Shoresy

2 percent of 4 million is still 80,000 people a year, most of whom have documentation as a US citizen on paper, but many are living abroad in a foreign country with their non-American parents. They may or may not learn English, they may or may not learn any US history, they may or may not currently reside in a rival country, and may even be raised in a culture that stands for most things Americans culturally despise, like racism, female subjugation, slavery, and communism.


Birthright citizenship puts the entire "citizen of the world" experiment on full tilt. I think the last great nation that tried this was Rome. Giving legal citizenship out like candy to the world with no shared culture or any standard of cultural assimilation has consequences.


  1. What is citizenship for?
  2. Is it primarily a legal designation, a civic commitment, a cultural identity, or some combination?
  3. What incentives does an outdated birthright citizenship rule create? Is the cause for such a rule when the rule was originally written over, and the remedy applied finally?
  4. What costs and benefits follow from those incentives? What are the real and practical trade-offs?


Those are questions worth discussing and debating.

Shoresy

Luckily, the 1 person doesn't decide Justice. The other 8 can do that just fine.


Did they all do a degree in qualified and normal at university.


Lol, you mean schools are like prison in the USA where they "do" the time? I'd take a step back if you think a 2026 degree in the USA teaches normalcy or mostly practical theories. Self-reading will always trump any of that. And you get a lot better sense of normalcy by removing yourself from the normal theory bubbles for experience from time to time. Or be a sheep and call it normal. That's okay too.

Shoresy
Nonetheless, "government" as in authoritative and controlling national bodies are there to define lines.


And the USA has a controlling 2nd branch to rein in that authority.

Shoresy

You fell into the trap of the false dichotomy of capitalism vs socialism.


Objectively, all over the world, either or both together can work just fine in a MINIMALIST government. That's the REAL issue.

The most important question is the scope of government, not the label attached to the economic system.

Laissez-faire can't work without minimal property rights enforced by the government, and the free market can't work with a maximal government.

Maximal Socialism is straight-up Communism.

Shoresy

"One of the painful signs of years of dumbed-down education is how many people are unable to make a coherent argument. They can vent their emotions, question other people's motives, make bold assertions, repeat slogans... anything except reason."

Shoresy

Maybe because government programs have evolved to have only one solution in 2026. Who can blame the boomer wolves for taxing the rich working youth sheep when that's what half the country thinks is a viable, if only solution? If Democracy is when 2 wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner, why is it worth saving again? I remember a long time ago when your founders thought people's worth and property deserved constitutional protections, not fleecing through unrestricted democratic majority votes.

Shoresy

Already asked and answered. If you are going to argue against the natural disorder of the world, do it with your full throat, because so far, you have been using about half of another part of the human anatomy. And it's also ironic that the definition of absolutism, including absolute rights, is labeled "progressive" in today's more than unenlightened time.