![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
14th Amendment
Aug. 13th, 2010 09:17 amSo, my favorite libertarian is offering his take on birthright citizenship. Basically, he wants to go to a system similar to Robert Heinlein's idea in the novel Starship Troopers, which is "citizenship is earned" by service to the government. My reply, slightly edited for clarity:
The debate and comment on this subject is so historically illiterate as to be comical. First, the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause of the 14th Amendment is perfectly clear. Illegal immigrants are, just like any other criminal, "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US. In fact, they are only illegal under US law. It's not, for example, illegal under Mexican law for a Mexican to enter the US.
Second, the fundamental problem with restricting the vote to only "those who contribute" (however defined) is that you risk creating a permanent underclass of non-voters. Permanent underclasses tend to get pissy after a while - ask the French or Russian aristocracy how that played out.
Third, at the start of the 19th century, pretty much everywhere, US or Europe, that had a vote restricted it to "those who contribute," defined in various ways. The political history of the 19th and 20th century is the expansion of that right to vote.
Lastly, even Heinlein recognized the historical problems with his idea in Starship Troopers. There’s a reason that his future is set after a massive nuclear war on Earth. Only after that kind of societal disruption would such an idea have a hope in hell of happening.
The debate and comment on this subject is so historically illiterate as to be comical. First, the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause of the 14th Amendment is perfectly clear. Illegal immigrants are, just like any other criminal, "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US. In fact, they are only illegal under US law. It's not, for example, illegal under Mexican law for a Mexican to enter the US.
Second, the fundamental problem with restricting the vote to only "those who contribute" (however defined) is that you risk creating a permanent underclass of non-voters. Permanent underclasses tend to get pissy after a while - ask the French or Russian aristocracy how that played out.
Third, at the start of the 19th century, pretty much everywhere, US or Europe, that had a vote restricted it to "those who contribute," defined in various ways. The political history of the 19th and 20th century is the expansion of that right to vote.
Lastly, even Heinlein recognized the historical problems with his idea in Starship Troopers. There’s a reason that his future is set after a massive nuclear war on Earth. Only after that kind of societal disruption would such an idea have a hope in hell of happening.
