Is birthright citizenship in the US an overcorrection to the end of slavery?

[Bomb#20]

Seriously? You have a problem with giving citizenship to people born here?

What? Do you want to have a race-check requirement added on our something?

He wants a were-your-parents-here-legally check added. You knew that, didn't you?

A requirement that the parents jump through hoops and fill out forms in triplicate for twenty years?

Yep, you knew that.

And how can we redefine citizenship to deny it to you? I get the feeling you don't like living in an immigrant nation. Maybe you should just leave and go back to whatever country your immigrant ancestors came from.

Derec's immigrant ancestors came here?

 

[barbos]

So what was the rationale for that birthright thing back then?
I know anchor babies became somewhat popular among rich russians, even the one who are anti-american in their day-job (member of parlaments, governmental critters and politicians in general)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You mean unhappy accident?

The situation in the 19th century was very different. I have no doubt those who wrote the amendment did not intend it to generate "anchor babies" for illegals.

But the amendment doesn't generate anchor babies. What it says is all about babies, nothing about anchors. Anchor babies are generated by us not having the balls to say "Your baby can stay; you can't.".

You misspelled "legal standing".

 

[J842P]

But the amendment doesn't generate anchor babies. What it says is all about babies, nothing about anchors. Anchor babies are generated by us not having the balls to say "Your baby can stay; you can't.".

You misspelled "legal standing".

I'm pretty sure they *do* have the legal standing to kick parents out but not the kids. In fact, I'm pretty sure this already happens.

 

[untermensche]

Those ain't "anchor babies".

Those are citizens with as much rights as any other citizen.

Why this hatred towards our fellow citizens?

Which citizens will you decide to hate next?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You misspelled "legal standing".

I'm pretty sure they *do* have the legal standing to kick parents out but not the kids. In fact, I'm pretty sure this already happens.

You know what, I completely missed the 't. My bad.

 

[repoman]

I should have put this into General World History. I was trying to have a mellow discussion about the question in thread title.

 

[untermensche]

"Over correction" is always going to be a subjective term.

What was the proper correction?

Who says so?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"Over correction" is always going to be a subjective term.

What was the proper correction?

Who says so?

Sometimes you can measure what was right. I'm playing Kerbal Space Program. The game has a bug with Kerbals on EVA. Turn the jetpack way down and tell the Kerbal to aim forward. The burn to stop rotation occurs too late resulting in overcorrection. Back and forth and back and forth. The only way to fix it is to take the jetpack out of precision mode.

Thus we have a clear case where it's not subjective, your argument fails.

 

[untermensche]

"Over correction" is always going to be a subjective term.

What was the proper correction?

Who says so?

Sometimes you can measure what was right. I'm playing Kerbal Space Program. The game has a bug with Kerbals on EVA. Turn the jetpack way down and tell the Kerbal to aim forward. The burn to stop rotation occurs too late resulting in overcorrection. Back and forth and back and forth. The only way to fix it is to take the jetpack out of precision mode.

Thus we have a clear case where it's not subjective, your argument fails.

Are you talking about some video game?

When the issue is Constitutional rights?

And the "over correction" is ONLY referring to correcting the rights of humans within a society?

A video game?

 

[fast]

Sometimes you can measure what was right. I'm playing Kerbal Space Program. The game has a bug with Kerbals on EVA. Turn the jetpack way down and tell the Kerbal to aim forward. The burn to stop rotation occurs too late resulting in overcorrection. Back and forth and back and forth. The only way to fix it is to take the jetpack out of precision mode.

Thus we have a clear case where it's not subjective, your argument fails.

Are you talking about some video game?

When the issue is Constitutional rights?

And the "over correction" is ONLY referring to correcting the rights of humans within a society?

A video game?

You're the one that said, "always." He could have used another example (oh say, over correcting on a curve after a tire goes off the pavement ... next thing ya know, the car is in the ditch on the opposite side the road pointing in another direction ... and all occupants found dead, from the interim collision with a tree. An example involving a less serious issue is no left effective in demonstrating what it's used to do. Again, you're the one (you, you, you) that said, "always."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sometimes you can measure what was right. I'm playing Kerbal Space Program. The game has a bug with Kerbals on EVA. Turn the jetpack way down and tell the Kerbal to aim forward. The burn to stop rotation occurs too late resulting in overcorrection. Back and forth and back and forth. The only way to fix it is to take the jetpack out of precision mode.

Thus we have a clear case where it's not subjective, your argument fails.

Are you talking about some video game?

When the issue is Constitutional rights?

And the "over correction" is ONLY referring to correcting the rights of humans within a society?

A video game?

You didn't restrict it to rights of humans in society, you just said that overcorrection is always subjective. I gave a very clear case where it was objective.

- - - Updated - - -

You're the one that said, "always." He could have used another example (oh say, over correcting on a curve after a tire goes off the pavement ... next thing ya know, the car is in the ditch on the opposite side the road pointing in another direction ... and all occupants found dead, from the interim collision with a tree. An example involving a less serious issue is no left effective in demonstrating what it's used to do. Again, you're the one (you, you, you) that said, "always."

Yeah, I just used that one because I had Kerbal Space Program open in another window while I was writing it.

I'm sure you could find plenty of overcorrection while driving videos on YouTube.

 

[untermensche]

Are you talking about some video game?

When the issue is Constitutional rights?

And the "over correction" is ONLY referring to correcting the rights of humans within a society?

A video game?

You didn't restrict it to rights of humans in society, you just said that overcorrection is always subjective. I gave a very clear case where it was objective.

You gave some childish nonsense.

A stupidity.

An inability to understand context.

These things don't need to be spelled out to adults.

So again: If one claims some human right is an "over correction", what exactly is the objective standard to decide what the proper correction should be?

Should not human rights extend as far as possible?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You didn't restrict it to rights of humans in society, you just said that overcorrection is always subjective. I gave a very clear case where it was objective.

You gave some childish nonsense.

A stupidity.

An inability to understand context.

These things don't need to be spelled out to adults.

So again: If one claims some human right is an "over correction", what exactly is the objective standard to decide what the proper correction should be?

Should not human rights extend as far as possible?

I'm not the only one who saw your statement as general.

 

[Bomb#20]

So again: If one claims some human right is an "over correction", what exactly is the objective standard to decide what the proper correction should be?

Should not human rights extend as far as possible?

"As far as possible" is not a well-defined criterion. Extending one right has the potential to reduce the extension of some other right. You've heard the saying "Your right to swing your fist ends at someone else's nose."? Do you think your right to swing your fist should extend further than that? If it extends as far as possible then it will certainly extend into someone else's nose.

As to whether "anchor babies" have a "human right" to stay in America, that's not really consistent with U.S. law. Our law is that a child born here has the right to stay, unless she's the child of foreigners with diplomatic immunity. If she is, then her parents have to take her with them when their diplomatic status expires and they're sent home. That's pretty incompatible with the notion that every human has a human right to live in the country she's born in; and it's not a baby's fault that her parents are diplomats. If you think an anchor baby has a human right to stay, as opposed to a mere Constitutional right, what's your argument?

 

[untermensche]

You gave some childish nonsense.

A stupidity.

An inability to understand context.

These things don't need to be spelled out to adults.

So again: If one claims some human right is an "over correction", what exactly is the objective standard to decide what the proper correction should be?

Should not human rights extend as far as possible?

I'm not the only one who saw your statement as general.

Two bad readings do not equal a good one.

 

[untermensche]

So again: If one claims some human right is an "over correction", what exactly is the objective standard to decide what the proper correction should be?

Should not human rights extend as far as possible?

"As far as possible" is not a well-defined criterion.

It's a perfectly understandable goal.

It contains within it many things that need specific definition.

Extending one right has the potential to reduce the extension of some other right.

This is completely understood and changes nothing.

As to whether "anchor babies" have a "human right" to stay in America, that's not really consistent with U.S. law.

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Rights granted to humans are human rights. There is no such thing as an "anchor baby". There are just adult babies that have irrational and totally unfounded fears of children and their parents.

We could extend this right to say that all citizens have the right to keep their parents with them in this country until legal age. Or forever, which is what we should do.

We could extend these human rights if we wanted to.

We are in charge. We can grant whatever rights that can be reasonably protected.

 

[J842P]

I should have put this into General World History. I was trying to have a mellow discussion about the question in thread title.

Oh, please.

 

[Bomb#20]

"As far as possible" is not a well-defined criterion.

It's a perfectly understandable goal.

It contains within it many things that need specific definition.

Extending one right has the potential to reduce the extension of some other right.

This is completely understood and changes nothing.

It shows "As far as possible" is not a perfectly understandable goal. You can say that's your goal, and this provides your listener with no understanding as to whether your goal is to extend your right to swing your fist into someone else's nose, or alternately to extend someone else's right to exclude your fist from his nose out to six feet from his nose. If you won't say which specific rights you mean to extend as far as possible, then when you say your goal is to extend rights as far as possible, you're saying nothing.

(Of course we've already heard you expound elsewhere on some of the details. For instance, we know your goal is to strip people of the right to accept a wage-paying job from anyone you choose to label a "dictator". It seems the right you primarily want to extend as far as possible is your right to run other people's lives for them.)

Rights granted to humans are human rights.

Normally "human right" is understood to mean a right of all humans, or at least all humans who haven't done something to forfeit it. When my wife's father granted her the right to drive his car and he put her name on the registration and he gave her a copy of the car key, that doesn't mean driving my wife's father's car is a "human right", even though it's a right granted to her and she's a human. He wasn't granting you the right to drive his car.

There is no such thing as an "anchor baby".

Sure there is. Meaning is determined by use. "Anchor baby" is used to mean a baby whose parents use her as a metaphorical anchor to game the immigration system of a host country.

We could extend this right to say that all citizens have the right to keep their parents with them in this country until legal age. Or forever, which is what we should do.

We certainly could. Do you have an argument for why we should?

 

[untermensche]

It shows "As far as possible" is not a perfectly understandable goal. You can say that's your goal, and this provides your listener with no understanding as to whether your goal is to extend your right to swing your fist into someone else's nose, or alternately to extend someone else's right to exclude your fist from his nose out to six feet from his nose. If you won't say which specific rights you mean to extend as far as possible, then when you say your goal is to extend rights as far as possible, you're saying nothing.

It is changing nothing in terms of the extent of an individuals rights.

The rights of one cannot supersede the rights of another.

But that is not the current system.

In the current system of top down dictatorships the rights of the few supersede the rights of the many.

The many are being forced to drive over an environmental cliff as fast as possible with no serious alternative plans by the few. In fact what we are getting is FAKE SCIENCE to pretend the problem does not even exist.

So it is entirely possible to increase the rights of the many so that the few cannot destroy the species with their greed.

For instance, we know your goal is to strip people of the right to accept a wage-paying job from anyone you choose to label a "dictator".

I want to give people a real option between working for some great dictator or working for a humble employee owned and run business making more money and having more say. A real say. Not a dictators say; "You are allowed to give me suggestions. I will consider them".

My bet is there will be many hungry want-to-be dictators.

Rights granted to humans are human rights.

Normally "human right" is understood to mean a right of all humans, or at least all humans who haven't done something to forfeit it.

Do we give all humans the rights we give citizens?

Don't we call these rights "human rights"?

"Anchor baby" is used to mean a baby whose parents use her as a metaphorical anchor to game the immigration system of a host country.

The parents of citizens are immaterial. All citizens are equal under the law.

There is no such legal term or sociological term as "anchor baby".

There is citizen and non-citizen only.

Do you have an argument for why we should?

Of course. It is the humane thing to do. To allow children to have their parents close.