immigrants until they become 3rd world countries with 1st world carbon appetites & with NO appetite for curbing global warming.

I would call that solution bizarre.

tl;dr If you don't understand the connection between immigration & climate change, I suggest you turn off the CBC for a few days & have an independent think.

Here's a neat article about what happened to the Crocodile Hunter's daughter when she sent an essay to Hillary about overpopulation. A brief excerpt from Bindi's essay: "I believe that most problems in the world today, such as climate change, stem from one immense problem which seems to be the 'elephant in the room' that no-one wants to talk about. This problem is our ever expanding human population. We are experiencing Earth's sixth mass extinction right now. ..."

Here's a cool nature video. See if you can identify its relevancy to this discussion.



Or this ad:

https://vimeo.com/11212514

I don't know what 3d world immigrants are but the USA is certainly flooded with old world and new world immigrants.
And yes over the centuries the USA carbon footprint did increase by large amounts as we were flooded. Of course our standard of living increased by large amounts over the same period.


I think the even bigger elephant in the room as far as the increasing population is that the future of mankind lies in moving out into the universe. It is very limited thinking to just confine yourself to the resources on planet Earth. I would suggest rather than so much focus on less babies, think more about moving out into the universe. Move more of the old world out onto new worlds and new resources.

--


As far as the discussion concerning the sixth extinction, yes nature kills and nature destroys. As you point out 5 times at least on planet earth.

[PassedOut]

jonottawa, on 2015-August-21, 10:12, said:

First, 'global warming' became 'climate change' when there were freak cold events and people used those freak cold events to ridicule 'global warming.' So it's not about mealy-mouthed, it was a case of the Al Gores of the world covering their butts.

That's dead wrong.

Although the term "climate change" has a long history, it entered the political conversation when Republican strategist Frank Luntz advised his clients (page 142 of this memo) as follows:

Quote

It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation ” instead of preservation.

1. “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming;” As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

I'm surprised that anyone thought otherwise. Only 16 pages of the memo are shown here, but all 16 are interesting reading.

[billw55]

mike777, on 2015-August-21, 10:54, said:

I think the even bigger elephant in the room as far as the increasing population is that the future of mankind lies in moving out into the universe. It is very limited thinking to just confine yourself to the resources on planet Earth. I would suggest rather than so much focus on less babies, think more about moving out into the universe. Move more of the old world out onto new worlds and new resources.

I consider this science fiction only, it will never be a reality. IMO the energy burdens and engineering challenges are too great to overcome. I admit I could be wrong, but none of us alive now will ever know for sure.

As a consequence, I perforce believe that human population is inherently limited. If we don't stop voluntarily, eventually we will be stopped by forces of nature. The letter seems more likely, but here at least there is hope.

None which means that keeping the third world in third world conditions is a solution to warming.

[mike777]

billw55, on 2015-August-21, 12:10, said:

I consider this science fiction only, it will never be a reality. IMO the energy burdens and engineering challenges are too great to overcome. I admit I could be wrong, but none of us alive now will ever know for sure.

As a consequence, I perforce believe that human population is inherently limited. If we don't stop voluntarily, eventually we will be stopped by forces of nature. The letter seems more likely, but here at least there is hope.

None which means that keeping the third world in third world conditions is a solution to warming.

OK we disagree on the basic premise of humans being inherently limited to planet earth when it comes to living space or resources. I certainly hope within the lifetimes of some alive today we move off planet with living space and resource use.
for example I use energy from space to grow food in my backyard today. One small step for mankind.

As has been pointed out extinction has happened at least 5 times on planet earth. I doubt the solution is build walls, build walls between sperm and egg, build walls around resources of energy or that greatest resource human capital.

Many years ago China had the choice to build walls and turn inward or build ships and look outward. They burned their ships!

I encourage us to build ships rather than more walls.

[barmar]

mike777, on 2015-August-21, 12:25, said:

As has been pointed out extinction has happened at least 5 times on planet earth.

I think a couple of them were due to planetwide disasters, i.e. asteroid impacts.

Other than the ones due to sudden disasters, how long did those extinctions take? I suspect the majority of the human-caused extinction has taken place in the past 500 years, and past extinctions probably took 5-10 times longer.

When man-made technologies get involved, practically everything happens faster by orders of magnitude (see my posts in the thread about GMO), and natural processes can't keep up. So unless we implement counter-measures as well, the world is drastically altered as a result.

[mike777]

barmar, on 2015-August-21, 14:12, said:

I think a couple of them were due to planetwide disasters, i.e. asteroid impacts.

Other than the ones due to sudden disasters, how long did those extinctions take? I suspect the majority of the human-caused extinction has taken place in the past 500 years, and past extinctions probably took 5-10 times longer.

When man-made technologies get involved, practically everything happens faster by orders of magnitude (see my posts in the thread about GMO), and natural processes can't keep up. So unless we implement counter-measures as well, the world is drastically altered as a result.

All the more reason to build more ships as a priority rather than walls between sperm and egg or human capital and resources

Again I just don't think the top priority should be building moats to protect the world from being drastically altered. I am not suggesting it is a zero priority, just far from the top one which some posters argue for.

"... brief excerpt from Bindi's essay: "I believe that most problems in the world today, such as climate change, stem from one immense problem which seems to be the 'elephant in the room' that no-one wants to talk about. This problem is our ever expanding human population. We are experiencing Earth's sixth mass extinction right now. ..."
---

I wanted to add that who knows by making this a higher priority there may be spin off effects that may lead to a lower carbon footprint. Perhaps this basic science leads to solving some of the solar energy or storage battery issues. I don't believe the spin off effects will have a value of zero when it comes to the carbon footprint problem. As for birth control, I expect space boys and girls will still need it. I don't expect birth control to be a zero issue when it comes to space travel.

[Al_U_Card]

Birth control = affluence = energy availability.
Give people something pleasant to pursue other than sex and they will.
Nuclear power is the key. Fossil fuels are the bridge towards that eventuality.

[blackshoe]

kenberg, on 2015-August-20, 19:45, said:

There are various possibilities for a more sensible approach, but the one that seems to combine simplicity with sense is to give citizenship to the child of a mother if the mother is legally entitled to be here, and not give citizenship to the child if the mother is not legally entitled to be here.

Maybe so, but we've seen enough ignoring of the Constitution IMO. If we're going to change this aspect of things in this country, it will require a Constitutional Amendment.

[kenberg]

blackshoe, on 2015-August-22, 01:28, said:

Maybe so, but we've seen enough ignoring of the Constitution IMO. If we're going to change this aspect of things in this country, it will require a Constitutional Amendment.

Yes, of course it would require a change, and that was pretty much my point. Due to the ill-advised 14th amendment, the child is a citizen, the mom can be sent back.only the hardest of hearts would do this, so we routinely ignore what the amendment provides. Now one could say that the amendment does not specifically say that we have to send the mother back, and current policy is not to do so.

This is a pretty bad way of doing things. As far as I know, the 18th amendment prohibiting the sale whiskey etc did not stipulate that we had to enforce it, but the presumption was that it would be enforced. When this proved untenable, the amendment was rescinded. Having a constitutional amendment that we decide not to enforce seems like a bad idea.


I expect that most people see it as self-evident that we should not keep the child here and send the mother back. If people think that getting into the country and having a child here qualifies a woman for citizenship, they can present an argument as to why this is so. But whatever we decide, either both mother and child should eligible to stay or neither should be eligible to stay. I am willing to listen to arguments why both should be eligible to stay, or to arguments why neither should be. Keeping one and sending the other back is inhumane, and circumventing the law to keep them together has many bad features, for example it is subject to change at the whim of a new president or a new congress. Such an approach creates disrespect for the law.

Those kids who achieved citizenship under current law would keep it. That's what we do when we make a mistake. But we can change the law for the future.

We have procedures for refugees. We have procedures for obtaining citizenship. I support accommodating refugees and I support immigration and naturalization. What I object to is this sort of ass/2 approach of saying the child was born here so he is a citizen and he needs a mother so we will just let her stay. Set up a reasonable procedure for obtaining legal residence, another procedure for citizenship, and then follow it.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2015-August-22, 06:08, said:

Yes, of course it would require a change, and that was pretty much my point. Due to the ill-advised 14th amendment, the child is a citizen, the mom can be sent back.only the hardest of hearts would do this, so we routinely ignore what the amendment provides. Now one could say that the amendment does not specifically say that we have to send the mother back, and current policy is not to do so.

This is a pretty bad way of doing things. As far as I know, the 18th amendment prohibiting the sale whiskey etc did not stipulate that we had to enforce it, but the presumption was that it would be enforced. When this proved untenable, the amendment was rescinded. Having a constitutional amendment that we decide not to enforce seems like a bad idea.

I expect that most people see it as self-evident that we should not keep the child here and send the mother back. If people think that getting into the country and having a child here qualifies a woman for citizenship, they can present an argument as to why this is so. But whatever we decide, either both mother and child should eligible to stay or neither should be eligible to stay. I am willing to listen to arguments why both should be eligible to stay, or to arguments why neither should be. Keeping one and sending the other back is inhumane, and circumventing the law to keep them together has many bad features, for example it is subject to change at the whim of a new president or a new congress. Such an approach creates disrespect for the law.

Those kids who achieved citizenship under current law would keep it. That's what we do when we make a mistake. But we can change the law for the future.

We have procedures for refugees. We have procedures for obtaining citizenship. I support accommodating refugees and I support immigration and naturalization. What I object to is this sort of ass/2 approach of saying the child was born here so he is a citizen and he needs a mother so we will just let her stay. Set up a reasonable procedure for obtaining legal residence, another procedure for citizenship, and then follow it.

You haven't mentioned fathers. What should be done if the father is a citizen and the mother is not?

I hadn't thought before about making the mother of a child born here a citizen automatically too, but that idea certainly has the virtue of simplicity. What would be the downside?

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2015-August-22, 01:28, said:

Maybe so, but we've seen enough ignoring of the Constitution IMO. If we're going to change this aspect of things in this country, it will require a Constitutional Amendment.

I wonder whether or not you allow for the possibility that the Constitution is subject to interpretation, and that interpretations that are different from yours are just as legitimate, thus, when you say, "ignoring the Constitution" what you may actually mean is "ignoring my personal point of view concerning the constitution"?,

The Constitution represents the law of our land, but it is not divinely inspired, sacrosanct. It is a human document written in compromise by humans. And its meanings are certainly not precisely etched on stone tablets.

I think wisdom is the understanding that there is no shame in being wrong, as we are all wrong from time to time and it is a shared human experience, that the only shame is in unwillingness to change in the face of contradictory facts.

Btw, I happen to agree with you that Constitutional amendment is the method that should be used as it is the only way to force an out-of-control Supreme Court to act rationally.