Trump takes birthright citizenship battle to the Supreme Court
Trump takes birthright citizenship battle to the Supreme Court

Court rulings across the country have flatly rejected Trump’s attempt to redefine the 14th Amendment

Trump takes birthright citizenship battle to the Supreme Court
Court rulings across the country have flatly rejected Trump’s attempt to redefine the 14th Amendment
You're viewing a single thread.
Birthright citizenship is a law made at a time when the American population was significantly smaller and wanted to grow to be able to provide more workforce to bring about progress, which benefitted everyone. Now, progress is ending/slowing down, and demand for human labor is declining; and a shrinking population is a good thing because it matches that shrinking demand for labor. Immigration is a bad thing because it increases the population size instead of decreasing it. And also, the birthrate should drop lower to reduce the supply of workforce, keep up wages (via supply-demand of labor) and better the living conditions of the people.
It was made at a time when the victors of the civil war realized that racist loosers would try to deny citizenship to former slaves.
Cool. Get a 2/3 majority in Congress to agree and have 3/4 of states ratify then…
It's the 14th Amendment. If SCOTUS tries to find some bullshit reason it doesn't mean what it clearly says, then we can freely ignore anything they say.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
hey Gemini: Is this remark on the idea of removing birthright citizenship in the USA reasonable? If so why? If not why?
The remark presents a perspective on birthright citizenship that is not widely accepted by economists or demographers, and it contains several flawed assumptions and arguments. Here's a breakdown: Points of Contention:
Thanka Gemini for that, but all the arguments that you just brought up are looking in the past, and on empirical data. I'm looking on the future, and doing analysis and thought/logic processes to figure out what lies in front of us. I guess i will have to live with having an isolated perspective here.
An aging population base is not good for the future. Your "logic" is severely limited if you're not considering the need for stable tax revenues to provide services, or the need for sufficient caregivers to aid elderly.
Edit: These are "forward thinking" concerns brought up by the comment you're replying to.
the need for stable tax revenues
I am considering the need for stable tax revenues.
I'm just not convinced that these tax revenues have to be paid for by the employee's labor tax. Why not introduce a wealth tax instead? Let the billionaires pay. Tax them 3% of the net worth annually. That would actually help the people.