You said you prefer a merit system, but I’m sorry to say that I don’t believe you, at least I don’t believe you understand what a merit system in immigration means.
A true merit system means each immigrant is admitted based on what he/she does or has.
I'll try to be brief for Ruserious et al's sake . Ideally the mods can move this discussion to its own thread.Conservatives dislike birthright citizenship supposedly because the babies haven’t earned it. Well, if you want to be consistent, then the same standard should be applied to everybody. This means being an immediate relative to an American citizen doesn’t give you any immigration privilege, you have to show that you qualify based on skill, experience, wealth, etc.
I'm well aware of what a merit system in immigration means. A 'merit system with a strong component of humanitarianism' to me means we accept immigrants based on how their capabilities fit our needs, and genuine refugees, and immediate family members if there's no great risk that they'll go on the dole.
You may want to double check that. It's not automatic. I know a guy whose wife couldn't join him because of his finances. Luckily a local synagogue helped out, even though he wasn't a member. Anyway it's fine and normal that immediate family members can immigrate if they follow the process.Today parents, children, and spouse of American citizens automatically qualifies for a green card, and eventually citizenship. These people get immigration benefits not because they have particular skill or wealth, they get it simply because they’re related to a citizen. That’s a textbook definition of nepotism.
You're really twisting words there. I pointed out that three notable immigrant countries do not grant birthright citizenship, in response to an assertion that jus sanguinis is an inherent characteristic of immigrant countries. I also posted earlier that our immigration laws need improvement.You claimed that people in Singapore, NZ, and Australia “picks and chooses who gets to enter”, implying that Americans don’t have the same freedom. That’s patently wrong, because America’s government is (still) freely elected, so America’s constitution and immigration law reflect the picks and choices of Americans.
George III is dead. Vive le roi.Birthright citizenship is not forced upon you by King George at gunpoint, you chose it on your own accord.
Yes we can change it. My point is that we should change it
There's that, and we can also remove jus soli citizenship.By the way, these countries prevent chain migration by imposing strict criteria on parents of citizens wanting to immigrate. America can do the same by removing the automatic sponsorship eligibility for parents, so the babies can’t ‘anchor’ anymore when they turn 21. No constitutional amendment necessary.