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

[LordKiran]

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.

So more than one person here sucks at Heuristics. Your counter-argument amounts to pointlessly nit-picking the particular words used as a derail rather than addressing the argument proper.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

Endlessly repeating your claim that a normal corporation is a dictatorship doesn't make it true. And if the rights of one cannot supersede the rights of another, that makes who is the few and who is the many irrelevant. When a CEO wishes to employ me and I wish to work for her, and you and a million of your ideological buddies stop me, that's the rights of you superseding the rights of me. So if it's true that the rights of one cannot supersede the rights of another, that means you have no right to stop us from swapping my labor for her money. It's no more of your bloody business whether she runs her company by employee vote than it's your business whether we eat gluten. She and I are consenting adults.

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.

Of for the love of god. You say that as though the many would choose to stop burning carbon if only the evil oil companies would quit forcing them off their bicycles. Of course the few have a serious alternative plan. The many are choosing to drive over an environmental cliff as fast as possible because the many persist in fear-mongering one another into obstructing the alternative plan of the few, even though it's the only plausible way of avoiding the cliff: nuclear power.

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".

There's no law against humble employee owned and run businesses. People would already have that option now if a humble employee owned and run business really were an effective way to cause employees to make more money. People choose to work for shareholders' boards of directors because, other things equal, shareholders' boards of directors pay better than employees' co-ops. You cannot magic humble employee owned and run businesses into being more efficient and productive than they are. If you ever cause them to pay better than normal companies it will be by coercing the normal companies to pay employees less. And you do not have a right to order a CEO to pay me less than she and I agree to, because the rights of you cannot supersede the rights of me.

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"?

No and no. We don't give Belgians the right to vote in American elections, and we don't call voting in American elections a "human right". If it were a human right then we'd let Belgians do it. [Floor now open for quips about whether "human" includes Belgians.]

"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.

Certainly. That's why "anchor baby" isn't a legal term. That doesn't mean there's no such thing as an "anchor baby". "Gay" isn't a legal term either, for the excellent reason that all citizens are equal under the law, but that's no reason to delude yourself into thinking there's no such thing as a gay person.

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

If there is no such sociological term as "anchor baby", that means one of two things. Either it means sociologists have a technical vocabulary that distinguishes several varieties of anchor baby, making "anchor baby" as redundant a term to them as "cavity" is to dentists. Or else it means sociologists are refusing to examine a sociological topic for ideological reasons.

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.

But it also incentivizes more people to cut in line. The public's willingness to accept more immigrants isn't unlimited; if they don't stop people from cutting in line then they'll accept fewer people who wait their turn. An illegal immigrant is taking a spot from a legal immigrant. So if the goal is to do the humane thing then we should be accepting whichever applicant is most in need, not whichever non-applicant happens to be in the right place in geography and in her biological clock to manipulate the system.

 

[untermensche]

Endlessly repeating your claim that a normal corporation is a dictatorship doesn't make it true.

No. The rigid top-down power structure inherent to corporations makes them dictatorships.

There is nothing "normal" about a modern corporation. It is a sick immoral and destructive institution. One that should be eliminated like slavery was eliminated.

And if the rights of one cannot supersede the rights of another, that makes who is the few and who is the many irrelevant.

It makes things like wage slavery immoral.

Which is using prevailing economic conditions to pay humans as little as possible for their labor.

When a CEO wishes to employ me and I wish to work for her, and you and a million of your ideological buddies stop me, that's the rights of you superseding the rights of me.

You would be free to be a stupid worm in my system and submit to any great dictator you could find.

But when humans are given a real choice between freedom and being the tool of another rational humans pick freedom.

Give humans a generation of living without petty dictators in the workplace and anybody who tried to make themselves one would be subject to ridicule and scorn. Laughed at.

Of for the love of god. You say that as though the many would choose to stop burning carbon if only the evil oil companies would quit forcing them off their bicycles.

I went to a lecture in 1985 given by Carl Sagan. The science of climate change was well established at that time.

What the power of these dictatorships has done since is prevent humanity from doing anything serious to address the problem in the last 32 years. Through control of government so-called representatives who represent the wealth of corporations, not people.

We have been forced to not address the problem. Forced to endure politicians who claim there is no problem.

To deny corporations are a huge problem driving the species towards extinction is to be about as blind as possible.

 

[repoman]

hmmm, corporations are using the Huxley strategy not the Orwell strategy very well. Entertaining us to death. I think that entertaining media (and ghastly human interest tragedies) is part of the reason that people are distracted from the environment - as evidenced by the ignoring of my thread about running out of resources. We are all entertained into a happy coma or even a happily outraged coma - as if even if Sanders was president we would not be still draining our resource base.

I watched Koyaanisqatsi from 1982, it looks all so drab. No one on the Huxley-box cell phones distractions. I was a kid then, people we really concerned about the earth.


The 1970s dystopian media sure has changed.

In 1972 the report "The Limits to Growth" was released and no one cares about it now.

The best website for you untermensche is http://collapseofindustrialcivilization.com. One of the posters there is so intense he makes you seem tame.

The poster is James and this is a good article he posted on:

https://collapseofindustrialcivilization.com/2014/03/27/the-biophysics-of-civilization-money-energy-and-the-inevitability-of-collapse/#comments

 

[untermensche]

I am tame.

My views are run of the mill.

We all know at a very early age that dictatorships are not good.

But the necessities of life drives that knowledge out of many very quickly.

 

[dismal]

I am tame.

My views are run of the mill.

Also, your self-awareness is extraordinary.

 

[untermensche]

I am tame.

My views are run of the mill.

Also, your self-awareness is extraordinary.

It's just that your indoctrination is so extreme.

Simple ideas like dictatorships are destructive seem radical.

 

[repoman]

Are you trying to say that corporations are mad at Trump taking away all of the balloons and confetti from capitalism (really corporatism) and exposing it as fascism?

 

[ronburgundy]

I am not trying to talk about what it right or wrong or what we think about this topic now. I think this should mostly be restricted to before 1900 or so, with most focus on the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment.

I have heard in many places the assertion in the title question I posted. But like many assertions it may not be very true or only a portion of the picture.

Was the intention of the most likely very racist (even against Irish, Italians and Eastern Europeans) politicians at the time of
the 14th amendment to allow illegal aliens to have citizen children? Or is this a happy accident?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause

"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."

It seems very plausible that they realized and accepted that it would lead to citizen children of non-citizen "illegal" parents, given how absurd, unjust and inconsistent with the principle of individual rights that it would be to not grant them citizenship.

A child born in the US does not change in any of its properties or actions as a person, depending upon the citizenship status of their parents. To punish a child by refusing it citizenship if its parents are not legal residents is to punish them based solely on the "crimes" of their parents despite zero differences between them as an individual person and those granted citizenship. Thus, not granting citizenship to every and all children born within US borders means a basic failure to treat individuals equally under the law. Only those with a Biblical pre-Enlightenment mentality would find that acceptable.

Even though many of these founders may have been bigots against some immigrant groups, most of them likely had far more intellect and human decency than any of the Breitbart fanboys who want to change this principle (it would be nearly impossible to have any less of these traits).

BTW, I had never actually seen an article by Breitbart on this issue before I wrote the above, but was near certain they had. Having just googled it, I wan't disappointed.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/07/06/fourteenth-amendment-empowers-congress-to-end-birthright-citizenship/

 

[LordKiran]

Are you trying to say that corporations are mad at Trump taking away all of the balloons and confetti from capitalism (really corporatism) and exposing it as fascism?

View attachment 10360

For that to be capitalism requires it be a Nike(?) shoe, Levi jeans, and Fruit of the Loom socks.

 

[Malintent]

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.

What is your objection to anchor babies?

well first of all, they really suck at being anchors. No matter how many of those little shits I throw overboard, they just get dragged along the seabed.

 

[repoman]

Should all or most other countries of the world, including Switzerland, Israel and Saudi Arabia have the same birthright citizenship law as the United States?

Is the exception of children borne to diplomats on US soil fair?

 

[ZiprHead]

well first of all, they really suck at being anchors. No matter how many of those little shits I throw overboard, they just get dragged along the seabed.

Use toddlers. They're better at grabbing rocks and plant life.

 

[Malintent]

Genius! That worked perfectly... it took 2 dozen of them, but those grabby little fucks did the job!

 

[Bomb#20]

It seems very plausible that they realized and accepted that it would lead to citizen children of non-citizen "illegal" parents, given how absurd, unjust and inconsistent with the principle of individual rights that it would be to not grant them citizenship.

A child born in the US does not change in any of its properties or actions as a person, depending upon the citizenship status of their parents. To punish a child by refusing it citizenship if its parents are not legal residents is to punish them based solely on the "crimes" of their parents despite zero differences between them as an individual person and those granted citizenship. Thus, not granting citizenship to every and all children born within US borders means a basic failure to treat individuals equally under the law. Only those with a Biblical pre-Enlightenment mentality would find that acceptable.

Well, pre-Enlightenment anyway. There isn't much correlation with Biblical. Nearly the whole world outside the Americas determines citizenship based on who the parents are.

(Source)

 

[Playball40]

What?

Keep in mind the Constitution is a living document so it needn't always say what it actually says.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

What?

Keep in mind the Constitution is a living document so it needn't always say what it actually says.

I suggest you read my exchange with him.