yea but you're earning the citizenship right? i mean .. stay 3 years here, abide with the law, respect the culture, pay taxes.

No, I have a problem when you continue to mispepresent facts and reality. Your "I've got mine so fuck everyone else" position here is particularly interesting given your mock compassion in the Terri Schiavo case.



No one who's experience what these people have experienced would call their condition "priviledge on a silver platter."

Where were you born and were you granted automatic citizenship from it? Have you sinced voluntarily revoked it?

i Dont think thats a just argument. I'm sure i received my citizenship in pakistan for the same reason. Also, i dont think anyone is asking anyone to revoke their citizenship either. The argument is the basis of granting citizenship solely on the reason of being born in a particular place may not be the smartest of things, whether or not all of us today are citizens of that country for that exact reason.

My parents became citizens and i automatically become one Thank god, no more hiding from Portuguese conscription.

aaaah

My Mum isnt scottish, but my dad is and i was born here - but i still see myself as as much of a citizen of Seychelles as i do here.

Maybe we should kick out EVERYONE who doesn't "earn" their citizenship. Why limit it to immigrants (since we're all immigrants in some way or another anyway).

And while we're at it, we should stop granting automatic citizenship to ANYONE born in this country. I say you have to earn it.

its nice to see that you are willing to argue with people by just speaking in extremes. very good ... its either one way or the other.

Okay, so then by that rationale, anyone born in the US should not be granted automatic citizenship? For all the millions of babies born in this country every year, how then do we go about determining who deserves citizenship and who doesn't?

its nice to see that you are willing to argue with people by just speaking in extremes. very good ... its either one way or the other.[/quote]

I'm just trying to figure out some logical reasoning for your view. One way to test that is by extending that reasoning to logical extremes. You say that granting automatic citizenship based on where you're born isn't a good policy. But you're applying that reasoning ONLY to those born to parents who aren't already naturalized citizens, which at this point is an arbitrary distinction based on your provided rationale. I'm just looking for a consistent logical reason for your view. I'm not saying there isn't one, but no one here has provided it yet.

eaxctly. I do not think that the millions of babies born in any country should be given citizenship based solely upon the reason that they were born in a particular place. There has to be something more .....

then again, even for me, the jury is kinda out on the entire topic. I have little issues with someone being granted citizenship by just being born in a particular place .... i just think it leaves a rather undesired loophole. I personally do not think that a kid born while his mommy is just visiting a country should be given citizenship. thats why there should be more of a reason.

I'm just trying to figure out some logical reasoning for your view. One way to test that is by extending that reasoning to logical extremes. You say that granting automatic citizenship based on where you're born isn't a good policy. But you're applying that reasoning ONLY to those born to parents who aren't already naturalized citizens, which at this point is an arbitrary distinction based on your provided rationale. I'm just looking for a consistent logical reason for your view. I'm not saying there isn't one, but no one here has provided it yet.[/quote]

maybe we should turn the argument around. The reason for my "reasoning" is the fact that i think kids born during a trip by a mother for a short duration is not very smart. thats my reason for saying what i said.

But that's not what you said. You said that "granting citizenship solely on the reason of being born in a particular place may not be the smartest of things." That includes EVERY child born here, not just the ones born to visiting parents or illegal immigrants.

So by your rationale, no child born in America (or any country) would be granted citizenship anywhere. So what do we do with all of these unnaturalized babies? How do we determine what rights they're born with and what laws they fall under? How do we determine the threshold of when they've "earned" their citizenship? At what age does that happen?

It's kind of big mess, isn't it? And for what purpose?

just a few things before i continue. You stated before that my argument leaves out people who are unnaturalized. I just want to answer that first. My argument never said that. Last i checked, i said visitors. That sitll leaves everyone who is an immigrant and/or working in the US under H1. Maybe it leaves a few more people ... can't say. just wanted that to be pointed out.

Now for this point. Indeed. That includes any child not born here but anywhere! Me, you, Mr X, the pope. I do not think that being born in one place should be a sole reason for being granted citizenship. The basis of determining citizenship should include other things as well. off the top of my head (but for no particular reason at the moment other than the fact that i just think they sound good to me), the law should include 1 parent who has a legal status in the country. Like i said, its just something that i think would be good. Sorry if i'm not providing a reason and making my argument weak.

The world is full of arguments that simply sound good but aren't. I'm not saying that the policy you advocate isn't viable, but you definitely need some other justification or reasoning. I commend you, however, for admitting the weakness of the argument.

I am for the automatic citizenship of children born to parents who wish to make their home in that country. That includes illegal immigrants or immigrants on visitation who are planning to become naturalized citizens. I think that's what is fair to the child, for the same reason that a foreigner who marries a citizen becomes a citizen; it's just an easier way to deal with a very complicated process.

As for parents on vacation who happen to have a child in another country, I don't see why the parents would want their child born with automatic citizenship in that country but I'm not necessarily opposed to it. If American parents go abroad and have a child born in Zimbabwe, would they want their child to have dual citizenship in Zimbabwe and America? If so, great. Maybe they love Zimbabwe and want their child to have the ability to travel freely between the countries. And if that's the policy, then that's the policy. I don't see any inherent advantage in preventing them from doing that.

well, i couldn't provide a good argument. But your paragraph 2 is something i would definetely support. My argument was weak but was an example of how i meant that being born in one place itself shouldn't be the only criteria.

Is the system broken in some way? What's the problem? Why is this an issue? Does it hurt you if someone else gets citizenship somewhere?

At the moment? no. Do I think it has a loop hole that shouldn't exist? yes. I'm looking at this system as me founding a new place for the first time. Would i implement it, would I not.

That's exactly the point I was getting at in the last paragraph of my last post. While I don't see why visiting parents would want their child naturalized in the country they're visiting, I don't really see the problem with it either.

Obviously the issue of illegal immigration is a little different. There's actually an argument there for why children born to illegal immigrants shouldn't be granted automatic citizenship. I don't agree with the argument, but there is one.

But if there's not problem with it and no one is getting hurt by it, then why would you oppose it or want to close it, especially when you admit that the argument for doing so is weak.

ok I'll throw something out to you.

My friend who i used to know was born on a random trip in the States. Yet he grew up in a different country alltogether even though hes a citizen of the States. While he used the previedges you get from being american, he grew up in an all together anti american household. When it came time for university, he received a decent amount of loans and a small scholarship (he was a good student), something that could have gone to an american who actually resided in the states, whos family pays taxes, likes his country and does things to benefit it.

Yes, i'll admit from the start. its a week argument. Its a very weak argument. But I still consider it somewhat of an argument. i can also give you a very extreme case of someone being granted citizenship of a country because they were born their by chance but never really lived there, had an animosity to the country and could be a threat to it. Yet because hes a citizen, entering the country for him is much easier than others (and taking america into consideration, the patriot act does not apply to him as it does to someone like me) and can potentially harm a country. This ofcourse, was a very very extreme case argument.

There are anecdotal cases of immigrants who've come over here and abused the system as well. The guys who flew the 9/11 planes were here legally. Would you support a ban on ALL immigrants, including yourself, to this country because of it? Should one or two cases (or however many) of abuse mean dismantling the whole system?

not at all. But i personally see a negative in this scenario and no real positives in it. to me, its a matter thats pretty much indifferent but slightly negative.

My parents were both born in that country and were citizens at the point of my birth. That does matter.