Whoa now, issue must have struck a nerve with you... @Os Trigonum being sincere in a thread, already? All we need is a Turley article to balance it all out and all will be well in the universe once again...
To Trump EVERYTHING is negotiable and everyone/everything has a price. Sometimes that is good and sometimes Greenland happens.
or Canada What it would take to make Canada the 51st state https://thehill.com/opinion/international/5096259-us-canada-union-analysis/ excerpt: There are three points to consider regarding Trump's remarks which give weight to his alleged theatre. First, Trump is intent on projecting U.S. power abroad. A serious presence in the Canadian and Greenland Artic regions (sovereign or otherwise) and a better “deal” in the Canal zone would send that message. Second, Trudeau's departure from the prime minister’s office makes politics and decision-making difficult for Canada. Until he leaves, Trudeau is a lame-duck prime minister with technical authority but no mandate. Finally, Quebec has long sought independence from Canada. Trudeau's father, Pierre Trudeau, dealt with that prospect when he was prime minister in 1980. Quebec's push for independence could be employed by Trump to advance the U.S.’s position. If the U.S. agreed to Quebec independence, the latter might support U.S. efforts with Canada. Think of it as a sort of Canadian “Kosovo” carve out. Some say Trump is joking, while others suggest he is just destabilizing the opposition. But there is likely more truth in his words than rhetoric — it’s just not clear yet what his actual goal is. more at the link
“Throw it out there, it will get Bald Stephen (Miller) off my back. The Court can do whatever they want with the distraction while we can pass tax cuts and regulations. Get Flappy (Musk) on a plane to Mar a Largo so we can make some money.” - Trump to Vance
Ha, I'm shocked that Turley takes the "Trump's got a point" position here: Trump's birthright citizenship repeal forces ruling on 14th Amendment Trump plan for birthright citizenship executive order will force courts to act. That's good. The language of the Constitution is less clear than Trump's opponents would have you believe. Jonathan Turley Opinion columnist President Donald Trump’s announced intention to end “birthright citizenship” by executive order has pushed an already heated debate over immigration into a virtual inferno of election year politicking. At base, however, it is one of the longest standing debates in our Constitution: whether the 14th Amendment affords citizenship to anyone born on our soil regardless of their status. While neither side seems willing to admit it, there are good-faith arguments on both sides, and frankly this order could force the federal court to come to a final and clear resolution of the question. The debate comes down to six poorly chosen words: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Those words come in the middle of an otherwise clear statement that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States ... are citizens of the United States.” The words have long been argued by some to mean that the amendment applies only to citizens and legal residents who are subject fully to the jurisdiction of the United States. ...
I mean this is the totally standard situation globally. When a US couple goes and lives in Australia, or England on a work visa, and has a child in that country, the child isn't automatically a citizen by birth. There is a process for the children to become citizens over time. Same situation as described if a non citizen were to have a child with a citizen of said countries, the citizen parent provides proof that its their child, and the baby gets automatic citizenship granted. Nobody considers it absurd or archaic overseas, and it's not like Europe or Au/Nz are places known for lacking compassion.
The large majority of the OECD does not have birth right citizenship. There's nothing wrong with suggesting we move away from it or politically attempting to make that happen.
The problem is that in the US there actually isn't a process for many children to become citizens in this scenario. Due to the Green Card country caps, children of Indian and Chinese descent more or less have no way to convert their status to PR due to multi decade waits for EB2 and EB3 green cards. A child of Indian or Chinese origin born today will have zero shot at a green card before they age out of H4 status and are forced to leave. This is despite that child spending every moment of their life in the US. That is completely different from Europe or Australia where people on work permits have multiple pathways to convert to PR. The US situation is more akin to countries in the Middle East like the UAE and Saudi Arabia where they take in tons of immigrants and offer zero pathways to citizenship. We can't have it both ways. If you dont like birthright citizenship then you need to come up with reasonable pathways for permanent residence for immigrants. Otherwise you're just recreating the situation in the Middle East (which is borderline indentured servitude in many cases).
It's mostly an Americas phenomenon, Canada is the only other highly developed country to host land based birth rights. We are the nations, and continents of immigrants and I do both fúcks with, and respect that, but it's not unreasonable to have parent based citizenship either.
I have no issues with birthright citizenship for anyone who entered the country legally. People here illegally should not be able to have kids who automatically become citizens.
They say when jesus was young he had a heart, but when he got old he became smart and republican. Something like that.
Oh, ha, I honestly didn't even notice that this was from 6 years ago. I suppose his opinion wouldn't have changed.
I'm sorry for giving support. I grew up in Texas. There is no Texas without immigrants. I would never question his ethics or love of this country. I was sincere about wishing him luck if anything ever came to that point. I said I respect him and he is one of the good guys in this sandbox. My issue is chowder not him. Hope all can understand that. I don't look for shite on this forum. But I'm not going to back down from a turd like chowder.
In all seriousness - what happens to those children if their parents' countries won't give them citizenship either?
I don't know why Australia is so uppity with their dingo convict blood, but I like the general ideal of immigrants reaching America feeling like it's a hallowed land of promise and potential. I'm all for the melting pot, but your mileage may vary....
I like some ideas of a borderless world with freedom to roam, including on private land. It's just not the time we live in anymore. You can get to America and have a kid, but you're still illegal, and you're still trespassing on over 98% of land in texas. So much for muh freedom. If we're doing to bubbles of prosperity, welfare states and strict property rights, in a world with inequality I don't think our laws make a ton of sense today. In the 17/1800s when you could just move anywhere and set up shop, sure.