They are a useful tool if you need to keep your civilization preoccupied and blissfully unaware of their current circumstances. Existential crises are expensive.
"Keep working! The next life - that's when it gets good!"
This is easily-prosecutable willful interference or possibly aircraft sabotage: ADS-B operates in licensed bands and uses an already highly-contended modulation scheme and transmission protocol.
Grade school math. Look at income tax receipts: the top 5% pay >61% of all income taxes.
You can try and split hairs with "sales taxes" and "payroll taxes" and try to shimmy things into some anti-capitalist stance ("but the companies benefit from their labor!!!," "renters pay property taxes indirectly!"), but the overwhelming majority of all tax payments come from a small percentage of individuals.
Why does this matter? The government spends X dollars each fiscal year, divided by the number (N) of people. Most people aren't paying X/N.
The government would not be able to fund every social program or services if it weren't for these receipts, which, most people cannot afford to pay. Even 100% of the majority of salaries can't cover this amount.
> Why does this matter? The government spends X dollars each fiscal year, divided by the number (N) of people. Most people aren't paying X/N.
It matters because we don't know if these people are being taxed more proportionately or less. Like, Elon Musk pays more tax than you or I, but he probably pays at a much lower rate.
What you don't want (from an equity and fairness perspective) is for people with more money to pay a lower rate of tax. That will cause problems.
From a total population perspective, given some amount of money S it doesn't really matter who pays it (except for downstream impacts around fairness and elections).
However, your original point was:
> The vast majority of adults and their children will never pay their tax burden proportionately.
I would argue that this is incorrect, everyone pays some proportion of their income in income/sales/property/estate taxes. And really, your point about who pays the majority of US federal taxes doesn't actually support your point.
Finally, I would note that I mostly replied because I really hate those top x% comparisons as they're deceptive without looking at the proportion of income earned.
> As a European I'm also somewhat confused. I always thought that the reason the second amendment was made into such a big deal was because Americans felt they needed to be able to protect themselves in case the government ran amok.
Americans, yes - not illegal immigrant invaders. As it would turn out, American citizens aren't ready to die for these people just yet.
> ICE has also deported full adult citizens, eg: Pedro Guzman, Mark Lyttle, etc.
Per your sources, these happened in 2007-2008, so that hardly seems relevant to the current discussion. Trump is not responsible for law enforcement overreaches that occurred under GWB.
> Currently there's a running problem simply having access to the names and files of those that disappear into the ICE Gulag.
What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
allow to birth? Only God does that. US does entice tourists by granting citizenship to anybody born on US territory. If you don't like it - change the Constitution. If you aren't changing it, then you want it for some reason.
Edit: to the commenter below - what "moral" has to do with the Constitution provision? I mean beside the general understanding that Constitution is a law and following law is in general a moral thing, and that US Constitution was generally an attempt to write a good moral thing.
I first have to ask: do you personally think it makes sense that couples can enter the US illegally, remain in the US illegally until a child is born, and have that child automatically become a citizen? Do you think it is moral? Why?
But just to clarify, GP was asking you whether that particular path to citizenship exists in other developed countries.
I do think it's moral and makes sense to make people born here citizens. It prevents the formation of an underclass of stateless residents who do not have rights. The idea of Jus Soli goes back a long time, rooted in English common law.
And yes, lots of other countries have similar policies in place. Racists act like it's something that is only a thing in the United States, and that it was only created by the 14th Amendment, and have managed to dupe many others to become ignorant of history.
This has nothing to do with racism, and the implication is offensive. In the age of English common law, nations and states were conceived of fundamentally differently.
> This has nothing to do with racism, and the implication is offensive.
The history of the 14th amendment, Jus Soli, and birthright citizenship have loads of racism in their debates and history. I'm not necessarily calling you a racist here, I'm just pointing out many racists do these things for racist reasons. But you are the one suggesting the citizenship rights guaranteed by the 14th amendment is immoral.
If you're truly ignorant of the history of the 14th Amendment and it's connection to racism you really need to read up on the US Civil War.
> In the age of English common law
We're still living in the age of English Common Law in many ways. It guides a massive part of our legal theory. I point to it because it seems you're taking the position the US is rare in its application of Jus Soli, as if only we made it up somewhat recently.
For practically all free white babies born to immigrants living in the US even before the 14th Amendment Jus Soli was the standard. Racism prevented granting this right to others.
What moral reasons do you give to not give citizenship to those born here? How is the 14th Amendment immoral?
> But you are the one suggesting the citizenship rights guaranteed by the 14th amendment is immoral.
I am not suggesting any such thing. I am suggesting it specifically about people who are born to those who did not have a legal right to be in the country in the first place.
The 14th amendment was passed primarily to protect slaves whose families had been in the country for generations, and the presence of whose ancestors was explicitly solicited by slave-owning citizens.
> I point to it because it seems you're taking the position the US is rare in its application of Jus Soli
I'm not. I'm supposing that it's outdated, and was not designed to reflect considerations like mass amounts of illegal immigration — especially from poor countries to much wealthier bordering ones, in an world where wealthy countries provide a social safety net that medieval Brits couldn't even have dreamed of.
Edit: as a sibling comment points out, the progenitors of English common law also could not have foreseen a world of ordinary people wealthy enough to travel internationally and have children abroad because citizenship in other countries would be favourable to their family. They could not even have foreseen a world in which the common folk could travel from England to France within hours on a whim.
The text of the 14th Amendment in regards to birthright citizenship:
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside
So now that we have that to reference...
> The 14th amendment was passed primarily to protect slaves whose families had been in the country for generations
Where is the generational requirement?
> presence of whose ancestors was explicitly solicited by slave-owning citizens
I don't see anything explicitly talking about slavery here.
Sure sounds like someone is trying to rewrite the amendment here. Sure seems to me it says "all persons", not just "all persons who were multi-generational slaves before the passage of this amendment".
> was not designed to reflect considerations like mass amounts of illegal immigration
You mean all those immigrants didn't think about the idea there could be massive amounts of immigration? The passage of the 14th Amendment happened in 1868. That's 18 years after the massive wave of immigration from the Irish Great Famine of 1845. That's after the massive migration of Asians during the California gold rush of 1849. You really think the writers were just fully ignorant of the potential of mass migrations?
I'll grant you they probably would not have imagined the amount of social safety net we have today, but I just can't agree they couldn't think about massive waves of people migrating for economic reasons. Those were definitely very salient issues at the time. Although it wouldn't be until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1889 that they actually took real action to significantly close the gates of US immigration. And they did so on racial lines, go figure.
My family came here before the passage of the 14th Amendment by pretty much just showing up and staying here for a couple of years. Their kids automatically became citizens at their birth even for the parents that never actually applied for citizenship. This is how it was for most of this country's history.
You've still not directly given me a reason why birthright citizenship is immoral. I've given you arguments as to why it is moral; it prevents the creation of an underclass of residents without full rights, something I'd hope we could both agree is immoral and bad. Can you tell me how granting citizenship to children of those without proper residency is somehow immoral?
> What moral reasons do you give to not give citizenship to those born here?
Why should someone on vacation be able to automatically tap into already-limited social safety nets for their children? They have contributed next to nothing.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
I kind of thought this was an American ideal, something we'd put on one of our most notable national monuments. Nah, sounds like some libtard crap I guess.
> But who am I, and who are my people, that we should be able to give as generously as this? Everything comes from you, and we have given you only what comes from your hand. - 1 Chronicles 29:14
> Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. - Matthew 6:19-21
> John answered, “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.” - Luke 3:11
> Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. - Luke 12:33
Back to your statements...
> They have contributed next to nothing.
And neither did you when you were born, and yet you got citizenship right off the bat. Should we have some kind of requirement that one must pay in enough money in taxes to qualify for citizenship? Maybe bring back poll taxes?
> Both that monument and the Declaration have zero authority in our government or system of laws.
And yet we enshrine them and make monuments out of them. Why would that be if they have zero relevance to our way of life and our nation's ideals, even if we haven't perfectly followed them in history? Why shouldn't we continue to reference them when we decide what to do going forward?
We're talking about morality in the US here. >62% of Americans say they're Christian. Citing the bible in discussions about morality in the US seems pretty relevant to me. Can you tell me how its not?
I also gave additional arguments and points unrelated to ancient texts, but you're not bothering to respond to those. What a joke.
> lots of other countries have similar policies in place
"Lots" of countries that nobody is clamoring to obtain citizenship in. Exactly one of them has a higher HDI score than the US, all of the rest are 20+ positions lower.
How many pregnant American tourists are specifically traveling to Brazil to birth their children as citizens there?
If you are a citizen child and your parents are arrested and subsequently incarcerated for breaking the law, you will be placed in foster care absent a suitable alternative guardian.
In this case, the children are being kept with their families. Who else should take them? Foster care?
Parents don't just magically get a free pass to break the law because they birthed a child.
>Do the children of immigrants have fewer rights than other citizens?
Your response doesn't even approach answering it.
Why is that? Are you unwilling to answer such a question? Did you misunderstand?
Your comment was completely unrelated to the question I asked. Especially since my parents are long dead (51 years and 28 years) and I haven't relied on parental support in 35+ years.
As I mentioned, I'm the child of a non-citizen immigrant. Do you claim that I have fewer rights than other citizens? If so, which rights, and what justification do you use to make such a claim?
I am not talking about your rights: this is a strawman argument. Nobody is talking about you, an adult citizen - was the context difficult to follow?
Maybe English isn't your first language: when people are talking about "children" - they don't mean typically "adult child."
The children (see: not adults) of illegal immigrants who are deported don't have "less rights" in this case than a citizen child.
Let's follow the thread:
> US citizens were extradited? Who? To where?
>> Invariably someone will shoot back with "citizen children of illegal immigrants."
>>> Do the children of immigrants have fewer rights than other citizens?
How exactly does your "my rights!!!" diatribe make sense in context here? Why would "adult children" be the implication in this sentence?
In case you weren't aware: there has been much recent controversy about families being deported together despite their children being citizens - this is what I was referring to. As an adult citizen, you would not be subject to deportation as you do not need a guardian. Find something else to be outraged about.
>I am not talking about your rights: this is a strawman argument.
Whose rights should I be talking/concerned about? Are my rights unimportant? Shall we just go ahead and strip me of my citizenship because I'm not talking about what you want me to talk about?
It's literally the question I asked and your position on that specific question I wanted to understand. I did not misrepresent your belief/argument, rather I asked you to elucidate your thoughts on a specific question.[1]
That's not a strawman argument, that's being curious about your beliefs and understanding of the laws of the United States.
In fact, your initial reply to my comment was, in fact, a straw man as you argued against a claim that I never made -- that somehow asking about the rights of the children, their age is irrelevant, as everyone is someone's child, of immigrants only related to the minor children of undocumented immigrants -- I made no such claim, except in the straw man you set up.
If you didn't want to answer that question, you were under no obligation to reply to me at all. Yet you chose to do so and argue against a claim I never made.
So it was you, not me who engaged in "refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction."[0]
[1] I suppose that my question could (as you apparently did) be considered a non-sequitur. Definitely not a straw man, as I didn't argue for or against anything. Rather,I asked for your beliefs/understanding of US law and the US Constitution.
Edit: Clarified the difference between a straw man and a non-sequitur -- in case GP's first language isn't English.
People who natively speak English do not assume "children" means "adult children." Obviously everyone is "someone's child."
Citizen children have rights, illegal immigrants have rights. Nobody's rights are being violated when parents who chose to illegally immigrate are deported.
Be angry somewhere else. Nobody was talking about your rights or rights at all.
>Citizen children have rights, illegal immigrants have rights.
Finally, progress! Thank you. Just to clarify, does that mean you believe that all citizens, regardless of whether they're born in the US, the children of US citizen(s), as well as those who are naturalized all have the same rights?
What about non-citizens present (leaving aside diplomats here) in the US? Do you believe that they are under the authority of the US Constitution, US code and the laws of the state/local area where they are?
If so, do the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments, as well as 8USC12[1] apply to those folks?
>Be angry somewhere else.
Who's angry? Not me. I wasn't angry before and I'm not angry now. What would give you that idea?
Or is that just more projection (straw man indeed!) from you?
>Nobody was talking about your rights or rights at all.
That's not really true. I was talking about my rights, as well as the rights of others.
If you don't wish to have this conversation, you're under no obligation to engage with me. I won't be insulted or "angry" either way. I'm sorry that my thought processes seem to get your hackles up. That certainly wasn't my intent.
> Apple refused to use its own private key to sign a tool that would have unlocked any iPhone.
This is a misrepresentation of what actually happened: the FBI even argued that they would accept a tool locked to the specific device in question so as to alleviate this concern.
This is still forced labor/creative work/engineering work/speech and not okay, but it was not a "master key."
The ideal is that Microsoft's customers are not idiots who will lose their keys. But that's just not reality, and those customers matter more than using what is arguably the objectively correct design in a certain light
I don't know man. I'm not very good with whataboutism. I don't trust myself answering such profound questions. I can answer X but the next moment I can poke holes at my answer X. Then I answer NOT X and then two minutes later I can poke holes at NOT X too.
I just shared the relevant threads I could find in my previous comment. Hoping it would throw more light on the situation. If you have an opinion about what Namecheap should do in these cases, do enlighten us!
> I presume they themselves do have access to its development.
Bad presumption.
Just develop a new board with your own bespoke design and firmware, possibly inspired by theirs. If you can't do this, you shouldn't be in this business.
"Keep working! The next life - that's when it gets good!"
reply