Vacation To U.S. To Give Birth

[PureX]

Why don't you ask that question to other countries about their citizenship laws?
Seems like there are those that say "the rest of the world does X" so why not be like the rest of the world?

When other countries do something right, and well, we should be smart enough to emulate them, When they don't, we should be smart enough not to, don't you think?

 

[PureX]

Do you really think there is any hope of changing the healthcare in the U.S. given your above statement.

Nothing will change in this country until we stop the legalized bribery of our legislature by the super wealthy. But you didn't answer the question about why you think it's important that these babies not be born here. Why not?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Not a law, just a change to the 14th Amendment, that would require the mother or father to be a citizen of the U.S. before a baby is considered a "natural born" citizen. This would not preclude applying for becoming a naturalized citizen.
You know like most of the rest of the world. Say like France's requirements.

"Most of the rest of the world"? Interesting that you routinely rubbish European countries and handwave any suggestion the US should emulate any of their successful programs and practices... until you find an example of something that fits your biases. Then, suddenly, "oh, we should copy France!"

I'll bet a years salary that if anyone suggested implementing French labour laws or tax laws or *gasp* gun laws in the US you'd be irate.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Why don't you ask that question to other countries about their citizenship laws?
Seems like there are those that say "the rest of the world does X" so why not be like the rest of the world?

60 countries have what you call "birth right citizenship". To suggest "the rest of the World doesn't", is, at best, misleading.

 

[esmith]

We need some new laws (such as requiring safety training across the board for everyone and all who want to buy a gun), we need to be more strict in some areas (being intoxicated and handling a firearm should be no different than handling a motor vehicle while intoxicated), and we have to cause social changes that will cause pressures to enforce what we have. We'll never have that, though, if people keep harping on about how it is everyone's right to own a gun.

Wait a minute you just said laws aren't being enforced and you want to put a new law into place? How you going to enforce it?

 

[esmith]

60 countries have what you call "birth right citizenship". To suggest "the rest of the World doesn't", is, at best, misleading.

oh you mean these countries. from More than 30 other countries recognize birthright citizenship — here's the full list Want to try again.
and not all of them grant citizenship at birth. See Canadian nationality law - Wikipedia section Exceptions.

in addition: https://www.canadianimmigration.net/news-articles/canada-considers-removing-citizenship-by-birth/

 

[Shaul]

The fourteenth amendment does not guarantee citizenship to every person born in U.S. territory. The child must also be born “subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.”

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well it seems that the authorities have arrested You Win USA employees for running a scheme to bring pregnant women to the U.S. so babies could be born in the U.S. and become citizens. I'm sure that this isn't the only ones doing this, and this includes individuals.
Maybe we need to look at changing the 14th Amendment.

Travel agents charged with bringing pregnant Chinese women to give birth on U.S. soil

When talking about gun control, I remember you saying that the laws on the books should be fully enforced before considering bringing in new ones.

Have you changed your mind, or is there a double standard at play?

 

[Revoltingest]

"Most of the rest of the world"? Interesting that you routinely rubbish European countries and handwave any suggestion the US should emulate any of their successful programs and practices... until you find an example of something that fits your biases. Then, suddenly, "oh, we should copy France!"

I'll bet a years salary that if anyone suggested implementing French labour laws or tax laws or *gasp* gun laws in the US you'd be irate.

It's always best to copy good ideas a la carte.
And even dislikable people/countries can have some merit.
One should never just order everything on the menu.

 

[esmith]

When talking about gun control, I remember you saying that the laws on the books should be fully enforced before considering bringing in new ones.

Have you changed your mind, or is there a double standard at play?

Nope.
Knowing you I suspect there is an ulterior motive to your question. Why don't you just spit it out and be done with it vice beating-around-the-bush as you usually do.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nope.

It wasn't a yes or no question.

Knowing you I suspect there is an ulterior motive to your question.

You don't know me.

I don't know you either, which is why I'm not jumping to the conclusion that your position is as hypocritical as it seems to be, or that your problems with birthright citizenship are the racist and xenophobic reasons that people usually have for opposing birthright citizenship.

Why don't you just spit it out and be done with it vice beating-around-the-bush as you usually do.

No beating around the bush; I'm just trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[esmith]

It wasn't a yes or no question.


You don't know me.

I don't know you either, which is why I'm not jumping to the conclusion that your position is as hypocritical as it seems to be, or that your problems with birthright citizenship are the racist and xenophobic reasons that people usually have for opposing birthright citizenship.


No beating around the bush; I'm just trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

See there you go again, you put forth a specific question, then someone answers it, you then disregard the question and the answer and go off in another tangent. Discussing anything with you is like herding cats.
Back to the statement I replied to:

When talking about gun control, I remember you saying that the laws on the books should be fully enforced before considering bringing in new ones.

Have you changed your mind, or is there a double standard at play?

And your followup to my answer had absolutely nothing to do with the original statement and false. Tell you what, until you decide you will not be like a herd of cats, I'm going to stop responding to your post. Have a nice day.

 

[Twilight Hue]

In what way?

Anchor babies.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Wait a minute you just said laws aren't being enforced and you want to put a new law into place? How you going to enforce it?

In case you didn't notice (it seems you didn't), we need social pressure to get people to demand enforcement. I did say that. But it won't happen as long as we want to pretend everyone should have a gun and we need more guns to fix a problem with gun violence.

 

[esmith]

In case you didn't notice (it seems you didn't), we need social pressure to get people to demand enforcement. I did say that. But it won't happen as long as we want to pretend everyone should have a gun and we need more guns to fix a problem with gun violence.

Unfortunately that probably will never happen. Take for instance the following from Law Enforcement: Few Individuals Denied Firearms Purchases Are Prosecuted and ATF Should Assess Use of Warning Notices in Lieu of Prosecutions
Individuals who submit falsified information on a form needed to purchase a firearm (e.g., do not disclose a felony conviction) may be subject to investigation and prosecution.
In fiscal 2017, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives referred about 12,700 denied purchases to its field divisions for investigation. As of June 2018, U.S. Attorney’s Offices prosecuted 12 of these cases.
ATF field divisions may send warning notices to denied persons in lieu of prosecution, but this practice varies across divisions.
We recommended that ATF assess field divisions' use of warning notices and determine if policy changes are needed.

or you might look at this
Most people trying to buy a gun illegally are never prosecuted, U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte says

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Unfortunately that probably will never happen. Take for instance the following from Law Enforcement: Few Individuals Denied Firearms Purchases Are Prosecuted and ATF Should Assess Use of Warning Notices in Lieu of Prosecutions
Individuals who submit falsified information on a form needed to purchase a firearm (e.g., do not disclose a felony conviction) may be subject to investigation and prosecution.
In fiscal 2017, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives referred about 12,700 denied purchases to its field divisions for investigation. As of June 2018, U.S. Attorney’s Offices prosecuted 12 of these cases.
ATF field divisions may send warning notices to denied persons in lieu of prosecution, but this practice varies across divisions.
We recommended that ATF assess field divisions' use of warning notices and determine if policy changes are needed.

or you might look at this
Most people trying to buy a gun illegally are never prosecuted, U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte says

Those are indeed problems. It's also common for there to be under reporting from mental health institutions. It's an absolute wreck. We need to wake up, end the myths, demand accountability, and just accept the fact some people should not be allowed to own a gun.

 

[esmith]

Those are indeed problems. It's also common for there to be under reporting from mental health institutions. It's an absolute wreck. We need to wake up, end the myths, demand accountability, and just accept the fact some people should not be allowed to own a gun.

You do realize that "mental health institutions" have almost disappeared don't you.
https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.28.3.676

And here is one of many reasons metal health problems are not reported.
Violence and Gun Reporting Laws and Mental Health | NAMI: National Alliance on Mental Illness

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

oh you mean these countries. from More than 30 other countries recognize birthright citizenship — here's the full list Want to try again.
and not all of them grant citizenship at birth. See Canadian nationality law - Wikipedia section Exceptions.

in addition: https://www.canadianimmigration.net/news-articles/canada-considers-removing-citizenship-by-birth/

I don't know where you got your graphic, but it's inaccurate. Australia, for example. Read your own wiki link, too, maybe. 60 countries. And how shocking you completely ignored the earlier post.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The fourteenth amendment does not guarantee citizenship to every person born in U.S. territory. The child must also be born “subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.”

Anyone who's in the US - except maybe someone with diplomatic immunity - is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

If you think this isn't the case, I trust you'll agree to pay any speeding tickets I get in Michigan.

 

[esmith]

I don't know where you got your graphic, but it's inaccurate. Australia, for example. Read your own wiki link, too, maybe. 60 countries. And how shocking you completely ignored the earlier post.

I don't know where you got your information, but it's inaccurate. Australia, does not grant birthright citizenship. Australia has Restricted Jus soli.

According to: Australian residency rights for children born to migrant parents
“Children born to temporary visa holders in Australia are granted temporary visas. But it is important to note that children born in Australia who hold temporary visas and live in Australia for 10 consecutive years, are eligible to apply and be granted Australian citizenship”.
And:
Jus soli - Wikipedia

• 
  Australia:[42] Since 20 August 1986, a person born in Australia acquires Australian citizenship by birth only if at least one parent was an Australian citizen or permanent resident; or else after living the first ten years of their life in Australia, regardless of their parent's citizenship status (see Australian nationality law).

As far as your comment "And how shocking you completely ignored the earlier post." I really don't know what previous post you are referring to and why should I not ignore it if I don't have a comment to make?