Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Many countries have laws whereby second-generation immigrants are either automatically citizens from birth (e.g, USA) or can become citizens under much easier conditions than their parents (e.g, UK). The rules typically apply even if the first generation immigrants have not entered or remained in said country lawfully, on the basis that the child should not be blamed for the faults of the parents.

Another common situation is that a child of a citizen is a citizen- even if that child's other parent is not a citizen (also true in UK).

In the USA President Obama has put forward the idea that parents of such children ought not to be "deported" (what in UK legal jargon would be called "removal"). While I'm not totally convinced by his methods, I applaud the idea in practice.

The UK has already implemented this: it is deemed that there is "no public interest*" in removing persons with a "genuine and subsisting" parental relationship with a "qualifying child" whom it would be "unreasonable to remove": British citizen children qualify and it is (so it is said by the courts) always unreasonable to remove a British Citizen child. There is an exception for "deportation" of such parents- "deportation" in UK legal jargon meaning removal because of criminal offences, which have to reach a certain level of seriousness. All this was enacted by the Immigation Act 2014, which is odd given the "tough on immigration" spin given to the Act by the Government!

Of course, the idea is not without its side effects. It creates an incentive for "illegal" immigrants to have children (either with each other, or by seeking out citizens as partners). And, if it is simply a ban on deportation/removal, it merely closes off one solution to "illegal immigrant" civil rights problem: the UK seems to recognise this by (slowly and cumbersomely) in addition making grants of status to such persons but I'm not sure Obama will be able to do that given the hostility of the legislature...

*Thus meaning that, when weighing such person's right to family life against the public interest in removing them, the right to family life will always win.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Tough one, on the one hand this is open to massive abuse. On the otehr hand who really wants to be the one forcing crying children to be taken away from their parents?

It may be a case that we need to remove automatic right of citizenship unless the parents of a child are her legally (of course we still have crying children, not being forced onto planes).

I do not agree that the right to someones family life should take precedence of my rights to safety or be free from crime.

On balance unless the parents are a threat to society they should (on grounds of human decency) be allowed to stay. Once they are even a slight threat I see no reason to allow them to stay. A right to a family life cannot trump the obligation to obey the law.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
Tough one, on the one hand this is open to massive abuse. On the otehr hand who really wants to be the one forcing crying children to be taken away from their parents?

It may be a case that we need to remove automatic right of citizenship unless the parents of a child are her legally (of course we still have crying children, not being forced onto planes).

I do not agree that the right to someones family life should take precedence of my rights to safety or be free from crime.

On balance unless the parents are a threat to society they should (on grounds of human decency) be allowed to stay. Once they are even a slight threat I see no reason to allow them to stay. A right to a family life cannot trump the obligation to obey the law.


Well, that is something like the current legal position really- criminal behaviour (excluding purely immigration offences) leads to "deportation"* (in the UK legal jargon), and parenthood of citizens is not automatic citizenship but a temporary right to stay in the UK which has to be periodically renewed until you have exercised it for 10 years (at which point you can apply for permanent residence if you meet some fairly basic tests like speaking English). A year later (if your application was granted) you can get citizenship.

But the route isn't even that easy: a child born in the UK to "illegal immigrant" parents can register as a citizen if it lives here for the first 10 years of its life. After registering the parents can apply for temporary residence, but this right ceases once the child turns 18 (and can look after itself)- after only 8 years not 10: so you really need two children to make the route lead to permanent residence.

*Only something like. "deportation" is still an act of law which must be weighed against the target's human rights, including family life. The current Home Office guidance for deporting parents says the question is whether the consequences of separation are "unjustifiably harsh" for the child (It has to be separation, because of EU prohibitions on removing EU citizens from the EEA. Unless of course the parent being deported is an EEA national, but that is much harder). What does "unjustifiably" mean? We don't know: the Home Office likes to make these things up as it goes along and this particular invention hasn't reached the courts yet!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't think anyone should be deported unless they are a danger to their host country. So what happens when the parent is such a danger? If it's a horrible disease which is dangerous and contagious, I think the practical reality is that it's better to treat the person than deport them. Sure, they could reasonably have been denied entry but that proverbial ship has passed. More of a question is if the person is violent such as a known terrorist. Still I think it's better then to jail the person for whatever crimes they have committed and otherwise deal with the matter within the country. That leaves cases where a person is declared persona non grata due to past crimes and that person is a child citizen's sole guardian. I suppose in such cases I'd support letting the person stay under restrictions until the children are old enough to be independent.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Philip Thomas wrote:
While I'm not totally convinced by his methods, I applaud the idea in practice.


Do you also support squatting rights ? I assume someone breaks into your house, sets up a bed and now should be allowed to your hard earned life style.
Sort of like this !




 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
Philip Thomas wrote:
While I'm not totally convinced by his methods, I applaud the idea in practice.


Do you also support squatting rights ? I assume someone breaks into your house, sets up a bed and now should be allowed to your hard earned life style.
Sort of like this !




As you do not own the country in which you live, it's not the same.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
As you do not own the country in which you live, it's not the same.


I do own the country I live in, I am a citizen. You have a queen , you are a queen... err subject.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
As you do not own the country in which you live, it's not the same.


I do own the country I live in, I am a citizen. You have a queen , you are a queen... err subject.
You do not own it, as you have no deed of ownership. You cannot sell it or loan it, you cannot trade it (indeed you are not even allowed to tell people about certain aspects of it).

Citizenship grants certain rights, not ownership (as well as legal duties, ownership does not carry duties, just irresponsibilities (you can ignore)). In fact citizenship grants you rather less rights then a legal contact would.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think that there are few hard and fast rules you can apply to this situation. Every case is different and should be evaluated on its merits. I can agree with the notion that the parent of a citizen should not be deported unless they would fail to qualify for citizenship in time themselves (e.g. they have a criminal record, represent a threat), and agree that separating families is probably generally bad policy. However, it does create horrible incentives for people to abuse the system, and may even put them at physical risk (imagine a pregnant woman trekking the desert to make it in to the US). And if the "anchor baby" problem becomes real, then it is a real problem.

I wish Congress would act on immigration reform and particularly pay attention to the members of their party that aren't at least partially xenophobic (Mark Rubio would be a good example). But I wouldn't hold my breath or place any bets.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dr Who
msg tools
mb
jeremycobert wrote:

I do own the country I live in, I am a citizen.


yeah, keep calling me names... yet you post some really stupid idea

you OWN nothing, the Govt owns it, entirely
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
In fact citizenship grants you rather less rights then a legal contact would.


I can certainly understand your confusion as a socialist, I assume you think the government owns me.

It appears WhoWho agree's with you, that should be your 2nd clue that you may not be correct on this issue.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dr Who
msg tools
mb
jeremycobert wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
In fact citizenship grants you rather less rights then a legal contact would.


I can certainly understand your confusion as a socialist, I assume you think the government owns me.

It appears WhoWho agree's with you, that should be your 2nd clue that you may not be correct on this issue.


Tell me oh wise one, how do you think you own the country you live in?

Please give me an example or two....cause I just may not be correct on the issue, so therefore you MUST be correct. So please, an example or two of what you actually own.

edit: plus how do you explain foreigners who actually own land in the USA?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
In fact citizenship grants you rather less rights then a legal contact would.


I can certainly understand your confusion as a socialist, I assume you think the government owns me.

It appears WhoWho agree's with you, that should be your 2nd clue that you may not be correct on this issue.
No, one of the rights citizenship (of the USA) grants you is freedom from serfdom.

But In would suggest you find the passage in the US constitution that says you own the USA.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As long as the law says that a person born in the U.S. is a citizen, their parents should not be deported (qualified per citizenship reqs).

So the next question is should anyone born here be an automatic citizen?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
As long as the law says that a person born in the U.S. is a citizen, their parents should not be deported (qualified per citizenship reqs).

So the next question is should anyone born here be an automatic citizen?

Unless you want to change the Constitution, yes.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
jmilum wrote:
As long as the law says that a person born in the U.S. is a citizen, their parents should not be deported (qualified per citizenship reqs).

So the next question is should anyone born here be an automatic citizen?

Unless you want to change the Constitution, yes.

That's not the answer to "should" but the answer to "why"
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
So the next question is should anyone born here be an automatic citizen?


Seems as reasonable a way to handle things as any other. The only other alternative I can think of is "child of at least one citizen," which won't be all that different functionally (and technically is part of our definition).

I don't particularly see this as a problem. If it is, I think it's more of a problem for people coming here explicitly to have a child so that the child has citizenship. I think that if you looked at the numbers overall, most illegal immigrants/non-citizens having children here aren't planning to do so - it just happens.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
As long as the law says that a person born in the U.S. is a citizen, their parents should not be deported (qualified per citizenship reqs).

So the next question is should anyone born here be an automatic citizen?


100% Yes.

A descent-based system of citizenship means your status depends on who your parents were. Not only is this unfair, but it isn't always certain- especially for paternity. There are cases of people with British passports discovering many years later that they aren't British at all because their father was not who the authorities thought he was...

Edit: the UK system is particularly crazy because if one of your parents had permanent residence (or citizenship) when you were born in the UK you are British. Citizenship is easy to determine. Permanent residence may not be. It is quite possible for someone's British citizenship to turn on whether or not their father's ex-wife (who isn't their mother) was working at a certain time several years before the potential British citizen was even born...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.