Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

mugtang

Perfect example of the need to end birth right citizenship

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, Jimbo_Poke said:

Well there are somethings we can do to help up that birthrate among Americans.  First, drop the idea a family needs to stop at only two kids.  Since you have many married/cohabitating couples with no or one kid not to mention how many single folk out there, to meet that replacement ratio you need families with 3, 4, or more kids.  Quit treating larger families as if they are horrible or insane.  After our son was born (our second child born, our first a daughter) the nurses all asked us if we were thinking of trying permanent birth control since we had the "perfect" family.  Will we have more kids, at this point who knows, we hope so, but we have had experiences that reinforce that there are no guarantees.  I won't judge a childless, one child, or two child household, but as long as our replacement ratio is below 2.1, can we quit judging larger households?  There is serious pressure on families to stop at two kids, this is just dumb with where we are today.  It would be one thing if we were at a large replacement ratio, but we aren't.   

 

 

No, I don't agree with this take. The shift in kids isn't cultural, it is primarily economic. People are having kids later because they can't afford a house at 18 or 22. People are having kids later because it requires 2 incomes to pay just for themselves, let alone kids. People are having less kids because child care is obscenely expensive. Paying for college in almost every state is essentially another mortgage - per kid. People are having less kids because of the time crunch - that's why we stopped at 2. We both work, and bully for it - but I can see how much less time I spend with my youngest compared to how much time I had with our first. I don't think adding another attention grabber would have been fair to either the two I have or the hypothetical third. 

I do think that there are many solutions. 35 hour workweeks would be great, real maternity leave would help, even just the ability to hold a professional job on a 60 or 80% of full time basis as an accepted institution would be an enormous benefit. We just don't see it, though. The industrialized world has no economic incentive for children. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Children are an inferior good(economically speaking). Wealthy countries have fewer children than poorer countries. Not sure there is much the government can do to change that. Even if they could I don't think they should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, happycamper said:

No, I don't agree with this take. The shift in kids isn't cultural, it is primarily economic. People are having kids later because they can't afford a house at 18 or 22. People are having kids later because it requires 2 incomes to pay just for themselves, let alone kids. People are having less kids because child care is obscenely expensive. Paying for college in almost every state is essentially another mortgage - per kid. People are having less kids because of the time crunch - that's why we stopped at 2. We both work, and bully for it - but I can see how much less time I spend with my youngest compared to how much time I had with our first. I don't think adding another attention grabber would have been fair to either the two I have or the hypothetical third. 

I do think that there are many solutions. 35 hour workweeks would be great, real maternity leave would help, even just the ability to hold a professional job on a 60 or 80% of full time basis as an accepted institution would be an enormous benefit. We just don't see it, though. The industrialized world has no economic incentive for children. 

Then why does anyone have kids?  Yeah my wife and I would be better off economically if we didn't have kids, yet we have kids.  The economics definitely plays a role, but the choice of what we choose to pursue for happiness is absolutely reflective of the culture.  My wife and I did not fit in Denver, and a big reason is we did not fit the Denver culture.  What we want to pursue and obtain was at odds with what I personally see as a rat race.  That something has to have an economic incentive is a reflection of a culture that values the dollar above other objectives.  I want to be clear I am not judging you Happy, size of family is a very personal issue and should be left to the parents to determine what is best for them.  

I would be amicable to 35 standard hour work weeks.  Has to happen at a time of low unemployment though.    

20 minutes ago, tspoke said:

Children are an inferior good(economically speaking). Wealthy countries have fewer children than poorer countries. Not sure there is much the government can do to change that. Even if they could I don't think they should.

Oh, I absolutely don't want the government to get involved.  Forced culture changes directed by the government tends to not end well.  I think we as a society are too reliant on the government to fix things.  
 

1 hour ago, renoskier said:

This is bullshit. I completely disagree with your opinion that there is pressure put on families to stop at two children. Other than a nurse mentioning permanent birth control, where is the ongoing "pressure" coming from? If anything, because more and more folks are getting away from traditional organized religion, couples are more likely to make family planning decisions on their own without being "pressured" to have large families. Also, young people are marrying later and couples are delaying having children, often into their 30's

Why try to re-invent the wheel and increase our birth rate when we already have millions of folks who apparently want to come here to have their babies? I just don't get it, is a baby born to an American couple somehow superior than one born to an immigrant? No one comes right out and says so but reading between the lines seems to suggest an underlying xenophobia; often based upon the notion of American exceptionalism.

With regard to the pro life movement, I hope you're right. As an American, I've always been pro-choice and have many times posted that if the pro-life folks spent half as much time and money trying to help women and couples, instead of trying to deny them their rights, the number of abortions could be reduced significantly.

I used the nurses as one example.  Also it wasn't a nurse "mentioning" it was a full court press by multiple personnel.  You try being a mother, go to a follow up appointment and have each of the three medical personnel you see at your appointment push this stuff on you.  Then when you reply that you aren't interested be treated like you are some zealot weirdo.  You deal with getting told "You must be done having kids, RIGHT" by strangers in the grocery store, the department store, some lady sitting at a restaurant.  It is there in medical professionals pushing an agenda straight out of Malthus and Ehrlich and pushing hormonal B.C. even with all the known side affects and not being up to date on other options developed from accredited medical schools.  Additionally, there is the pressure that work is more important than family.  Look at the new homes being built and the layout, here are some examples link 1, link 2, link 3, they tend to be geared for smaller families with fewer bedrooms.  The pressure is there and I didn't know how much until seeing it directed at my wife and talking about it with my wife.  I am not trying to change your or happy's mind.  I am simply sharing my experience and more importantly the experience of my wife.  I really don't care if you think this is BS or not because it is reality for my wife.  Guess which is more important to me?   

Also, can you count any undocumented workers as an acquaintance?  Have you had any over to your house for dinner?  Listen to them discuss the real fear of losing everything they have worked for?  I have, so please, drop the xenophobic ad hominem.  The proponents of amnesty are proponents of keeping the current system and that is a system that exploits people.   The poor immigration setup we have hurts them arguably the most.  That said, I think the American culture of limited government, hard work, and valuing the worth of the individual is worth keeping in tact.  It isn't about who is superior, it is about if you rely on immigration to bolster your population there are ramifications to that.  It isn't all roses, especially if you rely on persons coming from a region that is culturally very hostile to your culture.  Ask Mexico about how relying on immigrants to more fully populate Texas worked out for them.  Look at some of the news out of Europe now. 




     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jimbo_Poke said:

Then why does anyone have kids?  Yeah my wife and I would be better off economically if we didn't have kids, yet we have kids.  The economics definitely plays a role, but the choice of what we choose to pursue for happiness is absolutely reflective of the culture.  My wife and I did not fit in Denver, and a big reason is we did not fit the Denver culture.  What we want to pursue and obtain was at odds with what I personally see as a rat race.  That something has to have an economic incentive is a reflection of a culture that values the dollar above other objectives.  I want to be clear I am not judging you Happy, size of family is a very personal issue and should be left to the parents to determine what is best for them.  

 

Frankly, when I had 1, I only wanted 3 because I knew I wouldn't be able to have 4. After 2, I stopped at 2. We, as a family with both parents working and me working the standard 40+, did not feel like we had time to have a large family. 

I did want to have kids earlier, though. I went through college, and then grad school, then a couple years of "starter job" before we had kids (and ya know we got married and bought a house). Ideally biologically, we would have had kids during undergrad. If that were the case, as it was 50 years ago, yeah, 4 kids would have been easy - 2 in the early 20s, 2 in the late 20s. I didn't want to be like my dad and have teenagers in my late 50s. 

I think we could do a lot to make that possible - hell, universities are well set up to have support systems for college kids to have kids at that time, it is kind of stupid that that isn't kid having time - but whatever, it is what it is. 

1 minute ago, Jimbo_Poke said:

 



I would be amicable to 35 standard hour work weeks.  Has to happen at a time of low unemployment though.    

Oh, I absolutely don't want the government to get involved.  Forced culture changes directed by the government tends to not end well.  I think we as a society are too reliant on the government to fix things.  
 

I used the nurses as one example.  Also it wasn't a nurse "mentioning" it was a full court press by multiple personnel.  You try being a mother, go to a follow up appointment and have each of the three medical personnel you see at your appointment push this stuff on you.  Then when you reply that you aren't interested be treated like you are some zealot weirdo.  You deal with getting told "You must be done having kids, RIGHT" by strangers in the grocery store, the department store, some lady sitting at a restaurant.  It is there in medical professionals pushing an agenda straight out of Malthus and Ehrlich and pushing hormonal B.C. even with all the known side affects and not being up to date on other options developed from accredited medical schools.  Additionally, there is the pressure that work is more important than family.  Look at the new homes being built and the layout, here are some examples link 1, link 2, link 3, they tend to be geared for smaller families with fewer bedrooms.  The pressure is there and I didn't know how much until seeing it directed at my wife and talking about it with my wife.  I am not trying to change your or happy's mind.  I am simply sharing my experience and more importantly the experience of my wife.  I really don't care if you think this is BS or not because it is reality for my wife.  Guess which is more important to me?   

Also, can you count any undocumented workers as an acquaintance?  Have you had any over to your house for dinner?  Listen to them discuss the real fear of losing everything they have worked for?  I have, so please, drop the xenophobic ad hominem.  The proponents of amnesty are proponents of keeping the current system and that is a system that exploits people.   The poor immigration setup we have hurts them arguably the most.  That said, I think the American culture of limited government, hard work, and valuing the worth of the individual is worth keeping in tact.  It isn't about who is superior, it is about if you rely on immigration to bolster your population there are ramifications to that.  It isn't all roses, especially if you rely on persons coming from a region that is culturally very hostile to your culture.  Ask Mexico about how relying on immigrants to more fully populate Texas worked out for them.  Look at some of the news out of Europe now. 




     

Yeah but you live in Buffalo, you gotta expect weirdness

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you all know, I live abroad.  Every day I talk to people who ask me about giving up their USA citizenship in my job.  

With the "shithole countries" comment I honestly think this needs to be discussed.  Why do we have such an antiquated notion of borders and citizenship?  Why do we continue to tolerate that citizenship is such a determining factor in your success?  Even living abroad people with US passports have much more opportunity than people form other countries.  

This idea of "American Exceptionalism" and strong borders are all aspects of white nationalism.  There is this entrenched need to maintain a privileged place for people simply because of their citizenship status.  Citizenship and immigration status is a key aspect of "racial purity."  This is the same desire as southern uneducated whites have to be able to maintain their social hierarchy over blacks just because of the color of their skin.  Citizenship is an excellent way to maintain the "whites only" lunch counter.  If you read between the lines of these white nationalists that is the key goal.  All of this is about maintaining a social hierarchy at all costs.

Honestly, why shouldn't people be able to live wherever they want in the world?  Why do people think all of the welfare benefits will suck people in?  Texas isn't draining all of its poor people to California last I checked.  Conversely shouldn't some of our folks be able to leave this country easily to work abroad?  Isn't Texas saying that they will make all this money by deregulating and starting all these businesses? 

In my opinion, you should really be able to live where you want in the world and you just have to be under the taxation regime where you live so you pay your fair share.  What is so hard about that?  Then you just have to worry about catching criminals at the border instead of making people just trying to improve their lives illicit. 

 

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Akkula said:

As you all know, I live abroad.  Every day I talk to people who ask me about giving up their USA citizenship in my job.  

With the "shithole countries" comment I honestly think this needs to be discussed.  Why do we have such an antiquated notion of borders and citizenship?  Why do we continue to tolerate that citizenship is such a determining factor in your success?  Even living abroad people with US passports have much more opportunity than people form other countries.  

This idea of "American Exceptionalism" and strong borders are all aspects of white nationalism.  There is this entrenched need to maintain a privileged place for people simply because of their citizenship status.  Citizenship and immigration status is a key aspect of "racial purity."  This is the same desire as southern uneducated whites have to be able to maintain their social hierarchy over blacks just because of the color of their skin.  Citizenship is an excellent way to maintain the "whites only" lunch counter.  If you read between the lines of these white nationalists that is the key goal.  All of this is about maintaining a social hierarchy at all costs.

Honestly, why shouldn't people be able to live wherever they want in the world?  Why do people think all of the welfare benefits will suck people in?  Texas isn't draining all of its poor people to California last I checked.  Conversely shouldn't some of our folks be able to leave this country easily to work abroad?  Isn't Texas saying that they will make all this money by deregulating and starting all these businesses? 

In my opinion, you should really be able to live where you want in the world and you just have to be under the taxation regime where you live so you pay your fair share.  What is so hard about that?  Then you just have to worry about catching criminals at the border instead of making people just trying to improve their lives illicit. 

 

Dumbest...post...ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Jimbo_Poke said:

  

Oh, I absolutely don't want the government to get involved.  Forced culture changes directed by the government tends to not end well.  I think we as a society are too reliant on the government to fix things.  
 


     

I agree that I don't want government to do anything about but  then how do you propose we change that attitude? We were discussing government actions regarding immigration. You can't really do anything to change the way society behaves. Smaller families are the norm now. It is what it is. I haven't seen any animosity towards larger families but it could exist (I'm married in my 30's and childless and plan on 1 or 0 children in my future for full disclosure) Sounds like there are some real assholes talking to your wife getting in her business. I don't judge anyone for their family choices. Family's get smaller as nations wealth gains. Just the way it is and I don't know of anyway to reverse it.

17 hours ago, Jimbo_Poke said:


 

  Look at the new homes being built and the layout, here are some examples link 1, link 2, link 3, they tend to be geared for smaller families with fewer bedrooms. 

     

Are the house builders putting pressure on you to not have as many kids or are they reacting to the fact that most families are smaller and building more smaller houses in response.

 

Edit: I just wanted to be clear I think we are on the same page. People should be able to have the type and size of family they desire and shouldn't be forced or pressured to do anything different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Akkula said:

As you all know, I live abroad.  Every day I talk to people who ask me about giving up their USA citizenship in my job.  

With the "shithole countries" comment I honestly think this needs to be discussed.  Why do we have such an antiquated notion of borders and citizenship?  Why do we continue to tolerate that citizenship is such a determining factor in your success?  Even living abroad people with US passports have much more opportunity than people form other countries.  

This idea of "American Exceptionalism" and strong borders are all aspects of white nationalism.  There is this entrenched need to maintain a privileged place for people simply because of their citizenship status.  Citizenship and immigration status is a key aspect of "racial purity."  This is the same desire as southern uneducated whites have to be able to maintain their social hierarchy over blacks just because of the color of their skin.  Citizenship is an excellent way to maintain the "whites only" lunch counter.  If you read between the lines of these white nationalists that is the key goal.  All of this is about maintaining a social hierarchy at all costs.

Honestly, why shouldn't people be able to live wherever they want in the world?  Why do people think all of the welfare benefits will suck people in?  Texas isn't draining all of its poor people to California last I checked.  Conversely shouldn't some of our folks be able to leave this country easily to work abroad?  Isn't Texas saying that they will make all this money by deregulating and starting all these businesses? 

In my opinion, you should really be able to live where you want in the world and you just have to be under the taxation regime where you live so you pay your fair share.  What is so hard about that?  Then you just have to worry about catching criminals at the border instead of making people just trying to improve their lives illicit. 

 

I'm all for flexible migration between countries and granting refugee status to people in dire situations but you're either incredibly naive or simply stupid to think borders and immigration control are racist. There is nothing wrong with having an immigration policy, that's simple common sense. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BSUTOP25 said:

I'm all for flexible migration between countries and granting refugee status to people in dire situations but you're either incredibly naive or simply stupid to think borders and immigration control are racist. There is nothing wrong with having an immigration policy, that's simple common sense. 

I didn't say immigration control is inherently racist.  But it can be used for racist purposes and that is what Trump and the alt-right want to do.  Just like the police or other government entities...they can be used for racist purposes or to perpetuate a racist social structures and white power.  That is exactly what Jim Crow and Apartheid were and that is what the alt-right and Trump want.

There is nothing wrong with customs and immigration enforcement checks...just like there is no problem with airport security keeping your flight safe.  My issue is that the EXACT same person can show up with an British passport or a "Shithole Country" passport and they will be treated much differently.  How is that different from treating someone differently for any innate thing about themselves that they cannot control?  We don't allow discrimination based on national origin once they are in the USA, right?  That is not a merit based system, right?  

If you read between the lines a lot of the immigration issues for the alt-right is just a way to use immigration for racist proposes.   People can call me an idiot all they want but I haven't heard any cogent argument about why our current paradigm for immigration even makes sense.  I just think we shouldn't favor certain people over other people for things they can't control.  I also think we shouldn't have disparate treatment nor disparate impacts that favor white english speakers.

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/9/2018 at 9:26 PM, mugtang said:

Ok. But why did you bring it up?  I didn’t mention Trump at all. I’ve consistently said we need to end it and have used Chinese birth tourism as a reason why.  And now the Russians are doing the same thing. 

Because he, like so many others, has Trump derangement syndrome.

 

GO POKES!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/11/2018 at 12:13 PM, happycamper said:

No, I don't agree with this take. The shift in kids isn't cultural, it is primarily economic. People are having kids later because they can't afford a house at 18 or 22. People are having kids later because it requires 2 incomes to pay just for themselves, let alone kids. People are having less kids because child care is obscenely expensive. Paying for college in almost every state is essentially another mortgage - per kid. People are having less kids because of the time crunch - that's why we stopped at 2. We both work, and bully for it - but I can see how much less time I spend with my youngest compared to how much time I had with our first. I don't think adding another attention grabber would have been fair to either the two I have or the hypothetical third. 

I do think that there are many solutions. 35 hour workweeks would be great, real maternity leave would help, even just the ability to hold a professional job on a 60 or 80% of full time basis as an accepted institution would be an enormous benefit. We just don't see it, though. The industrialized world has no economic incentive for children. 

One factor for people are not having kids is that they are living with their parents until they are in their late 20s, and too busy playing video games to bother leaving the house.

GO POKES!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2018 at 6:56 AM, mugtang said:

Yes the only way to fix this is via constitutional amendment.  I’d say make the rules something like one of your parents must be a legal US resident or citizen for you to have citizenship.  

nope, cant end birthright citizenship.  America\Americans are an ideology, not a race.  the ideology doesnt work without birthright citizenship.

I know ypur point, and i understand the real world application is more complicated, but at the end of the day, it has to be this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/11/2018 at 12:01 PM, renoskier said:

This is bullshit. I completely disagree with your opinion that there is pressure put on families to stop at two children. Other than a nurse mentioning permanent birth control, where is the ongoing "pressure" coming from? If anything, because more and more folks are getting away from traditional organized religion, couples are more likely to make family planning decisions on their own without being "pressured" to have large families. Also, young people are marrying later and couples are delaying having children, often into their 30's

Why try to re-invent the wheel and increase our birth rate when we already have millions of folks who apparently want to come here to have their babies? I just don't get it, is a baby born to an American couple somehow superior than one born to an immigrant? No one comes right out and says so but reading between the lines seems to suggest an underlying xenophobia; often based upon the notion of American exceptionalism.

With regard to the pro life movement, I hope you're right. As an American, I've always been pro-choice and have many times posted that if the pro-life folks spent half as much time and money trying to help women and couples, instead of trying to deny them their rights, the number of abortions could be reduced significantly.

honestly your last point is a reflection of your own bias.  Church groups do a shitload of support sevices for single mothers and poor people.  Gimme a break.  They arent causing higher abortion rates.  That makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CPslograd said:

honestly your last point is a reflection of your own bias.  Church groups do a shitload of support sevices for single mothers and poor people.  Gimme a break.  They arent causing higher abortion rates.  That makes no sense.

No, I'm not saying they add to the problem but I don't believe their efforts to restrict access or outlaw abortion have had a positive impact. For instance, folks who protest and often harass the poor women who have made a very difficult decision; a decision that they will remember for the rest of their lives, I wish those folks would spend their time on more positive, less confrontational efforts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...