Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

In my opinion, citizenship of this nation is something that should have to be earned, even for those born here.

That is just backwards. Government serves for the benefit of its people, not the other way around. Otherwise you could eventually have just one American "citizen", who always elects himself and concludes that no one else has "earned" the right to vote.

The Constitutional principle of birthright was derived from a great libertarian document known as the Declaration of Independence. It says, "governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." The Constitution infers that if you are born in America, then you are governed by the American government, so therefore you deserve enfranchisement. You have been tempted by a completely different doctrine of having to "earn" what the Declaration describes as an unalienable right.

It would be too easy to take this as more evidence that neolibertarianism is to libertarianism as neopets are to pets.

If they work hard, and pay taxes, and/or volunteer for public service of some kind

This part might not be unreasonable, if you acknowledge the truth that millions of illegal immigrants do in fact work hard and pay taxes. The "volunteer for public service" part is an ill-defined, namby-pamby "takes a village" concern that has no place in the legal code.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/nyregion/16immig.html

Posted by at September 30, 2007 12:23 PM

The Constitution infers that if you are born in America, then you are governed by the American government, so therefore you deserve enfranchisement. You have been tempted by a completely different doctrine of having to "earn" what the Declaration describes as an unalienable right.

The Constitution "infers" nothing, though you may infer things from it.

If the Constitution implied such a thing, then it apparently didn't do it to everyone, or there would have been no perceived need for the Fourteenth Amendment.

This part might not be unreasonable, if you acknowledge the truth that millions of illegal immigrants do in fact work hard and pay taxes.

Of course I acknowledge that. As I said, this post has nothing to do with the illegal immigration debate (though Thompson's comments are clearly related to it). As I said, I think that many people crossing our border illegally are better citizenship material than many living in our inner cities.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 30, 2007 12:32 PM

If the Constitution implied such a thing, then it apparently didn't do it to everyone, or there would have been no perceived need for the Fourteenth Amendment.

Since you really want to split hairs on this point, what I meant was: The authors of the 14th amendment inferred, from the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence, that everyone born in America is governed and deserves to be consented. The 14th amendment, moreover, is part of the Constitution, even if it wasn't there originally.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 made it clear why the founders fudged this issue in the (unamended) Constitution: "Any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jursidication of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof." They said "all men" in the Declaration because it was the right thing to say. But they were also scared of their own wisdom; they had meant all along only non-indentured white men.

It took Abraham Lincoln to finally convince America that right makes might. In particular he came to mean that we should go all the way with unalienable rights, and not just grant them to non-indentured white men. Of course he had already been assassinated by the time of the 14th Amendment, but it does express this wisdom.

Fred Thompson, unfortunately, has to win the vote of certain Americans who never accepted this basic reform. The illegal immigrants are not quite white, and they are a lot like indentured servants. Thompson is catering to the anti-Lincoln faction by questioning the citizenship of the children of illegals.

This could be a reason to like Fred Thompson if you want the Republicans to lose the election. You won't get a man's vote by questioning his right to vote. Thompson has picked a strategy to get nominated and then lose.

Bush, to his credit, has a far better grasp of this issue than Fred Thompson, both as a matter of principle and expedient. He lost his racism at a young age --- his mother washed his mouth out with soap for using the N-word. And he doesn't want the Republican Party to be a demographic suicide pact.

I think that many people crossing our border illegally are better citizenship material

I'm glad that you favor of amnesty for these people. Fred Thompson sees it differently.

Posted by at September 30, 2007 01:07 PM

I'm glad that you favor of amnesty for these people.

I didn't say that.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 30, 2007 01:15 PM

I didn't say that.

Fine. You said that those who work hard, pay taxes, and/or volunteer for public service of some kind should be granted a route to citizenship. If you had the courage to favor amnesty for these very people, then you would have deserved credit for it.

Posted by at September 30, 2007 01:23 PM

You said that those who work hard, pay taxes, and/or volunteer for public service of some kind should be granted a route to citizenship.

Not all people crossing our borders illegally will meet these criteria. And eventually granting them citizenship is not necessarily an "amnesty."

If you had the courage to favor amnesty for these very people, then you would have deserved credit for it.

And if you had the courage to use your name, we might take your disingenuous, straw-man posts more seriously.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 30, 2007 01:30 PM

Eventually granting them citizenship is not necessarily an "amnesty."

I agree, but you're denying the debate that actually took place. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, which was Bush's push for immigration reform, would have been exactly what you describe as a fair path to citizenship. It has it all: paying taxes, a merit system, employer sponsorship, etc.
But anti-Lincoln Republicans still cried, "amnesty!". That is why the bill died. So yes, it isn't really blind amnesty at all. Either you have the courage to favor fair citizenship according your criteria, even if Rush Limbaugh and Jim Gilchrist call it as amnesty; or you don't.

More to the present concern, certainly Fred Thompson has no such courage. When the Republican slate was invited to the Univision debate, neither Thompson, nor Giuliani, nor Romney showed up. They don't want to say much of anything to Hispanic voters.

Again, in one respect they are right. They don't want the Hispanic vote, and in truth they don't deserve it.

Posted by at September 30, 2007 02:07 PM

I agree, but you're denying the debate that actually took place.

Since you seem to have problems with reading comprehension, I'll repeat this one more time, and type it more slowly this time, just for you. I am not "denying" any debates that took place. I am ignoring them, since they are irrelevant to my points. This post has very little to do with the current immigration debate.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 30, 2007 02:14 PM

"Again, in one respect they are right. They don't want the Hispanic vote, and in truth they don't deserve it."

Despite your predictions of gloom and doom for Fred, the Reagan Democrats he gains will more than make up for the fradulently voting liiegal aliens he loses.

Mark my words, Hillary's vote in favor of amnesty sealed her electoral downfall. Next year will be about Amnesty and border issues but you are not going to like the outcome.

Posted by Mike Puckett at September 30, 2007 02:15 PM

I am ignoring them, since they are irrelevant to my points.

It doesn't quite make sense to brush aside Bush's failed immigration reform, since it is the only reason that Thompson questioned the 14th Amendment. I don't see how you can say that it's a reason to like him or not like him without examining the real reason that he said it.

But fine, since you are now casting this as a purely theoretical discussion, what you're still saying is that the Declaration of Independence is wrong, that not all men should be consented to be governed. You're saying that maybe they should "earn" the right instead of being born with it. If this is neolibertarianism, then neolibertarianism is to libertarianism as NeoPets are to pets. (Also as neon is to the letter "n".)

Despite your predictions of gloom and doom for Fred, the Reagan Democrats he gains will more than make up for the fraudulently voting illegal aliens he loses.

I shouldn't say that Fred Thompson absolutely can't get elected despite this or that stupid thing he says to get nominated. Intrade gives him 9 cents on the dollar, not zero. Even so, it will later be a millstone if he now reasons that Univision = Spanish = the fraud vote, or that the 14th Amendment = pregnant infiltrators = the fraud vote.

Posted by at September 30, 2007 02:39 PM

I don't see how you can say that it's a reason to like him or not like him without examining the real reason that he said it.

Consider that just because you can't see something, doesn't mean that it's not possible.

I like the fact that he's willing to challenge conventional wisdom and the status quo, even if I disagree with any particular statement along that line.

If this is neolibertarianism, then neolibertarianism is to libertarianism as NeoPets are to pets. .

Yes, you already wrote that once, up above. It doesn't become any less stupid from repetition.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 30, 2007 02:42 PM

I like the fact that he's willing to challenge conventional wisdom

But it isn't any challenge at all to the conventional wisdom of the Republican primary. Jim Gilchrist has said many times that he wants Congress or the Executive to reinterpret the 14th Amendment.

For that matter, David Duke won the Republican primary in Louisiana with much greater "challenges to conventional wisdom" than Fred Thompson. Is that a reason to like him, even if you may disagree with particular statements?

Posted by at September 30, 2007 03:01 PM

But it isn't any challenge at all to the conventional wisdom of the Republican primary. Jim Gilchrist has said many times that he wants Congress or the Executive to reinterpret the 14th Amendment.

Jim Gilchrist is not the voice of the Republican Party. You apparently haven't been paying much attention to Republicans.

David Duke won the Republican primary in Louisiana with much greater "challenges to conventional wisdom" than Fred Thompson.

Yes, well, Hitler was a vegetarian, too.

Is that a reason to like him, even if you may disagree with particular statements?

It could be, if the statements weren't so obviously racist and vile.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 30, 2007 03:10 PM

How about this one; a ceremony, to be conducted not earlier than one's birthday that makes one a legal adult. That ceremony to be conducted in groups, and publicly, and to include a sworn oath similar to various others; to uphold the Constitution and to explicitly repudiate any of your beliefs that contradict it. You don't want to so swear? Then you're not a citizen.

No good Moslem would swear this oath, because any good Moslem would believe that Sharia law ought to be in force everywhere, and Sharia law conflicts with the American Constitution in several ways. This would mean less Moslems in America with the vote. I don't have a problem with that. I suspect, strongly, that there are other forms of extremism that similarly contradict the Constitution but don't know of any specifically.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at September 30, 2007 03:39 PM

Jim Gilchrist is not the voice of the Republican Party.

On Hispanic immigration, Gilchrist evidently is the voice of the Republican primary.

Yes, well, Hitler was a vegetarian, too.

Hitler is irrelevant, because unlike David Duke, he never won an American political primary.

Posted by at September 30, 2007 03:40 PM

@Fletcher:

I seem to recall in reading a Harry Turtledove alternate history novel that there are several nominally Christian sects that forbid their members from the swearing of oaths. When a group of men are being 'sworn' into the Army, the guy at the front says "Swear, avow, or affirm" when leading the 'pledge'

@Rand:

Starship Troopers is the hottest of hot topics in re Heinlein's works. His fans tend to point out that "Federal" service is required, not "Military". But all of the service options are risky, unpleasant, or both. One of the characters asserts that the point is to restrict the franchise to those who demonstrated a willingness to put society's needs above their own.

Another thing that is often missed is that you have to complete your service before you actually get to vote. When Johnny considers 'going career' he reflects that if he changes his mind, they'll let him out, but they might get picky about giving him his voter's card.

Posted by Glenn at September 30, 2007 05:48 PM

Rand, although I tend towards earned citizenship myself, I disagree about entitlements - I think that accepting entitlements (as in receiving government money) should disqualify you from voting. The largest instability I see in a democratic system is that people tend to form a group with 51% of the population in it, and use it to steal the resources of the 49%. By only allowing those that do not benefit directly from entitlements to vote, this instability is eliminated.

In addition, the whole point of most of those entitlements (if you concede that they have a point) only exists if applied equally to everyone. Society is made better by an economic safety net only if it is available to those that need it. My opinion is "if you need it, take it - but you are giving up your right to vote."

Another thought I've been thinking of recently, speaking of radical new forms of government: Why do we elect 1 government to perform 3 different jobs? Government, as I see it, has 3 purposes: 1) Defend the rights of its citizens; 2) Create and maintain public infrastructure such as roads, etc; 3) Maintain the economy. The problem is that one person is seldom good at all three - in fact, since the three at often at odds with each other you tend to get wild swings based on unrelated issues. For example, people vote Republican because they agree with the Republicans on the economy - but they get the rights position of the Republicans by default. Just thinking a separation might work better...

Posted by David at September 30, 2007 09:39 PM

Another thought:

It's quite conceivable that I might come up with criteria by which I myself wouldn't currently be eligible for citizenship. ... If that were the case, I would do what I could personally to rectify the situation as soon as possible.

Certainly any decent-looking citizenship test would include a civics requirement. That would include the passage in the Declaration of Independence that asserts that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. If you studied the matter, I'm sure that you would understand that "consent of the governed" means everyone governed, not just those people who jump over arbitrary hurdles. You would then want to dismantle the hurdles that the system made you jump over.

So we can all leap ahead to the end and ignore these foolish proposals that would weaken or violate the 14th Amendment, and that are also odious to the Declaration.

Posted by at October 1, 2007 12:00 AM

Perhaps there should be a clear difference between citizens and residents born here. I don't believe a fourth generation welfare person should have the same voting power as one that has volunteered for and completed a military term. Anyone that is just here for the free ride should lose some voice in the matter.

On an individual level, just how much say does a hitch hiker have on your vehicle operation? I feel different about riders that help with the gas than those that complain without ever helping.

Posted by john hare at October 1, 2007 04:16 AM

Applying " "'s criterion of "governed" ==> citizenship leaves us wide open to those who would destroy us.

It also begs the question of culture, and how we avoid becoming the dumping ground of other country's violent actors.

Posted by MG at October 1, 2007 09:23 AM

Conflation: the friend of demagogues, the confuser of sloppy thinkers and the enemy of substantive debate.

"Birthright" citizenship is not the issue; if a legal immigrant, or even a visitor on a valid visa has a child within the borders of the US, that child is a citizen.

The question is: what of those born of a mother and father who are not *legally* here?

Short and sweet: should the term "anchor baby" be removed from the lexicon?

Posted by bud at October 1, 2007 01:05 PM

The province, later Republic, of Texas was once the dumping ground of the United States' violent actors. ;^)

Also, and in general, is not the franchise based on taxation? Why should we withhold suffrage from anyone who is paying property taxes via rent or sales taxes whenever they shop?

Posted by Jay Manifold at October 1, 2007 04:57 PM

"Birthright" citizenship is not the issue; if a legal immigrant, or even a visitor on a valid visa has a child within the borders of the US, that child is a citizen.

The question is: what of those born of a mother and father who are not *legally* here?

Short and sweet: should the term "anchor baby" be removed from the lexicon?

Short and sweet, Bud: Should "anchor babies" whose families came over on the Mayflower be removed also, or are they more deserving than those who came from Mexico? Why or why not?

By your definition, most people in the United States would not be citizens. There's a long history of people entering the US without government permission slips. Visas, passports, and government-issued biometric identification cards are fairly recent developments.

Posted by Edward Wright at October 1, 2007 08:21 PM

"Anchor babies" exist because their parents violated US law to deliver here.

I believe such babies should be American citizens. Their parents, however, should not be granted permission to stay in the US. That means the parents and child return to country of origin, and parents can apply to visit the US, consistent with provisions of current law.

The child can reside in the US at any time, so long as there are people, legally resident in the US, to care for the child.

This weakens the incentive to create anchor babies. The parents still give the child advantages, but without gaming the system for their personal benefit.

Note: I think such children should have recognized dual citizenship, so that if they arrive in the US, not acculturated to the US, and then are convicted of (say) a felony, they can serve their time in US prison, have their US citizenship stripped, and then repatriated to their homeland.

That's how I think we should handle anchor babies.

Posted by MG at October 2, 2007 09:06 AM

One further point; as some may recall, I can't vote in America anyway - I was not born there and don't live there, I'm a Brit. I think that the right to vote ought to be restricted in basically the same way here - which would be complicated by our lack of a written constitution.

One way might be to restrict the vote to those who can demonstrate a contribution to society - which neatly removes from the rolls anyone who doesn't pay taxes and especially those who don't work. It's my opinion that anyone employed by the government shouldn't have the vote either. Neither of these ideas will get anywhere, of course - one of the activities of any government is to create a constituency of people who rely on it for a livelihood, and therefore won't rock the boat.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at October 2, 2007 03:34 PM

I think the entire idea goes against some of the principles on which this nation was founded. For example taxation without representation.

In your system, would be citizens would be required to "work hard, and pay taxes" and yet would have no say in how those taxes were levied or spent as they would be denied the right to vote.

Put me in that status and I'll be throwing tea in the harbor long before I try to pass your test.

Posted by Stephen Macklin at October 2, 2007 05:56 PM

In your system, would be citizens would be required to "work hard, and pay taxes" and yet would have no say in how those taxes were levied or spent as they would be denied the right to vote.

No, if they paid federal taxes, that would be a way of becoming a (federal) citizen.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 2, 2007 06:12 PM

Actually I believe you wrote that if you pay taxes that buys you entry to the path to become a citizen.

they should be granted a route to citizenship.

If you are collecting federal taxes from someone who cannot vote in a federal election, that is by definition taxation without representation.

And for how many years would one have to pay taxes, and how much would one have to pay before being granted a route to citizenship? And since at a certain level, even the hard working actually pay no taxes how would they ever be granted a route to citizenship?

I'm still thinking tea in the harbor.

Posted by Stephen Macklin at October 2, 2007 07:52 PM

This may be slightly paraphrased, but:

"Democracies last until the mass of their citizens realise that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury".

The concept of democracy is almost sacred in the USA, and to a lesser extent the UK. It is worth mentioning that in both countries voting rights used not to be universal, and usually revolved around property qualification. This is a viable qualification, perhaps, because those with property have (a) usually worked for it and (b) have something to lose by voting excessive taxes.

The real problem comes with people who don't pay tax, have never paid tax and probably never will pay tax (this includes both the idle rich and the chronically unemployed underclass) who nevertheless have the power to dictate how the tax paid by their countrymen is spent. This issue is essentially the reason why Mrs. Thatcher brought in the poll tax over here; in such a tax regime, you are quite at liberty to vote in spendthrift local government - but you are flaming well going to pay for it.

Democracies and other forms of government both have fundamental flaws. In others, taxation without representation is one of them - in democracy without qualification, it's representation without taxation.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at October 4, 2007 07:02 AM

Well said Mr. Christian.

As much as I could not support taxation without representation, representation without taxation is probably more pernicious.

Posted by Stephen Macklin at October 4, 2007 12:53 PM

Post a comment