GOP Rep. Mark Sanford: Haitian babies born in US don’t deserve birthrights because they are not ‘former slaves’

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

More gop filthiness....

Outgoing South Carolina Republican Rep. Mark Sanford on Wednesday insisted that some babies born in the U.S. — from places like Haiti — do not deserve to be citizens because they are not descendants of slaves.


During a discussion on MSNBC about President Donald Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship, Sanford argued that the constitution did not apply to immigrants when it said all “persons” born in the U.S. have the right to be citizens.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/10/go...s-dont-deserve-birthrights-not-former-slaves/

There is a small problem for which this big change creates far too many more problems... That small problem is people who come to America pregnant, on a 30 day temporary "tourist" visa, and stay in a hotel next to a hospital, specifically expecting to give birth on American soil, for the explicit purpose of getting a US birth certificate for their newborn child.
Any such birth certificate should not be issued to a mother that is not a US citizen (assuming neither the DNA-confirmed father is), in my opinion.

But, just because someone legally migrated to the US, is no reason not to grant their newborn a US birth certificate, also in my opinion.

That said, I also have no problem raising the bar on immigration parameters to be more inline with what our allies do in their own countries, and greatly regulate asylum seekers. Maybe a work camp in south Texas until your papers are processed... a nice safe one where you work 8 hours a day for wages that are held in escrow until you are cleared. If not cleared, deported without the pay.

This is the way the world works. If the US does not make them a citizen, then other countries may not make them citizens either, creating a person who literally has no citizenship rights at all.

I knew a person like this but their circumstance was created from Nazi Germany. She was in a concentration camp and her parents were from the Ukraine. After the war was over and they let her out, the Ukraine refused her as a citizen because she was not born there. Germany refused her as a citizen because they did not practice birthright citizenship. It took many years, but eventually she made it to the US and became a citizen even though Nazi Germany was a s-hole country.

So there is a small problem which your and Trump's big change creates and because we value people, we should not make citizenless babies. So don't do it. Besides that, it's unconstitutional. He is not a king and cannot declare this by Executive Order.

Now, if you want to be more preventive about who you let in so that people won't be trying to get pregnant while here that is a different matter but you can't just implement ideological claptrap without thinking about consequences to children.

Sorry.

 

[Gun Nut]

There is a small problem for which this big change creates far too many more problems... That small problem is people who come to America pregnant, on a 30 day temporary "tourist" visa, and stay in a hotel next to a hospital, specifically expecting to give birth on American soil, for the explicit purpose of getting a US birth certificate for their newborn child.
Any such birth certificate should not be issued to a mother that is not a US citizen (assuming neither the DNA-confirmed father is), in my opinion.

But, just because someone legally migrated to the US, is no reason not to grant their newborn a US birth certificate, also in my opinion.

That said, I also have no problem raising the bar on immigration parameters to be more inline with what our allies do in their own countries, and greatly regulate asylum seekers. Maybe a work camp in south Texas until your papers are processed... a nice safe one where you work 8 hours a day for wages that are held in escrow until you are cleared. If not cleared, deported without the pay.

This is the way the world works. If the US does not make them a citizen, then other countries may not make them citizens either, creating a person who literally has no citizenship rights at all.

So it is your position that the US is the custodian of all the worlds children... The US is in charge and responsible for the rest of the world. Isn;t that what they say the reason for terrorism is?

I knew a person like this but their circumstance was created from Nazi Germany. She was in a concentration camp and her parents were from the Ukraine. After the war was over and they let her out, the Ukraine refused her as a citizen because she was not born there. Germany refused her as a citizen because they did not practice birthright citizenship. It took many years, but eventually she made it to the US and became a citizen even though Nazi Germany was a s-hole country.

This will be relevant sometime after the next world war. mark your calendar and get back to me then. Until then, please enjoy the movie "The Terminal", staring Tom Hanks. A man who lost his citizenship mid-flight is forever stuck at the airport, unable to get a visa, and without a country to return to. Fantastic movie (as is anything he is in).

So there is a small problem which your and Trump's big change creates and because we value people, we should not make citizenless babies. So don't do it. Besides that, it's unconstitutional. He is not a king and cannot declare this by Executive Order.

I have no idea what Trump thinks he wants to do (beside play the Dems into another loss, like he is doing). I think that moving forward, a baby's citizenship should match their mother's (or maybe the mother can choose between her own and the -DNA confirmed- father). that's it. No big change.

Now, if you want to be more preventive about who you let in so that people won't be trying to get pregnant while here that is a different matter but you can't just implement ideological claptrap without thinking about consequences to children.

Sorry.

So, then troops at the border shooting those who attempt to invade? That's your preference over aligning with pretty much the rest of the world in immigration policy?


Sorry if I did this wrong... fancy quoting.. crossing fingers....

 

[Loren Pechtel]

the current law is (as I understand it) the baby is automatically a US citizen in that case. That seems to be what should change. In what other country in the world can you get away with that? Whether the person is visiting here legally, or has moved here illegally, the child born here should not have any elevated status beyond the parent's status (visitor, or illegal alien).

Birther tourism isn't a serious problem, most of the women doing it are well-to-do. After all, otherwise they couldn't afford it. And note that many of the babies won't even come here--this is the parents preparing an escape hole if need be. China doesn't permit dual citizenship for adults but tolerates it for children--at IIRC 21 they have to choose which citizenship to keep.

 

[Deepak]

This is the way the world works. If the US does not make them a citizen, then other countries may not make them citizens either, creating a person who literally has no citizenship rights at all.

I knew a person like this but their circumstance was created from Nazi Germany. She was in a concentration camp and her parents were from the Ukraine. After the war was over and they let her out, the Ukraine refused her as a citizen because she was not born there. Germany refused her as a citizen because they did not practice birthright citizenship. It took many years, but eventually she made it to the US and became a citizen even though Nazi Germany was a s-hole country.

So there is a small problem which your and Trump's big change creates and because we value people, we should not make citizenless babies. So don't do it. Besides that, it's unconstitutional. He is not a king and cannot declare this by Executive Order.

Now, if you want to be more preventive about who you let in so that people won't be trying to get pregnant while here that is a different matter but you can't just implement ideological claptrap without thinking about consequences to children.

Sorry.

I agree that the government should not be in the business of creating stateless people, but I don't think this would be a common scenario even if citizenship rules were revised. Most countries extend citizenship to children born abroad to citizen parents, and this isn't generally a problem elsewhere in the world - say to Chileans delivering a baby while vacationing in Vietnam or Sweden.

Identifying situations where someone would be stateless and dealing with the injustice of that specific situation is probably a better way to handle these circumstances than trying to write a general law, especially when the laws in another country could change at the whim of an autocrat. As in your example, these cases usually crop up as the product of wars, but are incredibly rare in peacetime save for people who choose to renounce all citizenship (a la Nietzsche)

 

[PyramidHead]

Given what the immigrants are fleeing from and why they are fleeing, the United States should offer complete amnesty and full citizenship to anybody who crosses our border from there. Our policies helped transform many of those countries into what they are today. If anybody should have to contribute to cleaning up the human mess left in the wake of US imperialism, it's the US.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Given what the immigrants are fleeing from and why they are fleeing, the United States should offer complete amnesty and full citizenship to anybody who crosses our border from there. Our policies helped transform many of those countries into what they are today. If anybody should have to contribute to cleaning up the human mess left in the wake of US imperialism, it's the US.

Shouldn't Russia take most of the responsibility? Besides, they need the people.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

There is a small problem for which this big change creates far too many more problems... That small problem is people who come to America pregnant, on a 30 day temporary "tourist" visa, and stay in a hotel next to a hospital, specifically expecting to give birth on American soil, for the explicit purpose of getting a US birth certificate for their newborn child.
Any such birth certificate should not be issued to a mother that is not a US citizen (assuming neither the DNA-confirmed father is), in my opinion.

But, just because someone legally migrated to the US, is no reason not to grant their newborn a US birth certificate, also in my opinion.

That said, I also have no problem raising the bar on immigration parameters to be more inline with what our allies do in their own countries, and greatly regulate asylum seekers. Maybe a work camp in south Texas until your papers are processed... a nice safe one where you work 8 hours a day for wages that are held in escrow until you are cleared. If not cleared, deported without the pay.

What is the legal status if they illegal enter the US and have that baby on US soil? Is the baby a US citizen then too under the law as it now is?

the current law is (as I understand it) the baby is automatically a US citizen in that case. That seems to be what should change. In what other country in the world can you get away with that? Whether the person is visiting here legally, or has moved here illegally, the child born here should not have any elevated status beyond the parent's status (visitor, or illegal alien).

That is the law over here as well, and in the vast majority of countries in the Americas. It is unusual in countries that aren't in the Americas.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

the current law is (as I understand it) the baby is automatically a US citizen in that case. That seems to be what should change. In what other country in the world can you get away with that? Whether the person is visiting here legally, or has moved here illegally, the child born here should not have any elevated status beyond the parent's status (visitor, or illegal alien).

A quick google search showed that it's the same in Canada and France, but not Britain. Then I got bored and didn't search for any other countries. It doesn't seem to be an uncommon law, though.

a more extensive google search indicates you are wrong. The only countries in the world with "advanced economies" (IOW, non-shitholes), are the US and Canada. The term, apparently, is "Jus soli" (right of the soil). as opposed to "Jus sanguinis" (right of the blood). Besides France being a shithole country (well, I never been there personally, but 100% of the french people I have met in my life were complete pieces of shit), it in fact does not have Jus Soli.

Do you think Costa Rica, Chile and Uruguay are shit holes?
If so, I would ask how you assess whether a country is a shit hole.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

the current law is (as I understand it) the baby is automatically a US citizen in that case. That seems to be what should change. In what other country in the world can you get away with that? Whether the person is visiting here legally, or has moved here illegally, the child born here should not have any elevated status beyond the parent's status (visitor, or illegal alien).

That is the law over here as well, and in the vast majority of countries in the Americas. It is unusual in countries that aren't in the Americas.

Understandable since the Euros are overcrowded and the "New World" needs immigrants. While some in the US are bitching and moaning, Canada, which is the same size as the US but about a tenth of the US population needs people.

 

[PyramidHead]

Shouldn't Russia take most of the responsibility? Besides, they need the people.

First: the poor and desperate who are trying to escape the chaos of their home countries shouldn't be tabulated against which country needs the people. This is a humanitarian crisis, not an occasion for moving humans around like chips on a table.

Second: Russia was not complicit in the US atrocities that toppled South and Central American governments, crippled their economies, overruled the will of their voters, bombed their water supplies, tortured their political dissidents, and installed brutal dictators to protect US interests. That immigrants from the south even consider America as a viable place to establish a home for themselves after all the manipulation and bloodshed our government directly participated in over the last century should remind us how few options these people really have. In a very real sense, a good portion of the riches that have accumulated in this country due to the growth of enterprise through the military-industrial complex was siphoned off of the livelihoods of entire nations below the equator. They are entitled to a portion of that ill-gotten wealth whether we want to admit it or not.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Shouldn't Russia take most of the responsibility? Besides, they need the people.

First: the poor and desperate who are trying to escape the chaos of their home countries shouldn't be tabulated against which country needs the people. This is a humanitarian crisis, not an occasion for moving humans around like chips on a table.

Second: Russia was not complicit in the US atrocities that toppled South and Central American governments, crippled their economies, overruled the will of their voters, bombed their water supplies, tortured their political dissidents, and installed brutal dictators to protect US interests. That immigrants from the south even consider America as a viable place to establish a home for themselves after all the manipulation and bloodshed our government directly participated in over the last century should remind us how few options these people really have. In a very real sense, a good portion of the riches that have accumulated in this country due to the growth of enterprise through the military-industrial complex was siphoned off of the livelihoods of entire nations below the equator. They are entitled to a portion of that ill-gotten wealth whether we want to admit it or not.

You're wrong about the USSR, but I can see why you favor them and want to focus solely on the actions of the US during the Cold War.

 

[Politesse]

Given what the immigrants are fleeing from and why they are fleeing, the United States should offer complete amnesty and full citizenship to anybody who crosses our border from there. Our policies helped transform many of those countries into what they are today. If anybody should have to contribute to cleaning up the human mess left in the wake of US imperialism, it's the US.

Shouldn't Russia take most of the responsibility? Besides, they need the people.

Last I looked, Russia did not much in Haiti. We militarily invaded them twice, occupied them for decades, manipulate the Caribbean market to keep them poor to our advantage, have propped up dictator after dictator, and still have one of our ruling families pulling the strings behind their current authoritarian government. But yeah, I guess "both sides" fucked Haiti somehow?

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Given what the immigrants are fleeing from and why they are fleeing, the United States should offer complete amnesty and full citizenship to anybody who crosses our border from there. Our policies helped transform many of those countries into what they are today. If anybody should have to contribute to cleaning up the human mess left in the wake of US imperialism, it's the US.

Shouldn't Russia take most of the responsibility? Besides, they need the people.

Last I looked, Russia did not much in Haiti. We militarily invaded them twice, occupied them for decades, manipulate the Caribbean market to keep them poor to our advantage, have propped up dictator after dictator, and still have one of our ruling families pulling the strings behind their current authoritarian government. But yeah, I guess "both sides" fucked Haiti somehow?

He was referencing the Cold War and both South and Central American countries where the Soviets (and their puppet state Cuba) tried to export Marxism. You are correct about Haiti, but that too was related to the Cold War....unless you're going back 80 years to the Banana Wars. How far back should anti-Americans be allowed to go when slamming the US and does this apply to Europe, Russia, Japan and other nations with sordid pasts?

 

[PyramidHead]

Last I looked, Russia did not much in Haiti. We militarily invaded them twice, occupied them for decades, manipulate the Caribbean market to keep them poor to our advantage, have propped up dictator after dictator, and still have one of our ruling families pulling the strings behind their current authoritarian government. But yeah, I guess "both sides" fucked Haiti somehow?

He was referencing the Cold War and both South and Central American countries where the Soviets (and their puppet state Cuba) tried to export Marxism. You are correct about Haiti, but that too was related to the Cold War....unless you're going back 80 years to the Banana Wars. How far back should anti-Americans be allowed to go when slamming the US and does this apply to Europe, Russia, Japan and other nations with sordid pasts?

It's funny how "anti-American" as a pejorative is used in this country without any irony, and not immediately met with laughter on all sides. If somebody in Italy criticized the current or prior Italian leadership and was called "anti-Italian" there would be eyes rolling and heads shaking up and down the streets of Rome and Milan. This is because such phrases are usually reserved for totalitarian states. Yet, here, we haven't yet gotten to the point where it's commonplace to point this out.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Being called anti-Canadian means that you only showed a base level of politeness and courtesy as opposed to actively going out of your way to be polite to people.

Fuckers like that can just leave the damn country and go back to where they came from. We don't need their kind around here.

 

[Politesse]

Last I looked, Russia did not much in Haiti. We militarily invaded them twice, occupied them for decades, manipulate the Caribbean market to keep them poor to our advantage, have propped up dictator after dictator, and still have one of our ruling families pulling the strings behind their current authoritarian government. But yeah, I guess "both sides" fucked Haiti somehow?

He was referencing the Cold War and both South and Central American countries where the Soviets (and their puppet state Cuba) tried to export Marxism. You are correct about Haiti, but that too was related to the Cold War....unless you're going back 80 years to the Banana Wars. How far back should anti-Americans be allowed to go when slamming the US and does this apply to Europe, Russia, Japan and other nations with sordid pasts?

Believing that we should be responsible for our actions does not make me "anti-American"; I believe the same about everyone I respect. I can't answer for Russia's immigration policies, but I have a right and a responsibility to weigh in on ours.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Last I looked, Russia did not much in Haiti. We militarily invaded them twice, occupied them for decades, manipulate the Caribbean market to keep them poor to our advantage, have propped up dictator after dictator, and still have one of our ruling families pulling the strings behind their current authoritarian government. But yeah, I guess "both sides" fucked Haiti somehow?

He was referencing the Cold War and both South and Central American countries where the Soviets (and their puppet state Cuba) tried to export Marxism. You are correct about Haiti, but that too was related to the Cold War....unless you're going back 80 years to the Banana Wars. How far back should anti-Americans be allowed to go when slamming the US and does this apply to Europe, Russia, Japan and other nations with sordid pasts?

Believing that we should be responsible for our actions does not make me "anti-American"; I believe the same about everyone I respect. I can't answer for Russia's immigration policies, but I have a right and a responsibility to weigh in on ours.

Of course we should be responsible for our actions. I'm just curious why you and others hold only the US responsible while giving the Soviets a pass.

 

[bilby]

Believing that we should be responsible for our actions does not make me "anti-American"; I believe the same about everyone I respect. I can't answer for Russia's immigration policies, but I have a right and a responsibility to weigh in on ours.

Of course we should be responsible for our actions. I'm just curious why you and others hold only the US responsible while giving the Soviets a pass.

The Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991. What sanctions do you think we could possibly impose on that nation today? What recompense, restitution or compensation could we reasonably expect from them?

Nations don't even have graves on which we might piss.

 

[Politesse]

Believing that we should be responsible for our actions does not make me "anti-American"; I believe the same about everyone I respect. I can't answer for Russia's immigration policies, but I have a right and a responsibility to weigh in on ours.

Of course we should be responsible for our actions. I'm just curious why you and others hold only the US responsible while giving the Soviets a pass.

I'm baffled as to why you think I am. Believe me, I am no friend of Putin or his cronies, let alone the former Soviet Socialist Republic. They just aren't very relevant to the immediate topic at hand, unless you think they could be convinced to accept a larger number of economic migrants.

 

[bilby]

Believing that we should be responsible for our actions does not make me "anti-American"; I believe the same about everyone I respect. I can't answer for Russia's immigration policies, but I have a right and a responsibility to weigh in on ours.

Of course we should be responsible for our actions. I'm just curious why you and others hold only the US responsible while giving the Soviets a pass.

I'm baffled as to why you think I am. Believe me, I am no friend of Putin or his cronies, let alone the former Soviet Socialist Republic. They just aren't very relevant to the immediate topic at hand, unless you think they could be convinced to accept a larger number of economic migrants.

Actually, that's a great idea - lets send all asylum seekers to places that no longer exist. Siam and Prussia haven't taken their share yet, nor have Mesopotamia, Sumer or Rhodesia. So if the USSR won't take them, there's still lots of options.