Undecided No More!

Will Truman in reply to Brian Houser says:

And that is inhumane policy, in my view. It’s one thing to say “You were born in Sudan. I’m sorry, but there’s not much we’re going to do to help you. That’s between you and your government.”

And another to say “You were born here, but due to what your parents did, you have no government with which to take your grievance. You are, internationally and here, a non-entity.”

Except of course they do have a government with which to take their grievance. Ours. There’s no legal way of doing so – as with Sudan – but the illegal ways are sufficiently cause for concern.

A path to naturalization when they turn 18 would help, but I have questions about its efficacy.

We are not just a people, we are a land. Being born here should morally afford people certain rights, if we are to consider ourselves morally right people and a land of people. That would include the right of being a citizen. That is the least we can do, in my view, regardless of the sins of their parents.Report

Will Truman in reply to Brian Houser says:

Brian, then let me backtrack that part! Or at least more fully explain it.

My view is that if, say, Juan and Juanita cross the border from Mexico and go on to have little John, then get caught, if they have an Uncle Jose that they can leave the child with, I would be fine with that. My guess is that most of the time they would take the child back with them. It becomes more problematic when we’re talking about foster care. I think in that case, though, it’s very rare that they would leave the child behind (unless the child was already approaching 18, say). That’s just not how parents work, in my view.

Now, in fairness, I don’t support doing this either. I don’t see anchor babies as a real problem. But if I did, I would prefer to approach the situation this way rather then by way of denying birthright citizenship.

Also, I want to stress something I didn’t in my previous comment. Besides the moral imperative, I believe it’s best for us to cultivate our residents and mainstream them into our society as much as possible. Having intergenerational non-citizenship is, in my view, bound to cause problems for us. I don’t have faith that citizenship papers on the 18th birthday would mitigate this much. Growing up scared of the government is not conducive to showing up at the Social Security office at your 18th birthday. My wife’s experience with the immigration population is that they often forgo (prenatal, in her case) health care simply because they don’t understand that doctors won’t turn them in to immigration. Even when the rules are in their favor, they often act with a great deal of caution. Too many of them would try to stay below the radar even when they turn 18 (perhaps for fear that whatever proof they have of having lived here would prove to be insufficient), hurting everybody in the end.Report

Will Truman in reply to Kazzy says:

If Mexico were to call you tomorrow and tell you that you were being granted full citizenship, would you consider it a reward? What if it was Italy? England? Japan?

It would depend on what was required for the citizenship. If being a citizen of Sylvania required that I renounce American citizenship (ie no dual citizenship), I’d renounce it immediately. I’d also look at the tax ramifications.

My default, though, would be to be happy to accept citizenship to any country that would let me. I don’t know what I’d do with Mexican citizenship, but the others would be cool. If I’m living somewhere, I’d prefer to do so with citizenship than without.

There are some die-hard ‘mercans that would object to being a citizen of any country but the good ole US of A. Chances are that is not unrelated to their having been born and raised here, however.Report