Trump doubles down on birthright citizenship, willing to take it to SCOTUS - Polidicks

I disagree with Boilrig on every possible basis, but they're not completely arbitrary like you make it seem. There are reasons for borders, but it shouldn't be to discriminate against people needing help.

Say we drop these 'imaginary, fabricated lines' called borders, and people could move freely without passports, regardless of criminal convictions, how many people would be attracted to the US, several hundred million? How would our services cope if say 200 million people decided to make the US their home, in the cities they want, it will certainly take time for supply chains to adjust, if they ever do, and more importantly how do we maintain the lifestyles of the people already living in those cities?

? What do you mean? We're not living in the 18th century, we have ships and planes that transport millions of pounds of freight daily. The only issue would be plumbing (and by extension water; including potable water) and electricity, which is already provided from multiple states to areas that need it (the Hoover dam for instance)

Supply Chains? The fuck did Supply Chains become a talking point?

This is the first part of the 14th Amendment 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. This would be infinitely works if Trump some fucking how manages to use that "jurisdiction" excuse. Because then people in the US but not "under jurisdiction" would not be guaranteed protection under the law. Undoubtedly Trump would try to indefinitely detain everyone not born here, as well as people who got birthright citizenship.

Lmao this 'dems want open borders' shit is such a massive strawman, its not even remotely true. Obviously no one wants literally true full-blown open borders, there will always be a FILTER of SOME FORM. It's a matter of having a more fair vetting process. the US is one of the hardest countries to actually legally migrate to and yet it's somehow a mystery as to why we have so many illegals. Allowing a better vetting process based on merit and how well they behave, how much they earn would be a much better system, without going into details. Illegals would have a better means to peacefully enter without cheating the systems and becoming criminals merely to move country, and would also be more comfortable with following laws. On top of that, going after illegals is one thing, but it's all being taken to an absolute extreme, and then when someone says they want something more reasonable they get told they want to allow an unlimited number of rapists in. This fox news straw-manning is embarrassing and makes people that spew it look like a jackass.

seeing as our current infrastructure is currently rated somewhere around a D or C, without any serious plans to fund any overhaul, how do you think it could cope with the extra stress that another 200 million people would put on it? You do realize that's about a third of the US' total population right? there's no way we would be able to house that many people without an exorbitant amount construction work for new houses. saying that taking on 200 million people is possible either means that you're hopelessly optimistic or ignorant of how expensive that would be. immigration is a complex, multi faceted issue that nobody here really seems to see the nuance in.

He's not from New Zealand, he's an immigrant.

I was born in New Zealand, to New Zealand citizens.

Oh, I didn't see the 200 million part. Oops

You are massively overestimating the amount of people who actually want to go to the US or to live there permanently. Also who the fuck would travel to the US to escape their criminal lives ? It's got one of the worst track records of any western nation in terms of the treatment of its inmates and fugitives.

We can start by not concocting absurd scenarios about 200 million people moving into American cities overnight. To get an idea of how ridiculous of a number this is, the total number of refugees that entered Europe between 2014 and 2018 was around 2 million.

We're talking an open border scenario here, it isn't an overestimation considering the absolute state of our poorest countries. Aren't we sitting around 600 million or so in the class of 'extreme poverty'. The 200 million number is a randomly chosen figure. Yeah, its not going to happen overnight, but without borders, it will certainly happen at a faster rate. The issue stands regardless of the amount, with open borders, one cannot keep the same level of lifestyle.

Immigrants are pretty good for local economies as long as there aren't too many of them (see: European refugee crisis), and the demand for immigration into the US is just not high enough to cause issues of that scale. I don't really support open borders but if they were open, I really don't think it would cause serious new issues. And it would solve a lot of existing ones

They are good for the economy, so long as they are paid correctly, and pay taxes. A simple increase in GDP due to population increase doesn't help your fellow man. I think you would see all types of issues come across the west as people leave their countries in droves for the better life now that nothing stands in their way, and as I said above, as scarcity kicks in and supply chains fail to keep up, taking years to adjust or never fully adjusting, you end up crippling the lifestyle of the people already living in the west.

It's such a ridiculously inflated number though. It'd be like saying we can't afford to build the wall because it would cost 200 billion dollars. If you had generalized and said "millions of people" would immigrate I'd have let it pass but you are talking about the entire populations of several countries just uprooting themselves to go to the United States.

I agree, its a inflated number, probably unrealistic in our lifetimes, however even with half or quarter of that, you will still face the same issues. We have to improve the situations in their countries, regular migration will help, but in no shape or form must that come in open borders.

I couldn't disagree more, humanity absolutely has to move towards an open border one world government system. It's just very far away from being a possibility, cultures are just too different, the west evolved as a society incredibly fast, if some eastern countries weren't linked by trade they would still be in the iron age.

As of 2014, US agencies from the Office of Management and Budget to the FDA to the Department of Transportation have estimated the value of statistical life to be anywhere from 6-9 million dollars. New Zealand's own Ministry of Transport evaluates it to 4.14 million New Zealand dollars in 2016. A study carried out in New Zealand in 1998 and published in 2006 found this value to be statistically higher for children than for adults. A 2000 study conducted by the University of California San Francisco found the present value of lifetime earnings for babys to be from 1.03 million dollars for males and 763 thousand dollars for females. The point of this cold, detached look at the value of human life is that even if you approach from an economics perspective, a new citizen is going to add value to a countries material wealth. Even if you exclude less quantifiable evaluations such as cultural contributions, what an average baby will add in labor, spending, and taxes will contribute more to the overall wealth and well being of a nation. To be clear, I believe in birthright citizenship on principal, not pragmatism. But I view arguments against it from what could be called "pragmatic" or "utilitarian" perspectives are still weak. New citizens, especially babies, are good for the nation's heart and coffers. Arguments against it are at best misinformed and operating off of weak assumptions.

Maybe in a couple hundred years when we've pulled those countries out of poverty, we will still face resource depletion in the future such as fresh water and food probably sparking multiple wars before getting even close to an open border one world government system. I think a one world government is a horrible idea, fuelled by corporatism in the background. The closest I could see is trade areas like the EU forming governments, but anything bigger than that and you face the issues we have with democracy today, just multiplied.

I have to agree and have done for most of my life. That said, I'm seeing issues with it in the UK lately with the immigrant Pakistani and Afghan immigrants, 2nd or 3rd generation citizens that still to this day haven't integrated at all. Now I'm not saying for a second that these people shouldn't have been made citizens, But the growing number people from these immigrant families have not moderated their views, or been externally subjected to extremist ideologies are becoming quite an issue. We are putting these offenders, whether it's for general extremism or crimes against women (most common) in prison, and as I've said in a previous post these prisons are used by the Muslim population inside as platforms to preach their bullshit further. It can be viewed as a damn shame we can't just eject these cunts back to their countries of origin where their behavior is more normal (but by no means any less destructive I'm sure.) This isn't an argument against naturalizing citizens, but it sure is a problem that is being faced as a result.

From a GDP point of view yes, they will add to the economy purely from the increase of population as they will spend money etc, however using that economic justification also means that countries should increase their population as much as possible to gain the most out of their citizens, however that does not account for a decrease in lifestyle due to increased population. Looking at immigration from a purely economic perspective is unsustainable.

Not to mention when talking about open borders, there also comes the "okay we have this and need this" trade that would happen with every country in the world. There would be a lot more trade than there is now.

Well then we would need to assert approximately what rate of increase in population would be considered unsustainable for a given nation, whether that nation's present or near future growth is of a magnitude which meets or exceeds that rate, and if they do exceed assess whether immigration patterns represent a tipping factor pushing it over that capacity. I cannot speak for other countries, but something tells me the US is very far off from its healthy capacity for growth and as such I still find it doubtful the current birthright citizenship situation here is harming the quality of life of its present citizens. The thing is, we can clutch pearls about hypotheticals or limiting cases all we want, but it offers little insight about present or near future conditions. Currently Trump is arguing for the termination of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrant when I see very little evidence that such a policy will overall improve life in the US. From the same perspective, I do not argue that New Zealand should drop its restrictions on birthright citizenship because I don't see strong evidence that it hurts your countries present situation. The US is not facing an immigration crisis because immigrants that enter the country (legal and illegal) on average contribute more in taxes than they take in social service, are no more likely to engage in criminal behavior than citizens within the country, and typically generate more jobs through needs and consumption than they would have otherwise taken from americans willing to work the jobs they are stereotypically categorized as doing. Trump is advocating policy that is not only reckless in the framework of the established goverment, but also serves to only hurt individuals without any benefit to the overall citizenry. I definitely sympathize with your feelings and it's a difficult situation for a society to be in. I unfortunately am not familiar enough with the UK to have a solid discussion on the matter. I can only imagine how frustrating it must feel for people in the UK to see such conflict in their communities and hope that improvements are in some way taking form.

Eh, as much as I appreciate your sympathy I hardly find myself emotionally connected with the outcomes of my country, or any country. Just an observer that was forced into being human I guess. That said, as much as I hope it doesn't come to it in the US, I'm seeing a very bloody and violent end one way or the other to end this European crisis. Too many far right groups popping up on the European side, and a fucking suspicious amount of single fighting age men making their way into the country from the middle east. This melting pot that's been stewing over the last 30 years is about to blow in the next decade or so either way.

People totally forget that the US has the biggest prison population in the world lmao, its kinda lame you could build another country with the amount we have

Not only from NZ, but also incredibly dense and ignorant of reality on top of that. As has been objectively shown hundreds of times now.

Randomly chosen figure aka completely worthless, like the rest of your argument. Even as a quick and dirty way to make a point it's a shit number because that makes for more than half of the US population alone and about half of the entire population of South America. You don't know what you're talking about and you can't even use google. Cease.

"maybe in a couple hundred years when we've pulled those countries out of poverty, if you wanted to sound like a snobby neo colonialist then you've just succeeded

This is the part where we find out Boilrig has never had to lift anything over 10 pounds for work.