China's "Born in the USA" Frenzy

[Infohawk]

Pure nonsense. 3rd world is synonymous with poor and unindustrialized. Quite clearly China was poor and unindustrialized in comparison to the U.S. in the 1860's. So we took them in and paid them far better wages.



I didn't say we were no different, I said accepting immigrants into the country was no different from what we've always done. The fact that we treat them better than we used to (which yes, IS different, and also a good thing) is simply a natural course of moral evolution. What you fail to mention is the complications of not letting them go to school, not letting them be American citizens. No mention for you of the practical implications of that boondoggle.



Sure I can.



The founders didn't write the 14th amendment, and it's original language has been interpreted that way for a good reason; we've evolved. The fact that you don't like it because you think it costs too much or is unsustainable isn't actually supported by facts, figures or numbers. It's your, seemingly mostly gut xenophobic, reaction to people different from you. Kids born in the U.S., no matter what their parent's origin or legality, should absolutely be American citizens.

What is pure nonsense? The terms "first world" "second world" and "third world" are from the 20th century. You contested that but you just happen to be wrong about it. If you don't trust wikipedia please feel free to make an edit to the page. I'm sure the editors will be interested to know what your source is, as am I. And actually China was less industrialized than the USA in 1860. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution#United_States

The writers of the 14th amendment also couldn't foresee planes dropping people off just to have kids. There is no practical problem with not letting people have kids here on vacation. They wouldn't get citizenship and they would go home with their parents or be deported with their parents.

But really what is the point of having this discussion? You want to scream "xenophobe" at the top of your lungs like a child...

 

[Infohawk]

China is not a third world country...

You might be technically correct in that it was part of the communist block. But in terms of quality of life it belongs with the third world.

 

[First]

What is pure nonsense? The terms "first world" "second world" and "third world" are from the 20th century. You contested that but you just happen to be wrong about it. If you don't trust wikipedia please feel free to make an edit to the page. I'm sure the editors will be interested to know what your source is, as am I. And actually China was less industrialized than the USA in 1860. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution#United_States

Huh? My whole point was that China was less industrialized in the 1860's than the U.S., I literally said it in my post. And read what I wrote about the term 3rd world; it's now synonymous with being unindustrialized, so your point about its existence as a term in the 1860's is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

The writers of the 14th amendment also couldn't foresee planes dropping people off just to have kids.

lmao, why even bring up immigrants coming on planes to have children when it's so uncommon anywhere, that's just a lame anecdote. Most illegals have their children from border crossings here. And Congress couldn't foresee people crossing the border to have children in the U.S. in the 1860's? Really? Even if that were the case, it has been law for nearly 150 years and been quite successful.

There is no practical problem with not letting people have kids here on vacation. They wouldn't get citizenship and they would go home with their parents or be deported with their parents.

Except, in reality, illegals have kids here and stay here to work, they don't do it on vacation (please stop bringing up inane anecdotes that never happen btw). If you deny them citizenship you relegate them to 2nd class citizen status, they somehow now have to earn their citizenship even though they grow up in the same circumstances as Americans who live in their areas. And by not being a citizen they now suddenly have no shot of getting high-paying jobs that require citizenship. Pure nonsense.

But really what is the point of having this discussion? You want to scream "xenophobe" at the top of your lungs like a child...

There is no practical reason to deny immigrant children who have no choice of being born anywhere, American citizenship. There's no economic reasons to do it.

 

[Infohawk]

lmao, why even bring up immigrants coming on planes to have children when it's so uncommon anywhere, that's just a lame anecdote.

Uhhh... did you read the article? It's precisely about people flying here and having babies being popular among Chinese. The idea is that it's incredibly easy today compared to the past when a journey to another continent was very time-consuming.

Except, in reality, illegals have kids here and stay here to work, they don't do it on vacation (please stop bringing up inane anecdotes that never happen btw).

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/birt...s-citizenship-abroad/story?id=10359956&page=1

Read.

 

[quikah]

I don't really get what people are getting by doing this, it's not like you've got a big welfare state or anything...?

More opportunities for their kid. They can live in China then go to a US University/work when they are adults without needing a visa. Or just stay in China and claim Chinese citizenship if the US becomes less desirable in 20 years. There are some complications while they are in China though as the article mentions since China disallows dual nationality.

 

[HAL9000]

More opportunities for their kid. They can live in China then go to a US University/work when they are adults without needing a visa. Or just stay in China and claim Chinese citizenship if the US becomes less desirable in 20 years. There are some complications while they are in China though as the article mentions since China disallows dual nationality.

Very true, but that would also be true of other countries with great health care systems etc, like Swizerland so I just don't know why you'd pick the US of A if you are looking to sponge of the state.

 

[Infohawk]

Very true, but that would also be true of other countries with great health care systems etc, like Swizerland so I just don't know why you'd pick the US of A if you are looking to sponge of the state.

First of all, you must realize that Switzerland has much tougher immigration laws. Very few countries still allow citizenship by being born on their soil (not even India!). The whole point here is that the US should crack down on this loophole.

Second, I think a lot of Europeans misunderstand how the US social benefits system works. In many European countries public benefits are given to all citizens. So even if you're a rich French person, you'll get public health care and quality public schooling. In the US, welfare is really only given to the poor. So you'll hear a lot of middle-class people on this board complaining about not having health care. But if you're dirt poor you'll get medicaid.

Finally, education is huge for Chinese. China is a ridiculous rat race when it comes to its educational system. The way they see it they come here for a great pedigree and can beat up on sorority girls to get good grades. Being a US citizen allows you to get access to at least one state's public university system and public loans for the best private schools in the world.

This all makes perfect sense if you're Chinese. As the article explains, the only negatives come from the Chinese government! And even then you get around it by paying extra fees which probably aren't a big deal if you can afford a plane ticket to the US just to crap out a baby.

 

[First]

Uhhh... did you read the article? It's precisely about people flying here and having babies being popular among Chinese. The idea is that it's incredibly easy today compared to the past when a journey to another continent was very time-consuming.

Why would I care about a clearly rare, isolated event that pales in comparison to how 99% of immigrants actually have their children, their reasons for coming here, etc. Btw, there's nothing wrong with coming to America to have babies, I'm sorry you think that's some sort of weird foreign concept. It's an attempt to live the American dream. They don't come here to pillage.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/birt...s-citizenship-abroad/story?id=10359956&page=1

Read.

Nothing in that link says it's common, in fact they say the exact opposite, specifically when they say the following: "Of the 4,273,225 live births in the United States in 2006, the most recent data gathered by the National Center for Health Statistics, 7,670 were children born to mothers who said they do not live here. Many, but not all, of those mothers could be 'birth tourists,' experts say, although it is difficult to know for sure."

So for all we know it's a few thousand a year. Of course, what disturbs you about this is a mystery to me, since they're no less a U.S. citizen then you or anyone else by the time they grow up. The fact that their parents may live abroad and have some other citizenship isn't particularly relevant, is it? Nope.

 

[Infohawk]

Why would I care about a clearly rare, isolated event that pales in comparison to how 99% of immigrants actually have their children, their reasons for coming here, etc. Btw, there's nothing wrong with coming to America to have babies, I'm sorry you think that's some sort of weird foreign concept. It's an attempt to live the American dream. They don't come here to pillage.



Nothing in that link says it's common, in fact they say the exact opposite, specifically when they say the following: "Of the 4,273,225 live births in the United States in 2006, the most recent data gathered by the National Center for Health Statistics, 7,670 were children born to mothers who said they do not live here.Many, but not all, of those mothers could be 'birth tourists,' experts say, although it is difficult to know for sure."

So for all we know it's a few thousand a year. Of course, what disturbs you about this is a mystery to me, since they're no less a U.S. citizen then you or anyone else by the time they grow up. The fact that their parents may live abroad and have some other citizenship isn't particularly relevant, is it? Nope.

The fact that it's relatively rare doesn't make it less of a problem. (And I see no reason this will not become more and more popular as the price of a plane ticket becomes affordable for a larger and larger percentage of the global population.)

Yes, they will technically be a US citizens when they return for college. (I don't think they will be at all culturally American but I don't really care to get into that.) Their parents won't have paid any taxes while living abroad. (Again, read the article if you don't understand that some people are in fact going back to China WITH THE BABY after the baby is born.)

I've already explained why it's an issue for me.
A) This is just an end-around the lottery system for third-worlders who can afford the baby vacation. I believe everyone should have an equal shot to come here if they want to, even if that means they might not get in via the lottery system.

B) The US can't magically raise the standard of living of millions of third-worlders anymore. The reason immigration worked in the US for so long is because immigrants worked their own way. Rich English people in Boston were not losing any money by having Germans immigrate to the Great Lakes in the 19th and 20th century. Today Americans of all backgrounds are paying out more in social services than they are getting back for immigrants to come here. A common response is that immigrants pay taxes. Most immigrants have low skills and low wages that do not pay for the services they are getting. We all know that most Americans don't pay federal taxes. This has clearly been an issue in border states over the past decades. There's a reason the same amount of taxes aren't enough for the public services that are being consumed. The US is already suffering from competition with the third world. We don't really need to be making things worse by directly transferring wealth.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

If you're from a third world country you're a third worlder. Sorry. Just like if you're a poor person in the first world, you're still from the first world.

So how is a relatively well-to-do "third worlder" eating the country alive?

 

[Infohawk]

So how is a relatively well-to-do "third worlder" eating the country alive?

You're making assumptions. If one is a well-to-do third worlder living in another country you're not eating the US alive (except to the extent you support a country that is engaging in industrial espionage against the US and IP violations.) If you're a well-to-do third worlder who immigrates to the US and your income gets taxed your not eating the country alive either. The catch is that most immigrants aren't that well-to-do even if the fact that they can buy a plane ticket makes them wealthy compared to their impoverished countrymen.

 

[lupi]

The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the citizenship of a child born within the boundaries of this country, but born to two individuals that are here illegally.

Maybe soon.

i don't see that being made illegal any time soon.

 

[fskimospy]

The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the citizenship of a child born within the boundaries of this country, but born to two individuals that are here illegally.

Maybe soon.

How about never?

There's nothing to rule on. Not only is the wording of the 14th amendment clear, but the legislative record has all the major parties drafting and signing the amendment speaking to how that was the case.

You might disagree with it, but it's not going anywhere.

 

[Fenixgoon]

is anyone else not as outraged about this as the news article wants them to be?

i mean, they could be getting smuggled here illegally, having kids, staying here, and not paying for use of medical facilities....:hmm:

 

[Oric]

The day that United States closes all the loopholes will be the day of your great decline. Do not forget that "brain drain" is one of the backbones of your industry, academics, competition. Just look at the declining power of Europe and see what they have done wrong and you have not.

 

[Infohawk]

The day that United States closes all the loopholes will be the day of your great decline. Do not forget that "brain drain" is one of the backbones of your industry, academics, competition. Just look at the declining power of Europe and see what they have done wrong and you have not.

You're saying a lot of vague things that don't necessarily have to do with this article. We don't need loopholes to get the world's best scientists and thinkers. There's a mechanism for that. (But we should keep in mind that brain drain probably won't last forever. When Asia is as rich as the US they're won't be a reason for people to come here so we should gear our education system for home-grown talent.)

Europe's power declined only in comparison to the US and mostly has to do with the fact that it is a more fragmented continent. Europe is doing fine. (It's always hilarious how people act like Europe is fucked or a utopia compared to the US though. It's really really similar actually.)

 

[Oric]

infohawk : you dont have to get the brains, but immigrants have the "bold" gene which is more important for a nation of enterpreneurs. Plus the immigrants tend to have larger families which help the national demographics in the long term. Europe lost these two important points because if tight immigration and citizenship practices or to put out more clearly "deep buried xenophobia" (of course which exists in every nation but in a grander form)

 

[First]

The fact that it's relatively rare doesn't make it less of a problem.

No actually, it quite clearly does. Take a hypothetical situation, like if we only had two illegal immigrants enter the U.S. in the last year. Should anyone really care if this situation exploded 10-fold to 20 people? Not if you're honest with yourself.

(And I see no reason this will not become more and more popular as the price of a plane ticket becomes affordable for a larger and larger percentage of the global population.)

There has to be better data first, otherwise you're shooting in the dark at something you want to believe is a problem so monumental that you want to have a constitutional amendment put in place reversing part of a 150 year old law. Sounds pretty serious for a problem that is, by every statistical account, extraordinarily rare and small.

Yes, they will technically be a US citizens when they return for college. (I don't think they will be at all culturally American but I don't really care to get into that.)

See, this is where we really get to the secret little crux of your argument. The fact that you really, truly believe these people can't be true Americans "culturally" tells me most of what I already suspected about your motivations here. You simply don't believe "these people" should be Americans because their values differ from yours. This is classic xenophobia. Though let me be clear here; I'm not saying you're a hardcore bigot who revels in KKK memorabilia and would love to torture a Mexican or two just for the hell of it. What I'm saying is that you fit the definition of the term; basically a fear of foreigners and them being different, in some way, shape or form (say politics, language, customs, etc.). You may not like hearing this, but deep down we both know you fear these immigrants because they might change things about American culture that you don't agree with. Of course, that's your opinion, and I'd say you certainly shouldn't be able to legislate your way to outcasting different cultures. It's classic xenophobia, as well as ethnocentric.

Their parents won't have paid any taxes while living abroad. (Again, read the article if you don't understand that some people are in fact going back to China WITH THE BABY after the baby is born.)

And how many cases are there of immigrant parents flying to America, having a child that becomes a U.S. citizen by law, and then flying them back to their home country, and why should I be scared? Details, please.

I've already explained why it's an issue for me.
A) This is just an end-around the lottery system for third-worlders who can afford the baby vacation. I believe everyone should have an equal shot to come here if they want to, even if that means they might not get in via the lottery system.

Putting aside that it's extremely rare, I don't see that it's particularly unfair. It might favor those who have more money to pay American businesses tens of thousands of dollars....but how your fiscal argument can co-exist knowing they're paying Americans businesses all that money, well, who the hell knows.

B) The US can't magically raise the standard of living of millions of third-worlders anymore.

lol. Link?

The reason immigration worked in the US for so long is because immigrants worked their own way. Rich English people in Boston were not losing any money by having Germans immigrate to the Great Lakes in the 19th and 20th century. Today Americans of all backgrounds are paying out more in social services than they are getting back for immigrants to come here. A common response is that immigrants pay taxes. Most immigrants have low skills and low wages that do not pay for the services they are getting. We all know that most Americans don't pay federal taxes. This has clearly been an issue in border states over the past decades. There's a reason the same amount of taxes aren't enough for the public services that are being consumed. The US is already suffering from competition with the third world. We don't really need to be making things worse by directly transferring wealth.

Again, please link me some studies showing that immigrants take more in local/state/federal gov't revenue than they give back in the form of sales, property and federal taxes. You'll find the evidence is mixture of they give back a little more than they take, they take a little more than they give, or simply inconclusive.