The Myth of Birthright Citizenship

[Otern]

Very few countries in the world have birthright citizenship. It seems to be an American thing, as it's common both in the north, the central and the south America.

But it's one of those things I wish we had in Norway. Of course if it's combined with a very strict immigration policy. Norway don't have birthright citizenship, and every now and then, we ship out some kid who was born in Norway, speak Norwegian, and are 100% integrated into the community. And we throw them out because of their parents. And then we keep our borders pretty much wide open so non-Norwegians can flood in.

"We'll let you in, but your kids will not be Norwegian." This is a fucked up message to send to people. And it's one of the reasons integration fails in most European countries. This is how ghettos are created.

The USA as it is now is way better. If you're born there you're an American. But not just anyone can get inside. Immigrants are forced to integrate, yet their kids are unquestionably American once they're born there.

[Speaker to Animals]

None of our nations actually need immigration. If anything, immigration ought to be curtailed for quite a long time at this point.

[Otern]

None of our nations actually need immigration. If anything, immigration ought to be curtailed for quite a long time at this point.

Agree.

But that's not a reason to remove birthright citizenship.

The fact that we don't have birthright citizenship here in Norway is part of the problem with unchecked immigration. The attitude of "well we can just throw them out if it turns into a problem", is one of the reasons we allow for a lot more immigration than we otherwise would've if we had birthright citizenship.

The problem is not the ones born in the country, the problem lies at the border. An open border is no border.

[Speaker to Animals]

The problem you presented is not the fault of birthright citizenship but one of open borders and exploitative visa systems. Stop bringing foreigners in and that problem goes away.

[brewster]

You don't get to change the meaning of words and phrases in the Constitution to get your genocidal outcome.

Isn't that exactly what was done by activist right wing justices excising of the 1st part of the 2nd Amendment referring to "well regulated militia" from any practical interpretation of it's meaning? Why say it if it meant nothing? The only conclusion is originalism is a shit idea, always was, and every era reinterprets the document to their liking. So you may conceivably win because elections matter, and justices got appointed, but don't insist it's because "that's what the writers meant".

[TheReal_ND]

A militia is formed with regimental hierarchy and military grade weapons so I say let's follow this to the strictest letter of the law.

[brewster]

A militia is formed with regimental hierarchy and military grade weapons so I say let's follow this to the strictest letter of the law.

We already have state National Guards, which is what the founders meant. An armed force to oppose a potential Federal army running amok in the service of an authoritarian leader. What is it you're suggesting? Cosplay with guns? Have you read Pournelle's Prince of Sparta SF books? I'll bet StA has. He portrays a society of universal militia service.

[Speaker to Animals]

The guard is not a militia. Those are federal troops.

Yes, I have read the books. They are among my favorites.

No, I do not think we need universal military service. I just think people who do not serve should not have a vote on whether we go to war, directly or indirectly.

[TheReal_ND]

A militia is formed with regimental hierarchy and military grade weapons so I say let's follow this to the strictest letter of the law.

We already have state National Guards, which is what the founders meant. An armed force to oppose a potential Federal army running amok in the service of an authoritarian leader. What is it you're suggesting? Cosplay with guns? Have you read Pournelle's Prince of Sparta SF books? I'll bet StA has. He portrays a society of universal militia service.

I mean whatever dude. Give Texas it's own nukes and freedom from the SCOTUS (not constitutionally derived) and watch as we conquer your pathetic federal union. You're the one that wants to follow the strictest letter of the law with a well regulated militia so give us nukes faggot.

[BjornP]

Very few countries in the world have birthright citizenship. It seems to be an American thing, as it's common both in the north, the central and the south America.

But it's one of those things I wish we had in Norway. Of course if it's combined with a very strict immigration policy. Norway don't have birthright citizenship, and every now and then, we ship out some kid who was born in Norway, speak Norwegian, and are 100% integrated into the community.

On that isolated point, I don't think you would need to implement birthright citizenship to solve the problem of genuinely integrated, 2nd (or even 3rd) generation "immigrants" getting thrown out. Better individual case handling ought to be able to solve that problem.