Should we end birthright citizenship?

[Kafir]

I take it that we are agreed that the U.S. Constitution makes anyone born in the U.S. a citizen, as it was intended to. The next question is whether birthright citizenship is (still) a good idea, or whether we should amend the Constitution.

Libertarian writer Will Wilkinson has a recent piece on that subject:
Arizona's latest immigration idea makes sense: It's xenophobic and unconstitutional, but Arizona's effort to deny citizenship to the American-born children of illegal immigrants is actually a good idea — for immigrants and natives.

The proposal to end "birthright citizenship" for the children of unauthorized immigrants springs from less than generous motives, and almost surely runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution. But ending it altogether is a better idea than you might think. (And if you already think it's a good idea, it's good for reasons you might find surprising.) For one, it would likely achieve the opposite of its intended result by making America more, rather than less, welcoming to newcomers.

His goal, mostly, is to facilitate labor mobility.

I'm open to the idea of ending simple birthright citizenship, actually--if we replaced with a system in which, say, any resident who spent at least ten years of his childhood in the U.S. could apply for citizenship when he turned 18, and get it in a quick, routine, rubber-stamp process.

That would be an improvement over the current system, in which someone could be brought here by his parents as a toddler and then be deported as an adult to a country he has no memory of living in. A difficulty, I suppose, would be that residency is harder to document than birthplace.


Another recent piece on immigration (I didn't feel like starting yet another topic) comes from Jeb Bush and Robert Putnam, and makes a couple points that I've tried to make: that current immigration and the fears surrounding it are not so different from what this country has seen in the past, and that if we want immigrants to assimilate, it might help if we welcomed them.

"Few of their children in the country learn English. The signs in our streets have inscriptions in both languages. . . . Unless the stream of their importation could be turned . . . they will soon so outnumber us that we will not preserve our language, and even our government will become precarious." Thus Ben Franklin referred to German Americans...

[ggeezz]

I take it that we are agreed that the U.S. Constitution makes anyone born in the U.S. a citizen, as it was intended to. The next question is whether birthright citizenship is (still) a good idea, or whether we should amend the Constitution.

Libertarian writer Will Wilkinson has a recent piece on that subject:
Arizona's latest immigration idea makes sense: It's xenophobic and unconstitutional, but Arizona's effort to deny citizenship to the American-born children of illegal immigrants is actually a good idea — for immigrants and natives.

The proposal to end "birthright citizenship" for the children of unauthorized immigrants springs from less than generous motives, and almost surely runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution. But ending it altogether is a better idea than you might think. (And if you already think it's a good idea, it's good for reasons you might find surprising.) For one, it would likely achieve the opposite of its intended result by making America more, rather than less, welcoming to newcomers.

His goal, mostly, is to facilitate labor mobility.

He's basically arguing the same libertarian position I described before. Open borders are great, but combined with a welfare state they're doomed to fail/cause controversy. He's emphasizing labor mobility where others emphasize ending the welfare state. But both are goals of most libertarians.

I'm open to the idea of ending simple birthright citizenship, actually--if we replaced with a system in which, say, any resident who spent at least ten years of his childhood in the U.S. could apply for citizenship when he turned 18, and get it in a quick, routine, rubber-stamp process.

That would be an improvement over the current system, in which someone could be brought here by his parents as a toddler and then be deported as an adult to a country he has no memory of living in. A difficulty, I suppose, would be that residency is harder to document than birthplace.

If we adopted his system there wouldn't be a need for such a system. He's arguing that we should allow everyone to come here, just not get benefits. So no one would be deported unless they committed a serious crime.

But I don't think he's going to get the kind of cross-party cooperation he wants. Two major complaints from the Right are that they steal our jobs and commit crimes. And I think I've argued before that it's impossible to deny many of our benefits, ex. free medical care.

Another recent piece on immigration (I didn't feel like starting yet another topic) comes from Jeb Bush and Robert Putnam, and makes a couple points that I've tried to make: that current immigration and the fears surrounding it are not so different from what this country has seen in the past, and that if we want immigrants to assimilate, it might help if we welcomed them.

"Few of their children in the country learn English. The signs in our streets have inscriptions in both languages. . . . Unless the stream of their importation could be turned . . . they will soon so outnumber us that we will not preserve our language, and even our government will become precarious." Thus Ben Franklin referred to German Americans...

Some of the fears aren't different from the past. We've never had a looming fiscal crisis in which entitlements played a large role and where immigrants exacerbated that problem.

That one is new.

[nathan]

I say let's end it. I didn't read anything above.

[Kafir]

If we adopted his system there wouldn't be a need for such a system. He's arguing that we should allow everyone to come here, just not get benefits. So no one would be deported unless they committed a serious crime.

I'm not really all that concerned with whether immigrants get or don't get government benefits. On the one hand I'm not sure that immigrants are particularly more likely to be a net drain on the system than natives; on the other hand I think many people would be glad to come here without the promise of any benefits, and I'd be willing to let them do so.

And you're right, if we made it easier for non-citizens to stay in, work in, and move in and out of the U.S., that would remove some of the bigger disadvantages of noncitizenship.

One thing that would still concern me is the possibility that someone could be born in the U.S., grow up in the U.S., live his life in the U.S., and not be able to vote in the U.S, because of who his parents were. I know voting rights aren't that significant to any individual's life, but I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a hereditary underclass of noncitizen residents.

[ggeezz]

One thing that would still concern me is the possibility that someone could be born in the U.S., grow up in the U.S., live his life in the U.S., and not be able to vote in the U.S, because of who his parents were. I know voting rights aren't that significant to any individual's life, but I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a hereditary underclass of noncitizen residents.

He can vote in his home country and/or go back to his home country if he doesn't like the result of an election.

More fundamentally, I'm not sure that moving to place inherently gives you the right to vote in that place, especially if you're a noncitizen guest. Imagine a family farm let's someone help in exchange for room and board, and then he demands to vote on family matters.

Still, I somewhat share your concerns. If the help stays around for 20 years, the family ought to at least listen to his concerns if not give him a full vote.

[Kafir]

One thing that would still concern me is the possibility that someone could be born in the U.S., grow up in the U.S., live his life in the U.S., and not be able to vote in the U.S, because of who his parents were.

He can vote in his home country and/or go back to his home country if he doesn't like the result of an election.

His home country?

You don't go back to a place you've never lived. He could move to his parents' native country--but I suppose most of us could move abroad if we don't like the results of an election; some people regularly threaten to do so.

More fundamentally, I'm not sure that moving to place inherently gives you the right to vote in that place, especially if you're a noncitizen guest. Imagine a family farm let's someone help in exchange for room and board, and then he demands to vote on family matters.

Still, I somewhat share your concerns. If the help stays around for 20 years, the family ought to at least listen to his concerns if not give him a full vote.

I do not expect family farms to be democratically governed. I do expect that of the United States. If the children of the "help" in the U.S. are still "help", you are talking about a hereditary aristocracy.

(I'm not entirely opposed to limiting the vote, actually. But I'd much prefer a universally-imposed poll test on English literacy and American civics, in that case--not a standard of proper ancestry.)

[ggeezz]

One thing that would still concern me is the possibility that someone could be born in the U.S., grow up in the U.S., live his life in the U.S., and not be able to vote in the U.S, because of who his parents were.

He can vote in his home country and/or go back to his home country if he doesn't like the result of an election.

His home country?

You don't go back to a place you've never lived. He could move to his parents' native country--but I suppose most of us could move abroad if we don't like the results of an election; some people regularly threaten to do so.

More fundamentally, I'm not sure that moving to place inherently gives you the right to vote in that place, especially if you're a noncitizen guest. Imagine a family farm let's someone help in exchange for room and board, and then he demands to vote on family matters.

Still, I somewhat share your concerns. If the help stays around for 20 years, the family ought to at least listen to his concerns if not give him a full vote.

I do not expect family farms to be democratically governed. I do expect that of the United States. If the children of the "help" in the U.S. are still "help", you are talking about a hereditary aristocracy.

A Democracy does not require that you let everyone in world vote, nor does it require you to let any who desire become citizens.

It seems distasteful that the children of the family own shares while the children of the help don't. But it's no more distasteful than some children being born to middle-class families in the US and others are born in poor villages in Indonesia.

Should we take the world's GDP and divide it evenly between all humans? (or more relevantly here, divvy up the world's property every generation?)

[Kafir]

Should we take the world's GDP and divide it evenly between all humans? (or more relevantly here, divvy up the world's property every generation?)

This seems to be your go-to rejoinder for questions on immigration. I am asking whether all Americans should have a voice in the government that has jurisdiction over them, or whether that power should be reserved to a hereditary caste.

Your response is to ask whether we should institute global redistribution of wealth. That's possibly an interesting question, but not the one I was posing.

[changa]

Should we take the world's GDP and divide it evenly between all humans? (or more relevantly here, divvy up the world's property every generation?)

And in the same pragmatic vein, perhaps we ought to rescind US citizenship for anyone whose family has not lived here more than 7 generations. All you immigrants get off my lawn.

[Kafir]

Thanks, changa. I was going to suggest that we limit the vote to those whose ancestors fought in the Revolution. Bunch of freeloaders, the rest of you.

More seriously, I'm in a somewhat weak position in this debate, because I haven't really been arguing from first principles or empirical facts, but from American ideals. I assumed that most Americans would have at least some sentimental objection to taxation without representation; that turns out not to be true.