5d ago

Trump takes birthright citizenship battle to the Supreme Court

www.independent.co.uk 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.

38 comments

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:
  Historical Context:
  While it's true the 14th Amendment, which established birthright citizenship, was ratified after the Civil War, its primary purpose was to grant citizenship to formerly enslaved people and ensure their equal protection under the law. It wasn't solely about increasing the population for economic growth.
  The idea that the US population was "significantly smaller and wanted to grow" is too simplistic. Population growth has always been a complex issue, influenced by various social, economic, and political factors.
  "Progress is ending/slowing down":
  The claim that "progress is ending/slowing down" is subjective and debatable. While some sectors may experience slowdowns, others, like technology, continue to advance. Economic cycles also have periods of growth and slowdown.
  Economic growth is not ending.
  "Demand for human labor is declining":
  While automation and technological advancements are changing the nature of work, they are not necessarily eliminating the overall demand for human labor. They are shifting the demand towards different skill sets.
  There is still a very large demand for human labor, but the type of labor demanded is shifting.
  "A shrinking population is a good thing":
  A shrinking population can have severe economic consequences, including:
  A smaller workforce, leading to labor shortages.
  A reduced tax base, making it harder to fund social programs.
  Slower economic growth.
  An aging population, which puts strains on social security and healthcare systems.
  The concept that a shrinking population is universally "good" is not supported by mainstream economic thought.
  "Immigration is a bad thing":
  Immigration has historically played a vital role in the US economy, providing a source of labor, innovation, and entrepreneurship.
  Immigrants often fill labor shortages in key sectors and contribute to economic growth.
  Immigration is a very complex issue, and to state that it is a bad thing is a gross over simplification.
  "Birthrate should drop lower to reduce the supply of workforce, keep up wages":
  While it's true that a tighter labor market can lead to higher wages, artificially suppressing the birthrate has long-term negative consequences, as mentioned earlier.
  Relying solely on a declining birthrate to manage wage levels is an unsustainable and ethically questionable approach.
  A declining birthrate can have major negative impacts on social security systems. In summary: The remark presents a simplistic and flawed view of economics, demographics, and history. It relies on generalizations and ignores the complex interplay of factors that influence population, labor markets, and economic growth.
  
  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.

38 comments