Support NeoGAF

[johnsavage]

I think most people here are arguing the morality of this. I was lucky enough to be born on American soil while my parents who were legal aliens at the time (now citizens) were working and living in the States. I know people that have successfully gone through the citizenship process and people that are stuck because immigration laws are sometimes very unfair (apparently there are a a crapton of Chinese people trying to become citizens so the process really sucks for them).

If this practice interferes with non-citizens working and living in the states waiting for their chance, then the constitution should be changed so that people that REALLY want it and are patiently waiting for it get it. I doubt a new born gives a shit about what country s/he is a citizen of.

 

[NeOak]

The 14th amendment wasn't written with the constitution 200 years ago anyway. It was added almost 100 years later for what is again, a damn good reason -- a reason that still exists today. The restriction of the rights of minorities; specifically black people.

Wasn't that more of a legal mockery with the "Separate but equal" thing?

The 14th amendment was fucked the moment the Jim Crow laws came into effect.

 

[Africanus]

I think most people here are arguing the morality of this. I was lucky enough to be born on American soil while my parents who were legal aliens at the time (now citizens) were working and living in the States. I know people that have successfully gone through the citizenship process and people that are stuck because immigration laws are sometimes very unfair (apparently there are a a crapton of Chinese people trying to become citizens so the process really sucks for them).

If this practice interferes with non-citizens working and living in the states waiting for their chance, then the constitution should be changed so that people that REALLY want it and are patiently waiting for it get it. I doubt a new born gives a shit about what country s/he is a citizen of.

As a fellow first generation citizen, I understand the argument of the difficulty of getting to the United States.

However, I don't particularly care for a morality argument honestly. Are these women perhaps abusing a loophole of the 14th amendment? Yes. However, I am doubtful that their children will not eventually pay into the American economy more than they took that day they were born. After all, there is little reason to get an American citizenship if one is not planning to live in America.

Spoiler

There is probably more than one reason I happen to be overlooking, however the child will be taxed all their natural life so it is still of little concern.

Rather than changing the 14th amendment to take care of the problem these women are creating, and simultaneously making it much more onerous for those immigrants applying in a more correct fashion, I'd rather see an overhaul of the immigration system entirely.

Wasn't that more of a legal mockery with the "Separate but equal" thing?

The 14th amendment was fucked the moment the Jim Crow laws came into effect.

Legal mockery? Perhaps, but just as "All men are created equal", it's more about the ideal it represented (and became), than the physical/legal effect at the time.

 

[Valhelm]

This is the opposite of what we are discussing. Someone who came to the US as a two month old and who lives their entire life in the country could not be a citizen, not even a permenant resident, while someone who spent 2 weeks in the US as a newborn baby gets full citizenship rights in perpetuity.

I'm pointing out that repealing Jus Soli would do much, much more than close this loophole. It would prevent huge amounts of people from becoming American citizens, due to no fault of their own.

I might support repealing citizenship for people who don't spend at least a year of their childhood in the US, but that opens pretty unfortunate doors.

 

[crazygambit]

Maybe, but when the laws were written there were no passenger airlines. People that come to America were on boats, and maternity tourism was an unheard of concept. It's not so much of an abuse, but a law that needs to be updated to reflect 2015.

Wouldn't that hold true for the whole constitution? Many countries regularly make whole new constitutions or significant changes to their current ones as times change, but somehow I don't see the US ever doing that.