"Birthright Citizenship" is a strange term.
Two babies, born in the same hospital, are born as equals. They have the same rights. They will be offered the same education and have the same access to education. When they become adults they will have equal ability to vote and to work.
Some people would prefer it if one baby were born with all of the rights and privilege of a citizen, while the other is fated to a life of no rights or privileges. One of these babies will be unable to vote and will not have the protections of working legally. Even though she succeeds in her education and is indistinguishable from her peers, they would have her live with the fear of being kicked out to a country she has never known.
Which of these is an example of "birthright"?
The difference between these two babies is whether their parents are privileged. And yes, American citizens are privileged.
The Privilege of American Citizenship
Americans are privileged economically by every rational measure. We consume more resources, we use more pharmaceuticals, we produce more carbon. We have big houses, multiple cars. We eat too much food that takes far more resources to produce than necessary. We produce way more than our share of Carbon Dioxide to support our consumption.
American companies and workers (yes workers too) reap more benefits from the world economy than any other country. Coke, television programs, and software... all produced by American workers are ubiquitous world wide. Some products produced by American workers are subsidized which give Americans an advantage to the detrimant of others. Corn is a good example of this.
Americans are also privileged politically. We get to vote for the government that controls the dominant force. When Americans are lost abroad, people around the world care.
And Americans are privileged in their ability to immigrate. As an educated American... I can immigrate most anywhere, and reasonably quickly without having to wait 10 years or leave my family behind.
I have the ability to cross borders for economic benefit with ease and openly, while a migrant worker from a developing country must risk their life in the dead of night.
The difference between illegal and legal immigration.
Self-righteous claims that "illegal" immigrants don't deserve rights because they have broken the law are wrong for several reasons.
For a large number of people, legal immigration is simply impossible. I laugh at people who claim to have immigrated legally being upset at people who broke the law. Legal immigrants have connections resources and expensive lawyers. Many of the "legal" immigrants who look on their "illegal" peers with scorn are the most privileged from their countries.
Laws are always most harsh toward the vulnerable. Many "illegals" were born into vulnerable situations they never had rights and it is easy to dehumanize them.
My biggest problem with immigration laws is that they are unecessarily harsh-- families are broken and lives are uprooted with 10 year banishments for the crime of crossing the border or overstaying a visa. Americans commit worse crimes with less punishments and still complain (but then Americans are privileged and deserve fairness).
What about stagnating wages
Americans, and the American middle class, are undoubtably in the top few percent of control of wealth, use of resources and economic power. They are undeniably better off then the workers in any other country.
In spite of this, stagnating wages are real, and combined with soaring corporate profits and an increased division of wealth, represent a problem that is worth addressing.
The people yelling about stagnating wages and corporate abuses have recognized a real problem-- but their solution is wretched.
If division between rich and poor is the problem... how is supporting a system that locks out the poor to the benefit of the privileged a solution?
If corporate abuses are the problem, why is the solution to round up and keep out workers?
The principle of Union
The result of the sucessful anti-"illegal"-immigration campaign is the best thing for unscrupulous businesses. We have managed to demonize immigrants and foreign workers which makes them easier to exploit either here or abroad.
The principal behind Unions is that if workers put their common interests first, then businesses can not exploit them.
I feel uncomfortable with the idea that I should have rights to work... simply because my parents were in a privileged class, while someone who is as talented and works as hard as I is locked out.
Pitting a privileged group of workers against another vulnerable group is not just immoral, it is a bad idea.
I don't mind competing fairly with (or working with) someone who has rights. They can demand a fair salary. They can switch jobs. They have legal standing to hold companies accountable. The worst thing for me is when I have to compete with people who are vulnerable, who have to accept the job they have without complaining.
Denying "illegals" rights provides a vulnerable workforce. Keeping workers from crossing borders to escape countries without rights is another way. Either way, it is bad for all workers.
So, advocating rights for all workers, and better yet getting them to talk and work together to stop corporate abuses, is the best thing for labor.
A solution with understanding.
What our immigration laws should be is a topic for another thread.
My concern is that the people who are caught up in the current morass are treated with compassion-- and this means they shouldn't be rounded up and deported and they should be given a realistic path to citizenship.
My position is threefold:
- Immigration law must be made reasonable. Penalties for immigration crimes are severe-- they break families, uproot lives and hurt communities. Harsh enforcement without mercy against the most vulnerable is unacceptable. The law favors the privileged... and crimes that are far more costly than immigration (like speeding for instance) are punished much less severely because of the typical perpetrator.
- The solution must take into account our common humanity. Americans have always broken the law, sometimes for noble purposes (i.e. civil rights), sometimes simple because we feel like it (i.e. . Judging people, who are often vulnerable from birth, because they break laws... when we also break laws is hypocritical.
- We should resist the urge to use the least privileged among us as scapegoats. If corporations are exploting workers-- it is not a rational solution to take away their ability to work.
The current willingness to demonize the vulnerable as people to be feared and denied rights is part of human nature. It has happened to many groups in our history.
I propose that standing up for their rights, understanding the difficulties they face and respecting their humanity is a far better policy.