Church news reiterates immigration stance

[ZealouslyStriving]

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

That is absolutely not what I am suggesting. It's simply fact that the government decides what is criminal activity, what should be prosecuted, and what the consequences should be when the laws are violated. In making those decisions, it defines who is engaged in criminal activity. In this case, violation of duly passed immigration law can result in fines, imprisonment, and expulsion. The doctrine of the Church clearly states that we obey, honor, and sustain the legal laws of the land and the Church has to deal with it accordingly....by doctrine, principle, and practice. 

Well... it actually says:

  "And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

  Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

  And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil." (Doctrine and Covenants 98:5-7)

** Legal and Constitutional aren't always aligned.

We are generally in agreement, and you do have some points about the conundrum current church policy could face.

Perhaps if the government steps up enforcement in a way that creates legal issues for the Church and undocumented members, that will be the push that leads the Church to implement some program that legally brings Latino members here from particularly dangerous countries like  Honduras to settle in Jackson County and begin the physical building process of New Jerusalem.

  

 

Edited February 13, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[ZealouslyStriving]

Level headed discussion I hope both sides take the opportunity to watch:

 

 

Edited February 14, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[Teancum]

On 2/10/2025 at 10:43 PM, smac97 said:

 

I have both acknowledged Birthright Citizenship as the constitutional status quo, while also noting legal challenges and theories to it.  This is pretty standard lawyer stuff.

Again, I'm pretty ambivalent about it.  I dislike its perverse incentives to break the law, but it's the law of the land.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am pretty much on board with that view. I think it is not in our interests to continue it but if it is to be changed the process for amending the constitution should be followed and the EO recently issued should be tossed out.

[Teancum]

On 2/10/2025 at 11:08 PM, Danzo said:

The 14th amendment was ratified long before the US decided it wanted to keep people out. So wouldn't it be more correct to say that the current law creates perverse incentives to violate constitutional rights?

 

Well it does seem that one of the main reasons the citizenship question was addressed in the 14thA was the children of black slaves. Was it intended to be used how it is used now?  I am skeptical but I do not know. SCOTUS has upheld it in cases other than black Americans after the civil war. And times change and laws can change with them. Maybe it is time to reconsider this part of the 14thA?

[smac97]

On 2/14/2025 at 9:47 AM, Teancum said:

Quote

I have both acknowledged Birthright Citizenship as the constitutional status quo, while also noting legal challenges and theories to it.  This is pretty standard lawyer stuff.

Again, I'm pretty ambivalent about it.  I dislike its perverse incentives to break the law, but it's the law of the land.

I am pretty much on board with that view. I think it is not in our interests to continue it but if it is to be changed the process for amending the constitution should be followed and the EO recently issued should be tossed out.

The thing is, "Birthright Citizenship" is, it seems, a matter of interpretation of the existing Constitutional text, particularly the following clause in the 14th Amendment: "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." 

How this "subject to" provision relates to children born to illegal aliens is, it seems, open for debate.  My understanding (and I am open to correction here, since I seldom play in this area of constitutional waters), an executive order cannot unilaterally overturn constitutional provisions or long-standing Supreme Court interpretations. However, by POTUS issuing such an order, his administration can prompt judicial review, potentially leading the Supreme Court to reconsider or clarify the interpretation of the foregoing clause.  In other words, the EO seems to be a legitimate way to get the ball rolling for judicial review.  And the more I look at it, the more I see some real potency for the argument against Birthright Citizenship as to children born to illegal aliens.  

The primary decision on this issue, United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) does not directly address the issue of birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens.  At the time of the decision, U.S. immigration law did not distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants in the way it does today. Nevertheless, this case is widely cited as precedent for the broad interpretation of birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.  This broad interpretation, though, creates perverse incentives, and also seems to significantly conflict with legislative history re: the 14th Amendment.  My preliminary assessment is that Mr. Trump's legal challenge on this issue has some real legs.

If and when SCOTUS affirms the broad interpretation that has been the status quo, then pursuing an amendment may be appropriate (or perhaps both options could be pursue concurrently).

Thanks,

-Smac

ETA: I am commenting on this because I do not see my post as being "political" in a partisan sense, but rather an impartial assessment of the legal landscape.  I will continue to avoid "political" posts so as to better comply with the board rules.

Edited February 16, 2025 by smac97

[Danzo]

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well it does seem that one of the main reasons the citizenship question was addressed in the 14thA was the children of black slaves. Was it intended to be used how it is used now?  I am skeptical but I do not know. SCOTUS has upheld it in cases other than black Americans after the civil war. And times change and laws can change with them. Maybe it is time to reconsider this part of the 14thA?

If you don't like the way the 14th amendment was written, the proper way to fix it would be to get another amendment change it.  I don't think the president should have to power to amend the constitution whenever he doesn't like the result.

The wording is pretty clear and unambiguous. (Unless you think that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US).

If people who are born in the US might not be a Citizen, then pretty soon, everyone is going to have to prove their ancestry to show they have the right to be here.  (were your parents US Citizens, how do you know?, what about their parents?) 

Most people here, I am sure have a perfect genealogy with nothing but perfect saints, who would never break any law or falsify anything, but My family history is full of scoundrels, felons, polygamists, con artists  and other sorts of shady folks who I am not sure filled out their paperwork correctly when they came to the the US.   Its nice to know that All I have to prove to show I am a citizen is where I was born, not have to prove the my ancestors filled out the right paperwork when they came to the US. 

[Danzo]

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The primary decision on this issue, United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) does not directly address the issue of birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens.  At the time of the decision, U.S. immigration law did not distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants in the way it does today. Nevertheless, this case is widely cited as precedent for the broad interpretation of birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.  This broad interpretation, though, creates perverse incentives, and also seems to significantly conflict with legislative history re: the 14th Amendment.  My preliminary assessment is that Mr. Trump's legal challenge on this issue has some real legs.

I would seem that you object to the 14th amendment because it causes problems with enforcing a law that you think is a "good idea". 

That reminds me of a challenge to a administrative rule we made a few years ago in my state.  The government, in their briefs kept saying "its such a good idea".  In our briefs, we basically said "It may be a 'good idea' but it happens to be against the law".

Needless to say, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court agreed with us (so much that they ordered the government to pay our legal fees) and thought that "good ideas" needed to be passed through constitutional means and not because some government official thought it was a "good idea".  

I know you think it is a "good Idea" that everyone should have to prove their ancestry, the alternative to birthright citizenry (unless there was a statute of limitations, something you are also opposed to), But these "good Ideas" need to be passed through the proper channels.

If the current president is successful in using his position implement his "good Idea", what are you going to say when the next president decides uses his power (inherited from the current president, to advocate his particular "good ideas"?  Ones that impact you directly (as opposed to those affecting "other people")

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

I would seem that you object to the 14th amendment because it causes problems with enforcing a law that you think is a "good idea". 

First, no, I don't "object to the 14th amendment." 

Second, I do not know what you are referencing by "a law" that is "a 'good idea.'"

Third, my comments have been about birthright citizenship, which I explicitly acknowledged "as the constitutional status quo," but that I am "ambivalent" about there being a "constitutional right" to it due to such a right purportedly coming from a troubling interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which "troubling interpretation" arises from A) the perverse incentives it creates to break the law (as we have seen for a very long time), B) the apparent conflict between that interpretation and the legislative history of the 14th Amendment, and C) the apparent absence of on-point precedent (Wong Kim Ark does not address the status of children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens).

Fourth, my observation that a constitutional question exists (I certainly did not originate it) is not a basis for you to once again accuse me of racism.  I hope you will stop doing that, as it is wholly false, unfair, ugly, and impedes reasoned discourse.

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

That reminds me of a challenge to a administrative rule we made a few years ago in my state.  The government, in their briefs kept saying "its such a good idea".  In our briefs, we basically said "It may be a 'good idea' but it happens to be against the law".

Needless to say, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court agreed with us (so much that they ordered the government to pay our legal fees) and thought that "good ideas" needed to be passed through constitutional means and not because some government official thought it was a "good idea".  

Again, I don't know what "good idea" you are referencing here.  

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

I know you think it is a "good Idea" that everyone should have to prove their ancestry, the alternative to birthright citizenry (unless there was a statute of limitations, something you are also opposed to), But these "good Ideas" need to be passed through the proper channels.

No, I don't think you know that.  Because I have never said anything about it.

I will do so now:

In 2025, it's pretty easy to establish A) maternity, B) paternity, C) the citizenship of the mother and father, and D) the geographical location of the birth of a child.  

My understanding is that Jus Soli, the legal concept that a person born on U.S. soil is automatically a U.S. citizen, even where both parents are illegal aliens, is likely to be challenged as to its constitutional bona fides.

The foregoing scenario (U.S. citizenship being conferred to a child born in the U.S. to illegal aliens) has huge ramifications.  I think this is less likely to be applicable to currently-existing scenarios, as I doubt SCOTUS would retroactively negate the citizenship of who-knows-how-many people who have Jus Soli-based citizenship.  However, the status quo creates a huge incentive for non-Americans to break our laws.  This is the most obvious "perverse incentive" which Jus Soli creates.  "Birth Tourism."  "Anchor Babies."  "Chain Migration Expansion."  Unequal treatment as compared to legal immigrants.  National security risks.  

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was to ensure citizenship for formerly enslaved individuals, not to incentivize illegal immigration, birth tourism, or chain migration. 

As there seems to be no directly on-point precedent regarding the the foregoing scenario (U.S. citizenship being conferred to a child born in the U.S. to illegal aliens), I think this is an issue which is ripe for review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Regarding the foregoing, I'm pretty ambivalent about it.  I dislike its perverse incentives to break the law, but it's the law of the land.

My recognition that legal issues and disputes exist re: Jus Soli is not a basis for you to once again accuse me of racism.

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

If the current president is successful in using his position implement his "good Idea",

The "good idea" being . . . elimination of Jus Soli?  Is that what you have been referencing?

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

what are you going to say when the next president decides uses his power (inherited from the current president, to advocate his particular "good ideas"?  Ones that impact you directly (as opposed to those affecting "other people")

Again, my preliminary assessment is that Mr. Trump's legal challenge on this issue has some real legs.  However, constitutional questions are determined by the U.S. Supreme Court.  It is SCOTUS, not Mr. Trump or his EO, which will decide the fate of Jus Soli.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 14, 2025 by smac97

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

If you don't like the way the 14th amendment was written, the proper way to fix it would be to get another amendment change it.

And if you don't like the way the 14th Amendment has been interpreted, the proper way to  address that supposedly interpretation would be to mount a legal challenge to it.

And one way to mount a legal challenge to it is for the Chief Executive to issue an Executive Order which conflicts with the questioned interpretation, and then litigate the merits of both the interpretation and the EO challenging it.

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

I don't think the president should have to power to amend the constitution whenever he doesn't like the result.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that.

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

The wording is pretty clear and unambiguous. (Unless you think that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US).

Actually, I think the wording does not really support Jus Soli.  At least, there is a pretty solid argument to that effect, based on both precedent and legislative history.  I cited a few resources which address this legal issue here.

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

If people who are born in the US might not be a Citizen, then pretty soon, everyone is going to have to prove their ancestry to show they have the right to be here.  (were your parents US Citizens, how do you know?, what about their parents?) 

I suspect that if SCOTUS were to nullify the constitutionality of Jus Soli-based birthright citizenship, it would not do so retroactively.  

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

Most people here, I am sure have a perfect genealogy with nothing but perfect saints, who would never break any law or falsify anything, but My family history is full of scoundrels, felons, polygamists, con artists  and other sorts of shady folks who I am not sure filled out their paperwork correctly when they came to the the US.   Its nice to know that All I have to prove to show I am a citizen is where I was born, not have to prove the my ancestors filled out the right paperwork when they came to the US. 

I think a nullification of birthright citizenship would only have prospective, not retroactive, application.

If that happens, the perverse incentives and their attendance consequences disappear.  "Birth Tourism."  "Anchor Babies."  "Chain Migration Expansion."  Unequal treatment as compared to legal immigrants.  National security risks.  All gone.

If you are aware of on-point SCOTUS precedent on this issue (the citizenship of a person born in the U.S. to illegal aliens), I would like to see it.

Thanks,

-Smac

ETA: @Danzo, it looks like most - if not all - of your concerns about re-visiting birthright citizenship center on what would happen if A) birthright citizenship born in the U.S. to illegal aliens was found to not be a constitutional right under the 14th Amendment, and B) the SCOTUS decision were to be applied retroactively (hence all your "prove your ancestry" commentary above).

I think there is a way forward for SCOTUS to both nullify birthright citizenship and avoid the seemingly and wide-rangingly dire consequences of applying such a decision retroactively.  That would be . . . by not applying the decision retroactively.  SCOTUS clearly has that authority.  Per Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969) :

Quote

Where a decision of this Court could produce substantial inequitable results if applied retroactively, there is ample basis in our cases for avoiding the "injustice or hardship" by a holding of nonretroactivity. Great Northern R. Co. v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co., 287 U. S. 358, 287 U. S. 364 (1932). See Chicot County Drainage Dist. v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U. S. 371 (1940). Cf. Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618 (1965).

I think a decision nullifying birthright citizenship can and should include such a "holding of nonretroactivity."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited February 14, 2025 by smac97

[Danzo]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think a nullification of birthright citizenship would only have prospective, not retroactive, application.

If that were the case, the problems would be popping up in the future.

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If that happens, the perverse incentives and their attendance consequences disappear.  "Birth Tourism."  "Anchor Babies."  "Chain Migration Expansion." 

You really don't like these people, do you?

you claim not to be prejudiced, but you do not hesitate to throw labels on people you don't like, just to deny them legitimacy.  Punish children for the behavior of the parents. These are "anchor babies" are people in your ward and stake and community that you just want to throw out because you don't like them. 

 

[Teancum]

On 2/11/2025 at 7:27 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

🤣🤣🤣

You talk as though the President has decided to send in troops to forcefully take over Canada- when he is simply putting forward the idea of offering statehood if Canadian citizens so choose.

This Trump = Hitler garbage has got to stop.

I live in NY.  My home is Palmyra. My firm's main office in in Rochester which is on Lake Ontario. We have a large office in Buffalo. I do cross border tax work. I know a lot of immigration attorneys and have become good friends with one in Buffalo that works only with Canadians immigrating into the US. I have spoken numerous times at immigration attorney conferences on the tax issues for US citizens living in Canada and visa versa. I have friends in Canada.  They are dismayed at the language from Trump and the fact the the GOP members of congress seem ok with it.  My international tax practice is 90% made up with Australia, Canada and UK persons and businesses, or US persons or businesses operating in one of these nations. Canada is our friend. We do a TON of business with them. Buffalo is one of the busiest entry/exit points in the US for imports and exports. Canada is our most committed ally. They have sent troops to almost every war we have been in including Viet Nam and Korea. They are a proud people and they have good reason. The flippancy with which our president treats them and the sycophant people he seems to inspire like you is embarrassing and wrong. How about you treat them with the same respect we would want from them. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Quote

I think a nullification of birthright citizenship would only have prospective, not retroactive, application.

If that were the case, the problems would be popping up in the future.

Not really.  Again, these days it's pretty easy to establish A) maternity, B) paternity, C) the citizenship of the mother and father, and D) the geographical location of the birth of a child.  

That being the case, I'm not sure what "problems" you are referencing here.  Illegal aliens will no longer have an incentive to break the law so as to have a baby on U.S. soil.  The perverse incentives and their attendance consequences disappear.  "Birth Tourism."  "Anchor Babies."  "Chain Migration Expansion."  Unequal treatment as compared to legal immigrants.  National security risks.  All gone.

Of the foregoing "labels," it looks like you may be taking exception to "anchor babies" as being pejorative.  I intended for its use to be clinical, not pejorative.  However, per ChatGPT the alternatives for this concept are "children of undocumented immigrants" or "children born to noncitizen parents in the U.S."  Those are a bit more clunky, but okay.

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Quote

If that happens, the perverse incentives and their attendance consequences disappear.  "Birth Tourism."  "Anchor Babies."  "Chain Migration Expansion." 

You really don't like these people, do you?

And again, the racism accusation.  How very tiresome.

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

you claim not to be prejudiced,

And you claim not to enjoy torturing puppies for fun and profit.  And yet here we are.

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

but you do not hesitate to throw labels on people you don't like, just to deny them legitimacy. 

I am describing phenomena, not people.

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Punish children for the behavior of the parents.

Oh, nonsense.  This is a constitutional issue.

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

These are "anchor babies" are people in your ward and stake and community that you just want to throw out because you don't like them. 

I think you should stop torturing puppies, regardless of how much joy and financial reward you accrue from doing so.

Getting rid of Jus Soli would not result in what you describe above.  I think it would only have prospective effect.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 14, 2025 by smac97

[The Nehor]

On 2/11/2025 at 6:27 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

🤣🤣🤣

You talk as though the President has decided to send in troops to forcefully take over Canada- when he is simply putting forward the idea of offering statehood if Canadian citizens so choose.

This Trump = Hitler garbage has got to stop.

No, he said he would use “economic force” to annex Canada and wouldn’t rule out “military force” to acquire Greenland and Panama.

That is not offering statehood. Canadians got the real message that he is willing to hurt them to try to coerce them into joining. It is why they are booing the US national anthem and many are refusing to buy American goods.

Another brilliant economic and diplomatic failure by the master of strategic bankruptcies!

Edited February 14, 2025 by The Nehor

[Danzo]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am describing phenomena, not people.

"anchor Babies" Refer to people:" babies" who's crime is being born.  

You see people, babies, as problems. 

 

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

"anchor Babies" Refer to people:" babies" who's crime is being born.  

You see people, babies, as problems. 

Those dirty criminal babies. Maybe someone should do something to keep them from being born.

Oh……I’ve got an idea!

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Danzo said:

"anchor Babies" Refer to people:" babies" who's crime is being born.  

You see people, babies, as problems. 

I do not.  I see jus soli as creating perverse incentives to break the law.

I will acknowledge that "anchor baby" has, for many, a pejorative connotation.  I apologize for using it.  The underlying phenomenon, however, remains an issue.

I notice you do not take exception (yet) to "birth tourism").  It too is a documented phenomenon:

Quote

United States [edit]

See also: Birthright citizenship in the United States

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was ratified after the Civil War to ensure that the freed slaves along with their children would get American citizenship,^[1] guarantees U.S. citizenship to those born in the United States, provided the person is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.^[8] Congress has further extended birthright citizenship to all inhabited U.S. territories except American Samoa. (A person born in American Samoa becomes a non-citizen US national). The parent(s) and child are still subject to de jure and de facto deportation, respectively.^[9] However, once they reach 21 years of age, American-born children, as birthright citizens, are able to sponsor their foreign families' U.S. citizenship and residency.^[10][3]

There are no statistics about the 7,462 births to foreign residents in the United States in 2008,^[1] the most recent year for which statistics are available. That is a small fraction of the roughly 4.3 million total births that year.^[11] The Center for Immigration Studies, a conservative think tank, estimated in 2012 that there were approximately 40,000 annual births to parents in the United States as birth tourists.^[12][13] The center also estimated in 2012 that total births to temporary immigrants in the United States (e.g., tourists, students, guest workers) could be as high as 200,000.^{[14][unreliable source?]}

Russian birth tourism to Florida to 'maternity hotels' in the 2010s is documented.^[10][15][16] Birth tourism packages complete with lodging and medical care delivered in Russian begin at $20,000, and go as high as $84,700 for an apartment in Miami's Trump Tower II complete with a "gold-tiled bathtub and chauffeured Cadillac Escalade."^[16]

One option for mainland Chinese mothers to give birth is Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands, where the cost is cheaper and travel does not require a U.S. visa.^[17] More than 70% of the newborns in Saipan have birth tourist PRC parents who take advantage of the 45-day visa-free visitation rules of the territory and the Covenant of the Northern Mariana Islands to ensure that their children can have American citizenship. There were 282 of these births in 2012.^[18] At least one airline in Hong Kong requests that women who are "observed to have a body size or shape resembling a pregnant woman" submit to a pregnancy test before they are allowed to fly to Saipan.^[19]

As of 2015, Los Angeles is considered a center of the maternity tourism industry, which caters mostly to Asian women from China and Taiwan;^[3] authorities in the city there closed 14 maternity tourism "hotels" in 2013.^[20] The industry is difficult to close down since it is not illegal for a pregnant woman to travel to the U.S.^[20] On March 3, 2015, Federal agents in Los Angeles conducted a series of raids on three "multimillion-dollar birth-tourism businesses" expected to produce the "biggest federal criminal case ever against the booming 'anchor baby' industry", according to The Wall Street Journal.^[20][21][22]

Numerous "maternity businesses" advise pregnant mothers to hide their pregnancies from officials and commit visa fraud—lying to customs agents about their true purpose in the U.S.^[23] Once they give birth, several 'birth tourism' agencies aid the mothers in defrauding the U.S. hospital, taking advantage of discounts reserved for impoverished American mothers.^[24][25] Some mothers will refuse to pay the bill for the medical care received during their hospital stay.^[26]

On October 18, 2014, the North American Chinese language Daily World Journal reported that for several weeks the immigration authorities at LAX had been closely questioning pregnant Chinese women arriving there from China, and in many cases denying them entry to the United States and repatriating them within 12 hours, often on the same airplane on which they had flown to the United States.^[27] In March 2015, federal agents conducted raids on a series of large-scale maternity tourism operations bringing thousands of mainland Chinese women intent on giving their children American citizenship.^[20][21] Congressional representatives such as Phil Gingrey, who have tried to put an end to birth tourism, said these people are "gaming the system".^[28] In August 2015, the issue was discussed among U.S. presidential candidates, including Donald Trump and Jeb Bush.

In January 2019, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigations led to the arrest of three southern California operators of "multimillion-dollar birth-tourism businesses" catering primarily to Chinese nationals.^[29]

Effective January 24, 2020, a new policy was adopted that made it more difficult for pregnant foreign women to come to the US to give birth on US soil to ensure their children become US citizens. The country will no longer issue temporary B-1/B-2 visitor visas to applicants seeking to enter the United States for birth tourism.^[30][31]

In December 2020, federal prosecutors charged six Long Island residents who were operating a birth tourism scheme that cost U.S. taxpayers over $2 million. The suspects submitted over 99 Medicaid claims for different women, assisting the births of about 119 children who now have U.S. citizenship. The suspects were charged with conspiracy to commit health care fraud, visa fraud, wire fraud and money laundering.^[32]

If "birth tourism" is a thing, then I think it's fair to surmise that there have been instances of illegal aliens specifically timing the birth of a child to happen in the U.S. so as to take advantage of Jus Soli.  

Both of these phenomena happen, and both would stop happening if Birthright Citizenship is found to not be a constitutional right.  The "perverse incentives" to break the law (and/or to risk traveling while pregnant) would be gone.

It is these perverse incentives and the calculated and intentional violation of U.S. law which I find troubling.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I do not.  I see jus soli as creating perverse incentives to break the law.

I will acknowledge that "anchor baby" has, for many, a pejorative connotation.  I apologize for using it.  The underlying phenomenon, however, remains an issue.

I notice you do not take exception (yet) to "birth tourism").  It too is a documented phenomenon:

If "birth tourism" is a thing, then I think it's fair to surmise that there have been instances of illegal aliens specifically timing the birth of a child to happen in the U.S. so as to take advantage of Jus Soli.  

Both of these phenomena happen, and both would stop happening if Birthright Citizenship is found to not be a constitutional right.  The "perverse incentives" to break the law (and/or to risk traveling while pregnant) would be gone.

It is these perverse incentives and the calculated and intentional violation of U.S. law which I find troubling.  

Thanks,

-Smac

No matter what you call it, you punish the baby for the actions of the parent.     You want to punish the parents by punishing the baby.

You think people will stop having babies if there were no birthright citizenship? 

You live in a strange, strange world.   

Edited February 14, 2025 by Danzo

[Teancum]

On 2/11/2025 at 12:28 PM, halconero said:

As one of the resident Canadians, I think you somewhat understate what POTUS said. It wasn't simply an offer that Canadians are free to accept or reject. When asked if he was considering military force to annex Canada, he said, "No, economic force." That's not exactly a goodwill offer.

Will you guys take NY. I will petition the Governor. We are right next door and share a Great Lake. 😃

[Teancum]

On 2/11/2025 at 12:35 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

With the goodwill Canada has throughout the world, you should quickly be able to add additional trading partners to keep your economy afloat.

I would tell you what you are acting like but it will get me banned from the thread.🙄

[Calm]

On 2/11/2025 at 12:38 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

Every country has the prerogative to charge foreign interests for the honor of doing business within their borders

Zealous, by this do you mean the tariffs on Canadian goods?

[The Nehor]

And now the AP has been banned from the White House Press groups because they keep referring to the Gulf of American by its deadname the Gulf of Mexico.

It is nice that the administration is accepting of geographic transitions. Oh, and the Gulf’s pronouns are Xe/Xir. When they kept insisting that people would lose their jobs or be punished for deadnaming and not using correct pronouns I assumed they meant that their opponents would be doing that. Turns out they were the woke mob all along. What a stunning reversal!

[ZealouslyStriving]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

Zealous, by this do you mean the tariffs on Canadian goods?

I mean that any country that has imports coming in has the option to impose tariffs for the opportunity to profit from their citizenry.

Edited February 14, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, Danzo said:

No matter what you call it, you punish the baby for the actions of the parent. 

Malarky.  Frankly, I find it offensive that, by your reckoning, a baby born to, say, Mexican nationals is "punished" by inheriting Mexican citizenship from his parents.

37 minutes ago, Danzo said:

You want to punish the parents by punishing the baby.

Yeesh.  So American citizenship is a blessing, and any other citizenship is "punishment"?

Are you sure you want to go with that?

37 minutes ago, Danzo said:

You think people will stop having babies if there were no birthright citizenship? 

No.  But I think people will be substantially less incentivized to break U.S. immigration laws.

I have read many articles describing the horrific things involved in illegal border crossings (which crossings some folks apparently want to keep happening).  See, e.g., here: 

‘You Have to Pay With Your Body’: The Hidden Nightmare of Sexual Violence on the Border

Quote

It was dark in the stash house where they kept her, the windows covered so no one could see inside. At first, the smugglers had her cook for the other migrants who had recently crossed illegally into the United States. Then they took her to a room upstairs, locked the door and began taking turns with her.

It was the summer of 2014, and Melvin, a 36-year-old mother of three, had just completed the journey from her native Guatemala, crossing the Rio Grande on a raft before being led to the house in the Texas border city of McAllen.

For weeks in that locked room, the men she had paid to get her safely to the United States drugged her with pills and cocaine, refusing to let her out even to bathe. “I think that since they put me in that room, they killed me,” she said. “They raped us so many times they didn’t see us as human beings anymore.”

Horrific.

Most political/legal acts involve tradeoffs.  Event he most sensible and well-intentioned laws can have unintended harmful side effects.  

Here, however, we have large numbers of Americans who are opposed to laws which, if enforced, would obliterate the "coyote" industry, and all the horrible things that go with it, such as what is described above.

BIRTH TOURISM IN THE UNITED STATES

Quote

While birthright citizenship has many undeniable benefits, it also enabled a troubling and unintentional phenomenon known as “birth tourism.”  Birth tourism describes the practice by which expecting parents travel to the United States to give birth and secure U.S. citizenship for their children.

We can't even call this an "open secret," since there is nothing secretive about it.  

Some specifically acknowledge and facilitate specific and calculated efforts with "birth tourism."  See, e.g., here:

Doctors Para Ti: Is having my baby in the United States Legal?

Quote

In an increasingly interconnected world, parents are exploring every available option to secure the best possible future for their children. One avenue that has gained prominence in recent years is medical tourism for childbirth in the United States. Doctores Para Ti, a leading obstetrics and gynecology clinic located in El Paso, Texas, facilitates this process for expectant parents who seek to provide their children with the privilege of US citizenship without immigration repercussions. This page talks about birthright citizenship and answers the question of whether it is legal for foreigners to have their babies in the United States. However, as with any legal matter, there are intricacies and considerations to be aware of.

Can't get much clearer than that.

If there is a constitutional right to citizenship for a child born in the U.S. to illegal aliens, I have no qualms with that itself (though I do have qualms with the perverse incentives that approach creates).  The more I review the matter, though, the more I see weaknesses and flaws in the status quo interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

If there was a statute passed to grant such "birthright citizenship," I would have no qualms with that, either (though, again, the perverse incentives remain).

Conversely, if the status quo interpretation of the 14th Amendment is in error, we need to address that (along with the perverse incentives created by this erroneous interpretation).

Quote

You live in a strange, strange world.   

Says the guy who tortures puppies for fun and profit.  I don't see how you can sleep at night.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 14, 2025 by smac97

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I mean that any country that has imports coming in has the option to impose tariffs for the opportunity to profit from the citizenry.

And they have the option to think you’re an absolute jerk for doing it and threatening to annex them by coercive economic means.

Having an option doesn’t make it moral or wise or not a really stupid idea that no one should have done.

[SteveO]

32 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And now the AP has been banned from the White House Press groups because they keep referring to the Gulf of American by its deadname the Gulf of Mexico.

It is nice that the administration is accepting of geographic transitions. Oh, and the Gulf’s pronouns are Xe/Xir. When they kept insisting that people would lose their jobs or be punished for deadnaming and not using correct pronouns I assumed they meant that their opponents would be doing that. Turns out they were the woke mob all along. What a stunning reversal!

 😂 are you a moderator on Reddit?  I always picture you wearing a fedora.

Anyways, they aren’t losing their jobs.  Just prevented from doing them.  

Starting next week, those whose job loss you’ll really have to mourn are the professionally useless ones from Washington.

Happy Friday guys, make sure and touch grass