This is a well-written article, kudos, but it dances around the key issue today. The Biden Administration egregiously broke the law to admit millions and millions of obviously fraudulent 'asylum seekers' onto U.S. soil, most of whom have presumably been racing to pop out babies to complicate the eventual deportation that the law demands. No matter what the Supreme Court decides, sooner or later birthright citizenship will either be ended for illegal aliens/birth tourists or the border will have to be entirely sealed to women who are or may become pregnant. The soft system of de facto birthright citizenship was nice while it lasted, but the scale of shameless abuse that the Biden administration enabled (and for which this publication made any number of dubious excuses) is simply not sustainable. It would be far more productive for The Unpopulist to seek a viable compromise rather than insist upon migration maximalism.
Nothing you say here is actually pertinent to the piece. But what's most interesting is your goal-post shifting . The slam previously was that illegal immigrants should be deported because they came to the US w/out authorization. Now the slam is not that they entered illegally but the pathways opened for them were illegal, fraudulent. So they are still a problem. BTW, executives have always had a great deal of leeway in setting immigration priorities in either direction. So your claim about Biden is flat out wrong. Meanwhile, birth-right tourism is a manufactured and malicious rightwing talking point. Actual rate is negligible. To paraphrase Lincoln, I prefer nativism "taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy."
Pro-migrant advocates would do well to consider that reflexively accusing people who disagree with them of nativism is a big part of what led to Donald Trump and the present crackdown. I want a sensible compromise that reflects the electorate's mixed feelings about immigration and in which nobody gets everything they want. A sensible compromise would involve some form of legal residency for people who have been in the U.S. for 20 years or more without collecting public benefits or committing a felony, but also beefing up border security and internal enforcement in recognition of the very real harms that mass migration have caused to working-class American citizens, most especially from Biden's reckless and indefensible decision to flood the country with impoverished migrants. It is a shame that The Unpopulist is able to cover any number of issues with nuance and depth, but that when it comes to immigration the coverage is invariably so one-dimensional and dogmatic. You'd stand a better chance of changing minds if you were more intellectually honest and less prone to trying to intimidate your critics out of the conversation.
Incidentally, I never claimed that birth tourism is a mass phenomenon, but it is a legitimate issue that has been covered by serious outlets. Right now there are tens of thousands of Chinese nationals being raised and educated in China, but who are American citizens because their families arranged for the mother to be on American soil when she gave birth. It's not a huge number, but the national security implications ranging from espionage to electoral interference are grave.
This is a well-written article, kudos, but it dances around the key issue today. The Biden Administration egregiously broke the law to admit millions and millions of obviously fraudulent 'asylum seekers' onto U.S. soil, most of whom have presumably been racing to pop out babies to complicate the eventual deportation that the law demands. No matter what the Supreme Court decides, sooner or later birthright citizenship will either be ended for illegal aliens/birth tourists or the border will have to be entirely sealed to women who are or may become pregnant. The soft system of de facto birthright citizenship was nice while it lasted, but the scale of shameless abuse that the Biden administration enabled (and for which this publication made any number of dubious excuses) is simply not sustainable. It would be far more productive for The Unpopulist to seek a viable compromise rather than insist upon migration maximalism.
Nothing you say here is actually pertinent to the piece. But what's most interesting is your goal-post shifting . The slam previously was that illegal immigrants should be deported because they came to the US w/out authorization. Now the slam is not that they entered illegally but the pathways opened for them were illegal, fraudulent. So they are still a problem. BTW, executives have always had a great deal of leeway in setting immigration priorities in either direction. So your claim about Biden is flat out wrong. Meanwhile, birth-right tourism is a manufactured and malicious rightwing talking point. Actual rate is negligible. To paraphrase Lincoln, I prefer nativism "taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy."
you too could be honest and just say you want open borders and advocate for a right to immigrate to the U.S. from anywhere in the world.
Pro-migrant advocates would do well to consider that reflexively accusing people who disagree with them of nativism is a big part of what led to Donald Trump and the present crackdown. I want a sensible compromise that reflects the electorate's mixed feelings about immigration and in which nobody gets everything they want. A sensible compromise would involve some form of legal residency for people who have been in the U.S. for 20 years or more without collecting public benefits or committing a felony, but also beefing up border security and internal enforcement in recognition of the very real harms that mass migration have caused to working-class American citizens, most especially from Biden's reckless and indefensible decision to flood the country with impoverished migrants. It is a shame that The Unpopulist is able to cover any number of issues with nuance and depth, but that when it comes to immigration the coverage is invariably so one-dimensional and dogmatic. You'd stand a better chance of changing minds if you were more intellectually honest and less prone to trying to intimidate your critics out of the conversation.
Incidentally, I never claimed that birth tourism is a mass phenomenon, but it is a legitimate issue that has been covered by serious outlets. Right now there are tens of thousands of Chinese nationals being raised and educated in China, but who are American citizens because their families arranged for the mother to be on American soil when she gave birth. It's not a huge number, but the national security implications ranging from espionage to electoral interference are grave.
If squirting out a baby after you hop the border is automatic citizenship, we don’t have a nation.