Citizenship at Birth

[Professor S]

An increasing issue at the center of the US citizenship debate is the 14th amendment that grants citizenship to anyone born within the borders of the United States. The US is one of the few developed countries that offers this benefit of location (other notable nations include Canada, Brazil and Romania) and many believe that it encourages neighbor citizens (mainly Mexican) to cross the border to give birth, an unintended consequence of the amendment (initially intended to guarantee the rights of freed slaves). This leads to many complications in managing immigration, creating what some call "Anchor Babies".

What are your thoughts on potentially repealing this amendment? Before rushing to judgement on what you think my opinion is or my motivations in posting this, I'm undecided. At the very most I think this is the least important part of immigration debate.

[manasecret]

At the very most I think this is the least important part of immigration debate.

This is my opinion. This isn't the root problem. Fix illegal immigration, and the issue all but disappears.

Question: If citizenship isn't granted simply when you're born here, what are the criteria?

[Typhoid]

The entire problem is with illegal immigration.
If you stop people from illegally entering your country, then you wouldn't need to fix the birth right.

It just seems like a shitty solution. A very shitty solution.

"We still have many people coming into our country illegally, giving birth to a child [whether intentional or not] and that child is a US citizen. How can we fix this?"

"Well...we can make it so that anyone born here isn't a citizen."

"Even children of people who are citizens, or legally move here?"

"Yes. That'll get those damn Mexicans to stop coming here."

"Wait, why can't we just fix immigration instead of removing everyones right to be a citizen because of a handful [in the scheme of things] of people?"


If you don't want people going illegally to the country, stop them from entering. Don't remove 1 of the incentives.

[TheGame]

If you don't want people going illegally to the country, stop them from entering. Don't remove 1 of the incentives.

How are we supposed to stop it though? I agree that stopping them is a bigger problem, but it's not as easy as removing incentives. We're a huge county bordering two other huge countries with two huge coastlines. There is no way that every single inch of the border can be watched 24/7. So no matter how you slice it, illegals ARE going to get in. So how things are managed on our land once they get here is just as important as trying to stop them.

[Typhoid]

There is no way that every single inch of the border can be watched 24/7.


I'd argue that all that needs to be watched is obviously the southern US. I mean, that's honestly all this is about - Mexicans and Cubans getting into the US illegally. No [not many, at least] Canadians would be illegally defecting to the US to have a child in order for American healthcare. I think your northern border is essentially safe in that aspect.

I'd also argue no illegal immigrants should be coming from Asia, or overseas by large boat or crate. If they are - that's up to the port authority to check each shipment to make sure that A) There are no people inside it for whatever reason and B) He's doing his job. Shipments should be checked.

This just leaves us with the border directly above Mexico, and the coastal waters of the gulf.

Now, It wouldn't be hard for the US to establish cameras, stations, and employ people to watch that border. Afterall, it does create more jobs, aswell. Two birds.

Then that leaves us with people who float over from Cuba, which I will agree, would be hard to deal with.

I just think in principle it's stupid to remove the citizenship to a person born there. Regardless if the parents got there illegally, the child had nothing to do with that. The child was born inside of your borders, therefore being the only place that child has ever been, making that child [in this case] American.

"How do we stop people from illegally trafficiking cocaine into the US without actually having to put in effort to catch the people committing the crimes?"
"Uhh...make it....legal to traffick?"

[Professor S]

I don't think anyone is talking about removing citizenship, only stopping the practices of granting it to non-citizen born children because they were born in the US. And I have to agree that there is no way to watch or protect the US border 24/7.

I used to be a proponent of amnesty, but with how minimum wage has become a living wage and continued expansion of welfare benefits/entitlements I don't think its realistic anymore if we don't want the system to collapse on itself once 15 million illegals are given citizenship and guaranteed those entitlements.

In the end, that leaves a guest worker option as the only real solution. and that is just a modern version of a class based labor system. Ugh.

[TheGame]

It's not like the US hasn't been trying for ages to stop people from crossing that border.. And they have been trying to do it by force without getting rid of any of the incentives for someone to come across that line. I'm open to a different approach.

Also, even if there was some new berlin wall built down there with a millitary post every half mile to stop people from going over the border by land, people WILL find a way to go by sea. Where there's a will, there's a way.

[Typhoid]

Also, even if there was some new berlin wall built down there with a millitary post every half mile to stop people from going over the border by land, people WILL find a way to go by sea.

That's no excuse to punish the children born in the country because their parents broke the law. The children did nothing wrong. It's not their fault.

And yes, I do understand that removing that will take away incentive for poor families to go there - but it really spreads a horrible image about the country as a whole.

The fact is, I honestly don't think the vast majority of people are having kids in the US because of health care [considering they will most likely be from poor countries, and have no way to pay for it anyways, but I'm not saying it isn't a factor] - rather are going there because their country blows so much in comparison that they want to start a new life, in a new place, with new opportunity. You know, the whole idea that North America was practically founded on.

[TheGame]

That's no excuse to punish the children born in the country because their parents broke the law. The children did nothing wrong. It's not their fault.

And yes, I do understand that removing that will take away incentive for poor families to go there - but it really spreads a horrible image about the country as a whole.

The fact is, I honestly don't think the vast majority of people are having kids in the US because of health care [considering they will most likely be from poor countries, and have no way to pay for it anyways, but I'm not saying it isn't a factor] - rather are going there because their country blows so much in comparison that they want to start a new life, in a new place, with new opportunity. You know, the whole idea that North America was practically founded on.

So in your opinion, is illegal immigration even an issue? Because that post makes it sound like you don't really want it to stop, or like you're unwilling to take the proper steps to prevent it.

[Typhoid]

So in your opinion, is illegal immigration even an issue? Because that post makes it sound like you don't really want it to stop, or like you're unwilling to take the proper steps to prevent it.


Uhh...what.

I haven't said anything about agreeing with illegal immigration.
I can only assume you're saying that I might agree with it because I haven't said I disagreed with it.

So while I'm saying I disagree with illegal immigration, I'll also say I hate racism, homophobes, religious zealots, murderers and rapists. You know, just so I don't get accused of being a Queer-jew-hating catholic who condones priests raping and murdering little boys. Just covering my bases. Animal cruelty sucks, too. So does destroying the environment. I'm also not a fan of people hunting endangered species, or Space Exploration budget cuts. I don't like North Korea threatening nukes, and I don't like people forcing children to be soldiers in Africa.

Just to be clear.

I've stated - you shouldn't remove the incentives. You should solve the problem. This gets them to feel like they've accomplished something , when really they haven't.

And if you're going to remove incentives, go all or nothing, don't pick and choose. Lower wages, remove housing. Make English mandatory for [i]everything.


But honestly - and I mean this in the nicest way possible - if you can't pick up what I'm saying [because I've said it a couple times ridiculously clearly] then I definitely can't explain "I don't agree with removing it, because the children technically did nothing wrong, and it's unfair to punish them for their parents mistakes" any more than I have.

If someone is born in your country, you are that nationality. It's all you've ever been.
A faster solution would be to deport the family after birth if you find them giving birth in your hospital when they arrived there illegally. Removing citizenship is not the way to do it.

[TheGame]

If someone is born in your country, you are that nationality. It's all you've ever been.
A faster solution would be to deport the family after birth if you find them giving birth in your hospital when they arrived there illegally. Removing citizenship is not the way to do it.

How is that punishing the child? The way the system is set up now, society is being punished for giving illegals that incentive. Imagine if there was a law that stated "if a child is born on your property, it is the property owner's responceability." And some random chick happened to break into your back yard illegally and have a child in your back yard. She goes to jail or whatever, but since it's your property you have to pay for the child's healthcare, schooling, etc. Would that be fair?

I know it's different because it's a country vs a single household, but it is the same in a way... because in both cases you're taking responceability for a child who got onto your property by illegal means. And I really don't think that it'd be bad for our image if that law was changed.

[Typhoid]

How is that punishing the child? The way the system is set up now, society is being punished for giving illegals that incentive. Imagine if there was a law that stated "if a child is born on your property, it is the property owner's responceability." And some random chick happened to break into your back yard illegally and have a child in your back yard. She goes to jail or whatever, but since it's your property you have to pay for the child's healthcare, schooling, etc. Would that be fair?

It would be fair if for hundreds of years I invited people to my house with promise that if they gave birth on my property I would take care of their family. Regardless of the fact this woman broke into my house to give birth, she gave birth a child. A human being. Now, since she is there illegally, I will deal with her separately. However, since the child was born on my property [for the relevance of this metaphor] I will take care of that child. Because that child is innocent, and started being a human-being in my house. If that lady brought already born children into my house without asking me, that is completely different. But if someone breaks into your house and starts giving birth, you'd have to be really cold-hearted person not to help. I wouldn't say "Okay lady, you broke into my house and gave birth. Now, I won't take care of your child. But see all these other children who were born in my house, who's mothers I invited in? I'm going to be taking perfect care of them. Your kid, though - will have to work extra hard and take exams to be classified as the same thing as these kids here."

Edit: And [i]even if my house is packed with families whom I have invited in, and people who have broken in to give birth - that is no excuse not to take care of the children, and treat them the exact same way I'd treat any other child in my house. Everyone is the same, and everyone is equal. Especially a child who had no decision in the breaking into my house scenario.

[TheGame]

It would be fair if for hundreds of years I invited people to my house with promise that if they gave birth on my property I would take care of their family.

What if it wasn't a problem before and most of the women asked for the "hundreds of years" before hand (or in the case of America, the women didn't even ask and were FORCED to come here and do it), but now you're suddently getting a ton of people doing it for malicious reasons to dump their child off on you? So before it wasn't a big issue, but now it's becoming a big issue because you're suddenly getting all of these "anchor babies" as an unintended result?

This is why I question if you think illegal immigration is a problem or not. If you think it's a problem now, then removing that incentive to have them come onto your property has to make SOME sense.

I don't know, maybe I'm just being more selfish about this whole thing.

[Typhoid]

What if it wasn't a problem before and most of the women asked for the "hundreds of years" before hand (or in the case of America, the women didn't even ask and were FORCED to come here and do it), but now you're suddently getting a ton of people doing it for malicious reasons to dump their child off on you? So before it wasn't a big issue, but now it's becoming a big issue because you're suddenly getting all of these "anchor babies" as an unintended result?

They're still innocent kids who deserve every right as every other kid born in the country. The children have NOTHING to do with it. Don't make their life harder because of their parents mistakes.

This is why I question if you think illegal immigration is a problem or not.

Of course I think it's a problem. But I would solve the problem, not remove reasons for them to come into my house while not doing anything to stop them from getting in. Get some bouncers to watch my doors and windows. If they start coming through the chimney, put some bouncers on the roof. Especially if the people who are inside my house need work to do, I'd put them to work watching my doors.

[TheGame]

Of course I think it's a problem. But I would solve the problem, not remove reasons for them to come into my house while not doing anything to stop them from getting in. Get some bouncers to watch my doors and windows. If they start coming through the chimney, put some bouncers on the roof. Especially if the people who are inside my house need work to do, I'd put them to work watching my doors.

In other words, you'd do exactly what the US has been trying and failing at for hundreds of years. And if you think we're not putting the bouncers in place hard enough, you might agree with the Arizona approach....

No matter what, if incentives aren't removed, people will still get in... Force isn't always the best answer. Look at the drug war... it's not going to end until certain drugs are made legal. Until then it's just gonna be an endless fight that will never be won, and the drugs will be available anyway. No matter how much millitary you want to send down there, people will get in anyway, and there will be anchor babies no matter what.... because the incentive is still there.

[manasecret]

The root cause is the wealth gradient at the border. Borders are to wealth gradients like diodes are to voltage. Little wealth gradient, and it's only a trickle flow. Large wealth gradient, and all of a sudden it's an avalanche.

How do you solve a problem like Mexico?

[TheGame]

The root cause is the wealth gradient at the border. Borders are to wealth gradients like diodes are to voltage. Little wealth gradient, and it's only a trickle flow. Large wealth gradient, and all of a sudden it's an avalanche.

How do you solve a problem like Mexico?

You make a list of reasons why mexicans would rather live here illegally then live in mexico legaly, then try to tip the scale back in Mexico's favor by making the penalty for coming here (or environment when you are here) illegally worse then staying there. Or if possible, tip the scale back by making the environment over there better.

I'm not saying that the idea in the original post will resolve everything, but I think the idea is a step in the right direction vs the "more guys with guns, bigger fences, and more racial profiling" ideas that seem to be put into action.

[manasecret]

Sounds fair, but getting into the nitty gritty, what are the criteria for being born a citizen? One parent must be a citizen? Two? That sounds awfully harsh to legal immigrants here.

Maybe one or both of your parents must be at least legal residents? In that case, forgery would I guess be an easy workaround.

What is the solution that is fair to legal residents but also has any teeth to keep illegal immigrants from figuring out how to illegally game the system? They're already illegally here, I can't imagine illegally forging documents to get citizenship for their kid would be a big hindrance. Then, once a kid has citizenship by forged documents, would it be right to take away that citizenship because of the parents doing wrong?

What do other countries do?

[TheGame]

What do other countries do?

It's complicated, but generally most countries grant citezenship to the following people:

1) People who have at least one parent who is a citizen
2) If the child is adopted by a citizen (sometimes has an age restriction)
3) Registration (which is the most complicated, because you may not be able to register depending on where you're from. And registration usually consists of some type of test that asks country specific questions.)
4) What's called "naturalization" which is pretty much the government of the country simply making you a citezen for one reason or another. Usually a special circumstance.

America is one of very few countries that make citezenship a birth right based on where you're born, while ignoring the status of your parents.

[Typhoid]

Game, why don't you address the other parts of his question to you?

I'll re-pose it to you, for him.

but getting into the nitty gritty, what are the criteria for being born a citizen? One parent must be a citizen? Two? That sounds awfully harsh to legal immigrants here.

Maybe one or both of your parents must be at least legal residents? In that case, forgery would I guess be an easy workaround.

What is the solution that is fair to legal residents but also has any teeth to keep illegal immigrants from figuring out how to illegally game the system? They're already illegally here, I can't imagine illegally forging documents to get citizenship for their kid would be a big hindrance. Then, once a kid has citizenship by forged documents, would it be right to take away that citizenship because of the parents doing wrong?


Anyways, I'll re-iterate that I think it's stupid because it's not solving a problem. It's not even trying to fix the problem. It's just removing a reason. The problem isn't people birthing children in the country. The problem is people getting into your country illegally. This will still occur after removing the citizenship incentive. People don't just move to new countries to pound off some new kids. All this will do is also deter legal migrants from wanting to go there to have a family.

And you're acting like if they remove the incentive there is no way to circumvent it.

"1) People who have at least one parent who is a citizen"

That will just spark a bunch of people getting married for green cards, essentially. Which already happens. Fake marriages to people from out-of country so their kids are accepted. That happens already. It will happen much more. It's not hard to pay some dude from Alabama to pretend to be married to some Spanish chick so she can have a kid in the country.

"America is one of very few countries that make citizenship a birth right based on where you're born, while ignoring the status of your parents."

But why should the status of your parents matter? That's the thing. Are you your parents? I'm sure not my parents. To detain, punish, deter, harm, hurt, or hinder a child solely because of the parents, is wrong. How can you not admit to that, or see that. Why not just throw kids born to criminal parents in prison? Because it would be retarded to punish an infant for a parent.
I wholeheartedly agree with the "birth right of country" thing. Maybe because I'm Canadian and it's like that here, and we're right above the US - and it's like that there. Maybe because I find it ridiculous to expect a child to do a citizenship exam despite being born in a country.

[Professor S]

Typh, I'm not sure why you are equating citizenship with child punishment. Lets say that a vacationing French couple, of means, is vacationing in the US and gives birth while here. Does that make that child a US citizen even though they plan on going back to France? Is the child not a French citizen, because he/she was born outside of their country? The more I think about it, the more the parental argument makes more sense than location.

[manasecret]

It's complicated, but generally most countries grant citezenship to the following people:

1) People who have at least one parent who is a citizen
2) If the child is adopted by a citizen (sometimes has an age restriction)
3) Registration (which is the most complicated, because you may not be able to register depending on where you're from. And registration usually consists of some type of test that asks country specific questions.)
4) What's called "naturalization" which is pretty much the government of the country simply making you a citezen for one reason or another. Usually a special circumstance.

America is one of very few countries that make citezenship a birth right based on where you're born, while ignoring the status of your parents.

Hmmm... I wonder what issues arise for them, then, if they have any big issues at all. France would I imagine be a good example, since they have immigration issues as well.

Like I said, I believe the wealth gradient at the border is the root cause of illegal immigration. Everything else is just half-measures. Mexico needs to be brought into the 1st-world, which would stop the avalanche of illegal immigration and would I imagine end a lot of suffering of destitute Mexicans who have no better option than to risk life and limb to cross the border.

Obviously that's no easy task, especially since we're not Mexico. I wouldn't even know where to start.

[Typhoid]

Typh, I'm not sure why you are equating citizenship with child punishment. Lets say that a vacationing French couple, of means, is vacationing in the US and gives birth while here. Does that make that child a US citizen even though they plan on going back to France? Is the child not a French citizen, because he/she was born outside of their country? The more I think about it, the more the parental argument makes more sense than location.

That child would be American, until going back to France and becoming a dual citizen on the basis his parents are French, yet he was born in another country. When he becomes a dual citizen, he can totally omit being American.

But for example, one of my sisters has 3 kids.
My sister was born in Canada, lived in England, Germany and Cyprus.
My brother-in-law lived in England, Germany, and Cyprus.

They had a child when they were in England. He is English.
They had a child when they were in Cyprus. He is Cypriot.
They had another child when they were in England - so he is too, English.
The Cypriot child is a dual citizen of England and Cyprus, because his residence is England, yet he was born in Cyprus.

I stand firm on my "You are where you're born" statement. It's probably pretty clear I won't budge on that.
If you started existing in Country A, even though your parents are from Country B, or C - you are country A. Country A is all you've ever been, seen, heard and smelled. You were born there, and you are it.


Edit: The reason I'm talking so much on the topic, is because A) there are easy ways to circumvent the not being born a citizen thing, and B) It's not solving the problem of people getting in illegally. If people break into your house you should want to stop them, not remove items of value so they have no reason to get in.

[TheGame]

Game, why don't you address the other parts of his question to you?

What question did I not answer?

The only thing I didn't directly address is the question about forged documents, but he followed that up with asking how other countries handle it.. It's possible that in that situation it would fall under naturalization or the child should definently be elgible for registration. But that wouldn't change the fact that they're not a citizen.

As for the rest of your arguement, you're not giving any realistic resolution. You just keep re-enforcing that changing this method is bad, even though more then 90% of countries out there, and most countries in the free world force you to have at least one parent who is a citezen to be one from birth. (Including England, so unless your sister or brother is an English citizen, the kids had to have been registered or went through the naturalization process.)

Nobody is saying that removing this one incentive is the end-all be-all answer for immigration. Of course there's gonna be other reasons for them to want to come, and possibly ways made to bend the rules eventually... but I think it addresses the real problem, which is the incentive to move. Because once they have no good reason to step onto this land illegally, then the problem resolves itself.

[TheGame]

Edit: The reason I'm talking so much on the topic, is because A) there are easy ways to circumvent the not being born a citizen thing, and B) It's not solving the problem of people getting in illegally. If people break into your house you should want to stop them, not remove items of value so they have no reason to get in.

I don't think this is a fair comparision for a couple reasons.

1) People do avoid keeping things that are TOO valuable in their house. That's what Banks are made for.

2) The measures of protection you can take on a single house (in america) is a lot more harsh then you could ever do for a country... I mean, yeal lets gate off all the borders and the beaches with barbed wire tips, and put guard dogs at every corner. And if someone happens to jump over, lets shoot and kill them on the spot. Especially the pregnant lady who tries to come in, that'll teach em.

I mean, like I said... unless you want us to be a country of Arizonas. I just think there are other ways to slow the bleeding.

[TheGame]

Hmmm... I wonder what issues arise for them, then, if they have any big issues at all. France would I imagine be a good example, since they have immigration issues as well.

Like I said, I believe the wealth gradient at the border is the root cause of illegal immigration. Everything else is just half-measures. Mexico needs to be brought into the 1st-world, which would stop the avalanche of illegal immigration and would I imagine end a lot of suffering of destitute Mexicans who have no better option than to risk life and limb to cross the border.

Obviously that's no easy task, especially since we're not Mexico. I wouldn't even know where to start.

I agree that is the biggest part of the problem. And there's no easy way to resolve it. As far as gaurding the borders and trying to handle it by force, I think we're at the limit that's acceptable in my opinion. I think nows the time to start looking at other ideas.

The problem I see though, is that eventually there's going to be some type of ID tags injected into americans at birth to prove they're citizens. Or there is going to be some type of north american union formed, which is only going to make the problem worse to start.

[Typhoid]

1) People do avoid keeping things that are TOO valuable in their house. That's what Banks are made for.

I don't keep my guitar, truck, phone, TV, console and subsequent games, computer, watches/chains, rings, sunglasses, and various other items in the bank. I keep money in there.

2) The measures of protection you can take on a single house (in america) is a lot more harsh then you could ever do for a country

Yeah - this is why the house was a metaphor.

And if someone happens to jump over, lets shoot and kill them on the spot. Especially the pregnant lady who tries to come in, that'll teach em.

Wow - so you go from one extreme of me saying I love illegal immigrants, to insinuating that now I think the pregnant women should be shot on sight after crossing the border. What will you tell me I think next? The anticipation is killing me. Not literally, of course. I didn't cross a border or anything.

I just think there are other ways to slow the bleeding.

If you get stabbed, do you want to just 'slow the bleeding', or fix the wound?

The problem I see though, is that eventually there's going to be some type of ID tags injected into americans at birth to prove they're citizens. Or there is going to be some type of north american union formed, which is only going to make the problem worse to start.

This paragraph in itself is just...odd.
You jump from ID tags for Americans to a North American union which somehow will make it worse, in practically one thought.

First off, being that Mexico and most subsequent countries that are the subject of this topic - are in North America.
And I'm fairly certain that if Canada, the US, Mexico, Cuba [etc.] were part of a union - that would in no way stop a Mexican family from leaving their country to go to a better place to raise their child. I also don't see how this would make more people leave their countries and flood into yours.

Secondly, about the ID tags. How would that stop them, exactly? If the tags are implanted at birth - this wouldn't deter anyone from wanting to birth a child in the US - if anything it would make more people want to do it illegally, because then they'd have 100% proof that their child is an American.

The fact is, it's ridiculous. Yes, a child of the US can get the parents a green card [after reaching the age of 21, and filing the proper paper work in the US, and their original country, which usually have wait times, for this exact scenario]. The 14th amendment was brought forth so slaves [and their children] would be US citizens, despite being slaves. Now, even knocking that aside, the 14th amendment stands for the fact that regardless of religion, sexuality, gender, skin colour - everyone is equal. Everyone. If you are born there, you are just as equal as the baby laying next to you that was also born that day. You deserve every right as that other child.

Now just imagine, if the amendment never existed. How many black Americans wouldn't be classified as citizens today because they 'illegally' entered the country [being that their parents technically were not American]. History is a fascinating thing.

[TheGame]

Typhoid, once again, you're not offering ANY ideas for how to "resolve" the problem. You're just saying "fix it" but you seem to be closed minded to anything that isn't the status quo. If things stay the same, the problem will not be fixed. So what do you think needs to be CHANGED to fix the problem?

Since you haven't answered that question directly, I have been jumping to different extemes based off of your objections to everything. You seem to both object to trying to remove incentives, and also appear to reject trying to increase security by force. So what do you propose we do?

And if you give a bullshit answer again citing no direct ideas and just saying "fix it", then I assume you don't think illegal immigration is an issue and like the status quo.

[Typhoid]

Since you haven't answered that question directly

I'm pretty sure I've said things like it several times. Maybe you're just choosing not to comprehend that part of my posts for the sake of your argument.

I said: Get some bouncers to watch my doors and windows. If they start coming through the chimney, put some bouncers on the roof. Especially if the people who are inside my house need work to do, I'd put them to work watching my doors.

Which in the metaphor of the house being the USA, the doors and all openings into it are obviously borders.

Not to mention being that I've said numerous times "The problem isn't people having babies in your country, it's people getting in illegally" I was fairly sure that gave across a "Stop them from getting in illegally" type of thing.

From my first post:

"If you stop people from illegally entering your country, then you wouldn't need to fix the birth right."

From my second post, specifically addressing you:

"I'd argue that all that needs to be watched is obviously the southern US. I mean, that's honestly all this is about - Mexicans and Cubans getting into the US illegally."

You seem to both object to trying to remove incentives, and also appear to reject trying to increase security by force.

What in the blue hell are you flapping your face about?
When have I appeared to reject increasing security by force? When you suggested they shoot pregnant mothers, you mean? When I said I don't agree with you on murdering pregnant women?
Or are you saying I'm against them using force because I haven't said I want them to shoot Mexicans, opposed to just increasing border patrol and security.

So what do you propose we do?

For probably the 4th time - increase border patrol. Is it hard to do? In some ways. Is it impossible? Hell no. Increase security along the US-Mexico border. Does this involve super high fences of barbed wire, missiles, guns, and hunting dogs? No. All it requires at most is a fence, and security towers with guards watching cameras. Do they need a shoot-first mentality? No. No they do not.

And if you give a bullshit answer again citing no direct ideas and just saying "fix it", then I assume you don't think illegal immigration is an issue and like the status quo.

Well, hopefully this time you read all of my post - and not just the parts that you feel like arguing with.

[TheGame]

For probably the 4th time - increase border patrol. Is it hard to do? In some ways. Is it impossible? Hell no. Increase security along the US-Mexico border.


You did not even say that once before, you only used the bouncer metaphor. But we can put that to rest.

So you think that throwing more people on the border will resolve the problem? How many people do we need to put there? It's not like people can just walk across the border as it is now. And even if the way by land is blocked (as it very much is now), people can stil make it over by sea and via under ground tunnels.

I personally don't think that resolves the problem, because that's exactly what we have been trying to do and failing at for years,

[Typhoid]

You did not even say that once before, you only used the bouncer metaphor. But we can put that to rest.


As posted by me:
Now, It wouldn't be hard for the US to establish cameras, stations, and employ people to watch that border. Afterall, it does create more jobs, aswell. Two birds.

:ohreilly:

[TheGame]

Ok and? Lets put the schematics arguement to rest.

US now has cameras, stations, and people employed to watch the border. And the amount of people and cameras has increased and increased over time. Problem resolved? No. So how many people should we put there?

[Typhoid]

So when you try to prove me wrong, it's a fact, but when I do prove you wrong, it's 'semantics'?
Brilliant.

So how many people should we put there?

The obvious answer? More.
Want to know why there should be more? Because the amount now isn't working.

If you have people committing crimes and are running out of jails, you build more jails until you have enough room, you don't change what being a criminal means.

[TheGame]

If you have people committing crimes and are running out of jails, you build more jails until you have enough room, you don't change what being a criminal means.

I don't think that's nessicarily true. I think that changing the incentive structure helps deter crime more then making room for everyone. Case and point. If the penalty for stealing a candy bar from a store was life in prison, there would be a lot less petty theift. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but when you tweak the incentives it has results.

And sometimes the law does have to be changed to be more reasonable about who goes to prison and who doesn't. Building more prisons isn't the only answer.

As long as people think the reward for getting over here is bigger then the risk, it will always be an issue, no matter how many people you station at the border. That's why it hasn't and will never work. imo

[Typhoid]

Case and point. If the penalty for stealing a candy bar from a store was life in prison, there would be a lot less petty theift. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but when you tweak the incentives it has results.

No it wouldn't - because there wouldn't be any more people enforcing that law than there is now.

I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but when you tweak the incentives it has results.

Do you have facts on this? What laws are you specifically talking about, where incentives have been changed, and crime has gone down significantly?


As long as people think the reward for getting over here is bigger then the risk, it will always be an issue, no matter how many people you station at the border. That's why it hasn't and will never work.

This is where we differ in thought.

You think "They only want to come here to get Green Cards 30 years in the future."
I think "They want to go there because it's a whole lot better than raising a family in 'Central America'."

The reason you think it will work beautifully in your mind, is that the only reason they're going there in the first place, is to have an American baby.
Rather the fact their neighbourhoods might be plagued with drug gangs, gangs in general, they might have been extorted by gangs, there might be a giant militia war raging. None of the "Birthing a child law" will change the risk for any of those people. At all. Whatsoever.

What will removing the Birth Right law do to stop 5,000 [obviously a random number] single Mexican people from crossing the border? Nothing. Why? Because it has absolutely nothing to do with them.

[TheGame]

The reason you think it will work beautifully in your mind, is that the only reason they're going there in the first place, is to have an American baby.

No I think it's ONE of the incentives they have for coming here, and not that that single thing would resolve everything. To quote myself.

Nobody is saying that removing this one incentive is the end-all be-all answer for immigration. Of course there's gonna be other reasons for them to want to come, and possibly ways made to bend the rules eventually... but I think it addresses the real problem, which is the incentive to move. Because once they have no good reason to step onto this land illegally, then the problem resolves itself.

When I was asked how the problem should be fixed I responded:

You make a list of reasons why mexicans would rather live here illegally then live in mexico legaly, then try to tip the scale back in Mexico's favor by making the penalty for coming here (or environment when you are here) illegally worse then staying there. Or if possible, tip the scale back by making the environment over there better.

I'm not saying that the idea in the original post will resolve everything, but I think the idea is a step in the right direction vs the "more guys with guns, bigger fences, and more racial profiling" ideas that seem to be put into action

An incentive is an incentive period. The guy who was sitting there thinking that his kid will be born an american with more oppertunity will be stopped if it's changed. And there are people who think that way.

Right now, living here illegally with under the table money is better then living in mexico, that needs to be changed.

[Typhoid]

Right now, living here illegally with under the table money is better then living in mexico, that needs to be changed.

So explain to me exactly how removing the incentive of birth will suddenly change all of this, and make it so Central Americans are on par with the wages of North America [while being in their own countries], removing the main draw.

[TheGame]

So explain to me exactly how removing the incentive of birth will suddenly change all of this, and make it so Central Americans are on par with the wages of North America [while being in their own countries], removing the main draw.

1) As I put in my last post, changing the birth right won't change "ALL" of this. That is obviously not the only reason they come here, but it's one reason they do, and something that easilly can be squashed. The vast majority of the other world powers don't allow this, why should we? I understand why it was put into place, but it's a new age and we have new problems to deal with.

2) Wadges would not have to be the same for the environment here to be worse then being in central america. But some laws may need to be tweaked.

For example, the penalty for harboring illegal immigrants, hireing them, and housing them should be worse. All of them should include jail time. There should be little/no incentive for anyone to hire an illegal, even for normal under-the-table things like mowing lawns etc.

The only reason the environment here is better for illegals is because society makes it better. A study needs to be done on how they make their living here, and that needs to be gutted to the point where they can't make a living here. The drug war plays into this too. You can keep fighting them forever, or try to kill their will to fight. As long as the grass is too green on this side of the fence for illegals, they're going to keep fighting, and people are going to keep slipping through the cracks.

[Bond]

The real question for me in this debate is: where is the statistical evidence stating this is a significant issue?

[TheGame]

The real question for me in this debate is: where is the statistical evidence stating this is a significant issue?

If you're speaking to immigration in general... to be honest I haven't found statistical evidence that proves or disproves that it is a big issue. The issue becomes bigger and bigger the closer you live to the southern border, but I can't say we're better or worse off then other countries that have stricter laws.

If you're speaking to the issue of natrulization (people being born in the country automatically being citizens)... then I highly doubt it's a significant issue. It's just another small incentive that can be squashed easilly.