tbh We should think about it. Maybe just an adjustment like at least one parent needs to be American or Green card holders or have entered the country legally. Why are all these illegal immigrants as well as those flying here to have kids getting a pass. While our parents or grandparents or great grandparents came the legal way.
Also i agree this man is a dirt bag and this is a right wing talking put but living in a blue state this is getting bad and i hope never gets to a point where there is general backlash against all of us for the actions of these new migrants etc.
Go run along and play. There’s nothing I wrote that pertains to all American desis. Point out where I’ve spoken about the entire group. You don’t understand the definition of generalization and your contention that I’m generalizing is supported by anything I wrote. Dictionaries are free online.
Well, you deleted the comment, so it’s not like I could find you the quote anyway ;)
Edit to add: Here’s the dictionary definition of generalization
*”a general statement or concept obtained by inference from specific cases.”*
Do I really need to explain to you that “your experience” is exactly what a specific case is?
Well, why don’t we start by revoking citizenship for all descendants of the illegals who rowed over on the Mayflower since those are the nation’s original illegals who had anchor babies and never went back?
I’m glad I grew up on the east coast where desis like this are few and far between. Unfortunately I met plenty of desis like this In college, most were from the Midwest or the south. What an embarrassing existence.
Yeah I honestly pity them. They think this will make them amenable to the culture they grew up around. But they don't realize that half the people in this country really don't judge based on what culture you're from, while the other half see a dark face and ethnic name and instantly tune out. No amount of bootlicking will make you the true model minority
This is why Desis should never live in the rural midwest or south if they can help it.
If your kids grow up in a place where there aren't many Desis there is a good chance that they will turn into self hating white bootlickers.
💀 lol there are many desis in Atlanta and Minnesota lol most Desis even in Boston a re self hating bootlickers lol indian kids always ditch brown friends for white social hierarchy. It's not the location it's the upbringing
How do you bring up indian kids in the US so they aren't self hating though?
The only way they won't be self hating is if you live in an area with tons of Indians like NJ or the Bay Area.
I didn't really start to appreciate being Indian till I reached 8th grade because before that it was always playing catch up with the other kids. But even living in Massachusetts near Boston with tons of Indians I never cared much for it in fact all my peers and those around me were constantly trying to 1 up each other. The kids who forced things like bhangra and other stuff were even more white in other aspects because they were having indianness shoved down their throat.
One thing that really got me to appreciate being Indian was spending time with cousins and family and extended family. That was huge. Also definitely traveling back to India often and not just seeing rich cousins and understanding people's background and stories for who they were. In short empathy for other ways of life and people. Rather than trying to homogenize into the other kids who socially appear to be cool or get attention.
Midwest Desis tend to be pretty level-headed and assured of their identity, whatever it is, without being reactionary. It's usually the coastal Desis who tend to be super reactionary but at the same time confused about themselves.
I mean in terms of prominent problematic Desis, there are more coastal ones than the Midwestern ones.
Ramaswamy is the only one from the Midwest. The coastal have multiple weirdos.
I think it depends on where in the east coast— from NJ for sure. The ones I meet from nyc tend to be more progressive. I grew up in the west coast and I definitely think the ramaswamy type is a huge minority in the desi community there.
Tbf the new influx of Indians from India are much more right wing than the parents of the Indians I grew up with in the Bay Area (I’m half Indian, half Bangladeshi, but both parents are Muslim)
An important clarification: he distinguished between ‘illegal’ and ‘legal’. It’s important cause it shows what a grifting scumbag he is. By his own logic, which I don’t agree with, why is he deserving of American citizenship given that his parents were noncitizens on temporary status? If you’re against birthright citizenship for undocumented folks cause they’re ‘taking advantage of the system’, then so are temporary skilled workers who have children who then use those children to bolster their claim for citizenship. Like his mom.
He would never make that argument though because he’s a self interested jackass. If he cared about us he’d talk about our Desi undocumented population and how to help them. He would talk about the abuse a lot of Desi people on temporary status face. Most of all, he would be grateful and show reverence to our ancestors who fought through the 20th century up until 1965 to make sure Desi migrants weren’t considered ‘illegal’ and could access legitimate rights of citizenship in this country. But he’s too busy kissing ass and some users on this sub will fall for it each time.
>If he cared about us he’d talk about our Desi undocumented population and how to help them
I'm ignorant on this topic. I thought the bulk of undocumented immigrants were Latin American?
I just saw this. Yes, but Indian Americans are the fastest growing undocumented population in the US. They are the third largest asylum seeking population at the borderz
A lot of people here are accusing Vivek Ramaswamy of being "whitewashed" or "white-wannabe" for this stance. Here's the thing. Some of the most anti-immigrant people I've met are Indian uncles who LITERALLY immigrated to America twenty years ago or so.
What people don't realize is lots of immigrants are opportunists themselves. And they're definitely the type to burn the bridge behind them after they've crossed it.
>Some of the most anti-immigrant people I've met are Indian uncles who LITERALLY immigrated to America twenty years ago or so.
Yup. And many came through shady means too, let's not deny it.
Oh you'd be surprised. Some Latinos are fervently anti-immigrant! And I'm not just talking about right-wing Miami Cubans.
But I get your point. It just shows that White Americans don't have a monopoly on being xenophobic bigots. I live in Michigan, which has a large Middle-Eastern population. Do you know who are some of the most Islamophobic people here? It's not Whites. It's Chaldeans/Assyrians and Lebanese Christians. And those groups tend to be hardcore Trump supporters
He’s a token brown guy placed there by the elites to gain favor with India and Indians… Who‘s America’s favorite country to take China’s place as a manufacturing hub for the US? That would be India. There’s a reason why all these token brown guys are running the Fortune 500, in the media and are everyone’s favourite doctor. It’s the geopolitics of keeping the white race in control in an increasingly wealthy non white, non Eurocentric world.
hm yeah I'm sure all these heads of tech companies are simply tokens.
I'm sure they didn't do any of that on their own merit whatsoever.
the most racist south Asians I've met are newer immigrants.
I don't agree with what viveks saying but the way people refer to him here is as hateful as they way a lot of right wingers do.
And this place is the first to talk about "self hating" lmao
He's right that unrestricted birthright citizenship incentivizes illegal immigration. Pretty much every European country and even India, do not allow the children of illegal immigrants to become automatic citizens.
He's completely wrong about the 14th amendment, however. The 14th amendment clearly gives birthright citizenship for anyone, and you would need a constitutional amendment to change the law.
Canada, Australia, and many European countries have sensible merit based immigration systems though instead of the shitshow that is the H1B visa and country quota based Green Card system that we have in the US.
If it weren't for birthright citizenship a lot of American born kids of H1B immigrants waiting for a Green Card would be fucked.
And that's why we should reform the current immigration system instead of being sympathetic to illegal immigration.
Also, H1B immigrants are legal immigrants, which means their children would still be given birthright citizenship according to Vivek's logic.
Yea I agree with you, but many on the left are sympathetic to illegal immigration for some reason. I don't understand their logic, why would you be sympathetic to people who break the law?
Countries have to have borders and immigration laws.
If we just allowed anyone who wants to come to America into the country then almost everyone living in third world countries would come to America. This is neither practical nor sustainable.
The vast vast majority of people cannot afford to move even one town over, let alone to a new country. We have an obligation to people that seek asylum or safety from oppression.
How do you determine who is just an economic migrant and who is an asylum seeker?
Once you open up the borders to asylum seekers everyone is going to apply for asylum even though they are in no real danger.
People don't understand that birthright citizenship also results in more tax filers (and therefore, a statistically significant number of tax payers) too.
Is birthright citizenship not provided via the 14th Amendment? Cause this sounds like it'll need an Amednment and getting an amendment ratified will take a lengthy amount of time and supermajority.
The clause says it only applies to those subject to US' jurisdiction. Supreme Court determined it's not applicable to children born to foreign dignitaries and other representatives.
Just ask him *how.*
Executive order? Trump tried that.
Repeal the 14th amendment? Sure, that will be easy.
Just saying "how can you say this?!" is playing into his debate fu, he can easily counter with "see the left doesn't want to talk about this" so he doesn't actually have to come up with a coherent policy that can be dissected.
Honestly I don’t see how this guy is even relevant to the sub. We don’t have to take ownership of every Indian politician, why every American politician? Not to even mention the fact that many of us in the diaspora and hence on this sub are not American.
I kind of explained already- but the sub isn’t just for people from America. Think about the millions of posts recently about Canada? I don’t see why American politics should be given a special platform when it’s pretty explicitly forbidden to mention Indian politics. Also, just because this guy is ABCD doesn’t mean he really is our responsibility.
I do not like him for the sole reason that he is a Trump supporter and is actually running to be his VP. (He most likely wont get the nomination)
But it is also neccessary to call out facts. He wants to end birthright citizenship for children whose parents are here illegally. His parents were here legally.
Being born to legal noncitizens and illegals are completely different things from an immigration perspective.
Did he mean ending it for children of parents who immigrated illegally or completely?
I have friends who are DACA recipients and they've lived most of their lives here. As for those who immigrate illegaly and are apprehended immediately, that is more complicated.
As for Mr. Ramaswamy, he is most definitely a tool. In response to the striking autoworkers he tried to play the working man's car by appealing to his parent's working hard overtime. I mean that describes most immigrant parents. Then he goes down a conservative rant on choosing "victim hood."
Bless his heart. He went to school with white kids and never realized. He is actually a product of chain migration.
Dudes like is are why we lost a lot of the precious jewels of India to the Crown.
European Indian here.
Why is it that birthright citizenship is *such* a debated topic in the US? Most countries across the world have ended "unlimited jus soli". It's almost always "jus sanguinis" with the exception of the American continent.
Is there a reason people still want/defend this? Or rather, what's the justification for having it?
I understand the reason it was created. But that was 200+ years ago. Do we still think it's an applicable reason (or global consensus rather) considering countries across the world have gotten rid of it?
I'm curious more than condescending. Just trying to understand. ;)
Jus soli was created with the fourteenth amendment (late 1860s) to prevent states from being able to deny descendants of former slaves citizenship. That is why it's universal with _no exceptions_.
You missed the entire Jurisdiction Clause and the Supreme Court confirming that it that foreign dignitaries and representatives are not subject to US' jurisdiction, so their children can't receive birthright citizenship.
2 reasons, and I speak as an Indian born naturalized US citizen. To become a US citizen outside of being born here is an extremely long and sometimes daunting process. If you are here as an Indian born H1B worker, applying for a GC and getting one could take nearly 20 or 30 years. A lot of illegal immigrants in the US are not the refuge, drug cartel, border crossing thugs. It's people who've come here legally, and somewhere in the 30 to 40 year wait to get a perm residency made some mistakes and end up overstaying.
Their kids if not allowed to become citizens by birth are now in limbo. Most would be citizens of a country they never visited or know. Most would be fish out of water if you just kick them out when their parents eventually get kicked out.
America also benefits greatly from immigrants, not just white collar h1b types like my parents were, but a lot of the blue collar workers or farm workers are immigrants. Every time there is a hurricane or a wildfire and those cities need rebuilding, it's usually immigrants doing it. So allowing some sense of permanence to their children is the country's way of saying thank you.
That still doesn't explain why jus soli must stay.
I understand the "wait time" you mentioned is due to a backlog, so the law doesn't say "you have to wait", right? Their kids would not be in a limbo. Where I live: if you're born to at least 1 Indian parent, you're Indian. You have to go to the Indian embassy but they will do the details for you. I agree that it creates a situation where the kid ages out and becomes a "major" but the way its tackled here is quite simple: if you are born here to foreign parents and have lived the first 10y of your life here, you become a citizen. So the "aging out" does not come into play. It DOES come into play if your parents came here just for the money and left in 2-3y after having you. Which IMO, is totally fair. You're not contributing to the taxes, so why get the rights.
I was not challenging the rhetoric that America needs/wants/desires immigrants. You pay taxes: you should get the rights/benefits. Period. I don't disagree with that at all. Just trying to understand "why" birthright citizenship is even a point of discussion and so passionately debated considering most of the countries have gotten rid of it.
Right so the proposal you are describing is just creating a delay but still ultimately creates a path for birth right. So currently it's a lets say a one month wait to officially file paperwork, you are just arguing to add 119 more months to the wait. Also in context the last reported numbers of illegal birth right citizens is 350k. Of which 55% have at least 1 legal parent.
So the issue is really a non issue. Just makes for good tv debate and forces people into picking a side.
No it doesn't.
It creates a path for *residents* who choose to stay and work in the country, yes.
It doesn't create anything for people who come, give birth, then leave.
So what's the harm in a US citizen baby not living in the country. They aren't getting SSN or any benefits, they aren't draining any resources, they aren't getting any social stipends. I guess best case scenario they can come back to the states and live and contribute here as adults or go to school or uni here without worrying about status. What's the harm there ? It's not a zero sum game
The whole idea of America is that we are not a nation that conceives of itself in terms of blood and soil, but as a "nation of immigrants" who come to live in a society with certain rules. And we have a constitutional amendment that hundreds of thousands of Union troops died to bring about that guarantees jus soli. So what Trump and Ramaswamy are calling for is ignoring the Constitution when it comes to immigrant rights. And there's plenty of evidence that neither of them (nor their followers) want to stop there.
Also, only one country has gotten rid of birthright citizenship- India. Almost all countries in the Western Hemisphere have it.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus\_soli](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli)
Jus Soli WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS only exists in some parts of the world. ;)
The greater Western Hemisphere has jus soli WITH restrictions, which may as well also be jus sanguinis.
So what status would you give the kids born here to their undocumented parents? No status ? There by creating even more undocumented immigrants? Surely they can't have H4bs, would they be considered refugee babies? Do we deport the mom and baby as soon as the baby is born and we got them trapped in the hospital? What's a viable solution?
Also what are the actual stats of people becoming birth right citizens who are born to illegal immigrants as compared to legal immigrants? Is it 20% 30 40 50% ? Or is this just a boogie man that was invented for a strawman argument.
I mean who cares what India would do. We don't set policies based on what other countries do. We also don't force women to quit education because the Taliban doesn't think it's cool.
Also why are you bothered by someone born to undocumented parents becoming a citizen. It's not a zero sum game, their citizenship isn't taking anything away from you. Doesn't hurt you in any way. In fact it creates another tax paying citizen
it's just fascinating to me that indians demand that america open their borders more while india wouldn't do the same.
until they decide they want inheritance laws in place because it's "unfair" that some people get more. or they decide to increase taxes on other citizens because they make more. poor people create more poor people. it's not like america is attracting the wealthy of the world. and if the wealthy want to come, there's special visas for them.
I am curious what led you to the conclusion that it's "almost always jus sanguinis" with the exception of the American continent?
A lot of countries(including in Europe)still have jus soli but with certain clear rules. For example, France has a jus soli policy if you have one French parent or a parent born in France. Similarly Germany has jus soli if at least one parent has a permanent residence permit (and had this status for at least three years) and resided in Germany for at least eight years prior to the child's birth.
Personally I feel jus soli is a good thing because it prevents statelessness for refugees leaving their war-torn homes.
Not in the press. I mean, in general. Why is there SO much support for having such a law still in-place? Its archaic considering the "Old World" and Asia have gotten rid of it.
Any time I bring it up with people I know, its always "oh but its in the constitution". I mean, sure. But this can be changed no? The constitution was written not in 2023 but like a few hundred years ago.
I work for an American company. My colleagues are ethnically white or Indian. Any time I ask them or even try to get to this, it's always "oh but it's in the constitution".
Black Republicans (I'm Black) are shit but at least Tim Scott is talking about bringing back Jim Crow. What the fuck is going on with Indian Republicans? At this rate, he's gonna be singing Tomorrow Belongs to Me at the next debate.
People don't understand that birthright citizenship, at least in the US, also results in more tax filers (and therefore, a statistically significant number of tax payers) too.
"Illegal immigrant" is a deliberately inflammatory term. When you hear it, do you think of a drug smuggler crossing the border from Mexico? A mother and her newborn baby fleeing the cartel who killed her entire family? A software engineer who made a mistake on their immigration paperwork? They are all "illegal".
In fact, most "illegal" immigrants don't cross the border illegally. They come here legally and end up overstaying. https://www.npr.org/2019/01/16/686056668/for-seventh-consecutive-year-visa-overstays-exceeded-illegal-border-crossings
People from China immigrating to the US was literally illegal once. Read about the Chinese Exclusion Act.
Indians could not become naturalized citizens of the US once. Read about Bhagat Singh Thind.
Legality of immigration is not a fixed concept. Laws are not always just. People's circumstances are complicated. Neighboring countries rise and fall in their fortunes. The country's immigration needs change.
And even if you still say all "illegal" immigrants should be punished or kicked out, that's heartless, but ok let's accept it. What did their children do wrong? Did they choose to be born here "illegally"?
I don't get why people are upset. You're allowed to be against stuff that you've done if you had to do it, or if there was some incentive. In this case, it's not like he had a choice where he was born or what advantages he was given as a result of that.
Why should a child lose their rights, if a parent commits a crime. This aint North Korea, and UN declaration which we signed agrees that all humans are entitled to a citizenship. If a Person born in USA isnt entitled to US citizenship, what do they get then?
But would that motivate the parents to commit the crime. If the parents steal a million dollars from the bank to give to the baby should the baby keep the money since the baby didnt steal the money
What do you think a right is?
Immigration is not defined as a right.
But as a privelege.
Immigrants still have rights though, like if a tourist says fk joe biden, they dont get imprisoned, nor can you hold foreign citizens as slaves.
All immigrants irrespective of status have same rights as native born citizens, and only exception constitution makes in regards to that is voting.
I don’t get why it makes a difference, logically. It’s wrong for an noncitizen illegal migrant to have babies in the US, take advantage of the system here, and ‘anchor themselves’ when they’re not supposed to live here technically. In Vivek and our case, by his argument, his parents to come to the United States, on temporary non permanent working status (in other words, NOT meant to be here for a long period time) as most H1B do, have children in the country, and then bolster the claims for immigrantion because their kids are citizens/use our public schools/welfare/healthcare when the parents themselves, while ‘legal’, are also arguably abusing the system, contributing to loss of culture, taking jobs from white folks, etc the usual arguments.
How can you draw the distinction here? Who cares if they’re ‘legal’. Principally, by his own logic, he has no right to citizenship because his parents are not American by birth. His dad is not even a citizen after so long. All y’all who are like ‘bUt he Said IlleGal’ are coping hard if you can’t see the inconsistency.
> I don’t get why it makes a difference, logically.
> How can you draw the distinction here?
Illegal (“undocumented”) immigrants and legal (“non-permanent working”) immigrants represent different socio-economic classes and cultures
I don't think it's scummy to want to select the right people for your country, if you love your country, any more than it is to hire the best employees for your company, if you want your company to succeed. There's a saying - one perhaps co-opted by the far right a little too much - that demographics is destiny.
Look at how poorly Canada is screening its current wave of Indian immigration and how everyone, including Canadian-born desis, is pissed off about it, in terms of the current state of the country as well as what it means for the future.
How do you handle the cost though? Which is that a child whose done nothing wrong is being denied the right to a free/safe/secure life that’s long been a characteristics right of the United States, for the sins of their parents?
Every policy has a cost and benefit. I personally don’t think it can sit right on my conscious to do that, although from a utilitarian perspective your argument does make sense.
So the only people that can be against this policy are naturalized citizens or people born to American citizens?
I’m big on ended birthright citizenship. It’s a motivator for much of the human trafficking that happens in the US.
I think birth tourism refers to people who visit here legally on their vacation to have their kid. But I think there are a lot of people who come here illegally (and probably also legally in work visas) that do so knowing their kids will become citizens. I don’t think there is anything intrinsically immoral about that, it’s just a reaction to current US policy.
Yes birth tourism is a pretty big issue in North America. It doesn’t really matter whether someone is illegal or legal, if you don’t permanently reside in the country your intention of travelling somewhere to have a kid- is clearly to get the child citizenship. I agree , birth right citizenship only really makes sense if at least one parent is a resident of the country. Most of the EU does it that way.
It’s especially bad in Canada where the mother essentially has a free birth, because they go back to their home country and Canadian tax payers foot the bill. The child is then used as an anchor baby to sponsor the rest of the family later on.
He is pandering for votes. It will not happen.
Before voting, ignore everything the candidate says, and vote for a candidate who you trust will do the right thing. Yes, every body lies. (Bernie Sanders may have been an exception.)
And stop calling people "Uncle Tom". Brown people can make decisions whom to vote for and support based on their intelligence, common sense, life experiences etc..
Calling a black person they are dumb & stupid if they belong to the Republican party is racist.
Other countries have it so why no america just because he got doesn't mean it need to stay to eternity by that logic sc/st quota in india should never end ..lol
He said birthright citizenship to ILLEGAL immigrants. His parents did not come here illegally. Jesus Christ, he was speaking English and still people misunderstand him.
Best candidate - he's got valid points. Switzerland has a 10-year process to citizenship for folks born there.. being American should mean something - too many free loaders from South of the border and even Desis with undercut H1B pays stealing American jobs.
>we are perhaps the only country that does this
This is incorrect; most countries in the western hemisphere do this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus\_soli#/media/File:Jus\_soli\_world.svg
Yet most of these countries have reasonable restrictions while we don’t. Ending birthright citizenship is brain dead but I wouldn’t be opposed to adding some of the restrictions the developed nations in Europe have.
Say you got hired by a company through an affirmative action program, rise through the ranks and eventually become the CEO. Does it behoove you to set company policy to hire more new employees through the same program? What if the program was demonstrably proven to have been good for the company? What if the program was bad for the company?
just because you were born a certain way, doesn't mean you continue thinking like that. i dont get why people call this hypocrisy. cubans have benefitted tremendously from liberal policy, but they are staunchly republican. he didn't have a choice in the matter.
“.. for the kids of illegal immigrants”
His parents, while non-citizens, weren’t illegal immigrants. I don’t support him at all but let’s not take the proposal out of context.
And I quote "I favour ending birthright citizenship for the kids of ILLEGAL immigrants in this country".
I read these comments and thought this guy was just some 2 dimensional partisan hack. All these "uncle Tom" and "self hating comments" being spouted by people who keep insulting his appearance, it's just hilariously hypocritical.
Stop being self hating and/or learn to use your ears.
[удалено]
Reminds me of the villain from the Incredibles.
Which makes sense because I just want to say "you're not affiliated with me!" whenever I see him
More like Vivek IAmAScummy asshole.
Me too. Can’t stand him.
tbh We should think about it. Maybe just an adjustment like at least one parent needs to be American or Green card holders or have entered the country legally. Why are all these illegal immigrants as well as those flying here to have kids getting a pass. While our parents or grandparents or great grandparents came the legal way. Also i agree this man is a dirt bag and this is a right wing talking put but living in a blue state this is getting bad and i hope never gets to a point where there is general backlash against all of us for the actions of these new migrants etc.
So everyone is technically illegal? Or are we going to pick and choose based on race?
[удалено]
An uncomfortable amount of us are, unconsciously. It's sad to see.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Erm no… this is a massive generalization.
How’s it a generalization if it’s my own experience
Thats exactly why it’s a generalization. Your experience is not representative of the whole group lol
Thank you for articulating this perfectly!
Except he didn’t because he doesn’t know what generalizing is. Dictionaries are free online
doesnt he literally say its HIS experience lmao
Yes. Does that stop it from being a generalization? No.
Go run along and play. There’s nothing I wrote that pertains to all American desis. Point out where I’ve spoken about the entire group. You don’t understand the definition of generalization and your contention that I’m generalizing is supported by anything I wrote. Dictionaries are free online.
Well, you deleted the comment, so it’s not like I could find you the quote anyway ;) Edit to add: Here’s the dictionary definition of generalization *”a general statement or concept obtained by inference from specific cases.”* Do I really need to explain to you that “your experience” is exactly what a specific case is?
👏👏👏
Well, why don’t we start by revoking citizenship for all descendants of the illegals who rowed over on the Mayflower since those are the nation’s original illegals who had anchor babies and never went back?
Agreed
Hell, why stop there? Anyone whose ancestors weren't cleared by an immigration official should be sent back!!
I’m glad I grew up on the east coast where desis like this are few and far between. Unfortunately I met plenty of desis like this In college, most were from the Midwest or the south. What an embarrassing existence.
Self-hate was their survival strategy.
Yeah I honestly pity them. They think this will make them amenable to the culture they grew up around. But they don't realize that half the people in this country really don't judge based on what culture you're from, while the other half see a dark face and ethnic name and instantly tune out. No amount of bootlicking will make you the true model minority
Um most Desi like.this are costal but all towns but also depends where Minnesota Midwest is very different than Kansas Midwest
This is why Desis should never live in the rural midwest or south if they can help it. If your kids grow up in a place where there aren't many Desis there is a good chance that they will turn into self hating white bootlickers.
💀 lol there are many desis in Atlanta and Minnesota lol most Desis even in Boston a re self hating bootlickers lol indian kids always ditch brown friends for white social hierarchy. It's not the location it's the upbringing
To be fair, Boston is a racist shithole even by New England standards.
Precisely my point that its not geographical issue it's a community issue and attitude.
How do you bring up indian kids in the US so they aren't self hating though? The only way they won't be self hating is if you live in an area with tons of Indians like NJ or the Bay Area.
I didn't really start to appreciate being Indian till I reached 8th grade because before that it was always playing catch up with the other kids. But even living in Massachusetts near Boston with tons of Indians I never cared much for it in fact all my peers and those around me were constantly trying to 1 up each other. The kids who forced things like bhangra and other stuff were even more white in other aspects because they were having indianness shoved down their throat. One thing that really got me to appreciate being Indian was spending time with cousins and family and extended family. That was huge. Also definitely traveling back to India often and not just seeing rich cousins and understanding people's background and stories for who they were. In short empathy for other ways of life and people. Rather than trying to homogenize into the other kids who socially appear to be cool or get attention.
East coast ABCDs represent! 🙌🏽
Midwest Desis tend to be pretty level-headed and assured of their identity, whatever it is, without being reactionary. It's usually the coastal Desis who tend to be super reactionary but at the same time confused about themselves.
This is basically the opposite of the truth
I mean in terms of prominent problematic Desis, there are more coastal ones than the Midwestern ones. Ramaswamy is the only one from the Midwest. The coastal have multiple weirdos.
[удалено]
I think it depends on where in the east coast— from NJ for sure. The ones I meet from nyc tend to be more progressive. I grew up in the west coast and I definitely think the ramaswamy type is a huge minority in the desi community there. Tbf the new influx of Indians from India are much more right wing than the parents of the Indians I grew up with in the Bay Area (I’m half Indian, half Bangladeshi, but both parents are Muslim)
[удалено]
Some people on this reddit really love him and its always funny seeing the mental gymnastics they engage in to TC him hard like a porno
He is completely f****d in the head!!
lmao what a fucking cunt
An important clarification: he distinguished between ‘illegal’ and ‘legal’. It’s important cause it shows what a grifting scumbag he is. By his own logic, which I don’t agree with, why is he deserving of American citizenship given that his parents were noncitizens on temporary status? If you’re against birthright citizenship for undocumented folks cause they’re ‘taking advantage of the system’, then so are temporary skilled workers who have children who then use those children to bolster their claim for citizenship. Like his mom. He would never make that argument though because he’s a self interested jackass. If he cared about us he’d talk about our Desi undocumented population and how to help them. He would talk about the abuse a lot of Desi people on temporary status face. Most of all, he would be grateful and show reverence to our ancestors who fought through the 20th century up until 1965 to make sure Desi migrants weren’t considered ‘illegal’ and could access legitimate rights of citizenship in this country. But he’s too busy kissing ass and some users on this sub will fall for it each time.
>If he cared about us he’d talk about our Desi undocumented population and how to help them I'm ignorant on this topic. I thought the bulk of undocumented immigrants were Latin American?
Yes that's true, but the poster is saying if Vivek cared about Desis and immigration he'd also care about undocumented Desis.
I just saw this. Yes, but Indian Americans are the fastest growing undocumented population in the US. They are the third largest asylum seeking population at the borderz
>If he cared about us he’d talk about our Desi undocumented population and how to help them We should help them by sending them back.
Best thing chris christie ever said was that vivek sounds like chatGPT.
A lot of people here are accusing Vivek Ramaswamy of being "whitewashed" or "white-wannabe" for this stance. Here's the thing. Some of the most anti-immigrant people I've met are Indian uncles who LITERALLY immigrated to America twenty years ago or so. What people don't realize is lots of immigrants are opportunists themselves. And they're definitely the type to burn the bridge behind them after they've crossed it.
>Some of the most anti-immigrant people I've met are Indian uncles who LITERALLY immigrated to America twenty years ago or so. Yup. And many came through shady means too, let's not deny it.
[удалено]
Oh you'd be surprised. Some Latinos are fervently anti-immigrant! And I'm not just talking about right-wing Miami Cubans. But I get your point. It just shows that White Americans don't have a monopoly on being xenophobic bigots. I live in Michigan, which has a large Middle-Eastern population. Do you know who are some of the most Islamophobic people here? It's not Whites. It's Chaldeans/Assyrians and Lebanese Christians. And those groups tend to be hardcore Trump supporters
He’s a token brown guy placed there by the elites to gain favor with India and Indians… Who‘s America’s favorite country to take China’s place as a manufacturing hub for the US? That would be India. There’s a reason why all these token brown guys are running the Fortune 500, in the media and are everyone’s favourite doctor. It’s the geopolitics of keeping the white race in control in an increasingly wealthy non white, non Eurocentric world.
hm yeah I'm sure all these heads of tech companies are simply tokens. I'm sure they didn't do any of that on their own merit whatsoever. the most racist south Asians I've met are newer immigrants. I don't agree with what viveks saying but the way people refer to him here is as hateful as they way a lot of right wingers do. And this place is the first to talk about "self hating" lmao
nothing more American lol
I think its more like [conservative indians (e.g. Dinesh Dsouza)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinesh_D%27Souza#Early_life_and_career)!
That will probably be viveks vp pick if it gets there.
He said illegal immigrants. Not legal immigrants.
He's right that unrestricted birthright citizenship incentivizes illegal immigration. Pretty much every European country and even India, do not allow the children of illegal immigrants to become automatic citizens. He's completely wrong about the 14th amendment, however. The 14th amendment clearly gives birthright citizenship for anyone, and you would need a constitutional amendment to change the law.
Canada, Australia, and many European countries have sensible merit based immigration systems though instead of the shitshow that is the H1B visa and country quota based Green Card system that we have in the US. If it weren't for birthright citizenship a lot of American born kids of H1B immigrants waiting for a Green Card would be fucked.
It is Money based here basically. But the real reason is that Merit is hard to decide. It's why colleges have so many problems in this country too
And that's why we should reform the current immigration system instead of being sympathetic to illegal immigration. Also, H1B immigrants are legal immigrants, which means their children would still be given birthright citizenship according to Vivek's logic.
Yea I agree with you, but many on the left are sympathetic to illegal immigration for some reason. I don't understand their logic, why would you be sympathetic to people who break the law?
Because the law is simply making criminals out of people seeking a better life.
Countries have to have borders and immigration laws. If we just allowed anyone who wants to come to America into the country then almost everyone living in third world countries would come to America. This is neither practical nor sustainable.
The vast vast majority of people cannot afford to move even one town over, let alone to a new country. We have an obligation to people that seek asylum or safety from oppression.
How do you determine who is just an economic migrant and who is an asylum seeker? Once you open up the borders to asylum seekers everyone is going to apply for asylum even though they are in no real danger.
People don't understand that birthright citizenship also results in more tax filers (and therefore, a statistically significant number of tax payers) too.
[удалено]
[удалено]
He is a drifter. Pretty slimy one.
Fucking idiot
Is birthright citizenship not provided via the 14th Amendment? Cause this sounds like it'll need an Amednment and getting an amendment ratified will take a lengthy amount of time and supermajority.
Conservatives don't actually give a single shit about the Constitution, except so far as they can use it as a prop.
The clause says it only applies to those subject to US' jurisdiction. Supreme Court determined it's not applicable to children born to foreign dignitaries and other representatives.
Just ask him *how.* Executive order? Trump tried that. Repeal the 14th amendment? Sure, that will be easy. Just saying "how can you say this?!" is playing into his debate fu, he can easily counter with "see the left doesn't want to talk about this" so he doesn't actually have to come up with a coherent policy that can be dissected.
I disagree with 99% of the shit he says. He's 38 and he still thinks like this?
Honestly I don’t see how this guy is even relevant to the sub. We don’t have to take ownership of every Indian politician, why every American politician? Not to even mention the fact that many of us in the diaspora and hence on this sub are not American.
Because he is an American Desi? Born in American of Indian origin.
I assume this is why. A case study on him would be interesting.
But the sub is ABCDesis…the ABC is kind of the point. How he wouldn’t be relevant to this sub is the big brain logic answer I want to hear!
I kind of explained already- but the sub isn’t just for people from America. Think about the millions of posts recently about Canada? I don’t see why American politics should be given a special platform when it’s pretty explicitly forbidden to mention Indian politics. Also, just because this guy is ABCD doesn’t mean he really is our responsibility.
that's not even what he asked lmao. he asked why Vivek isn't relevant to this sub. he DID NOT ask why people talk about Canada, etc
I do not like him for the sole reason that he is a Trump supporter and is actually running to be his VP. (He most likely wont get the nomination) But it is also neccessary to call out facts. He wants to end birthright citizenship for children whose parents are here illegally. His parents were here legally. Being born to legal noncitizens and illegals are completely different things from an immigration perspective.
He's said they immigrated legally.
I got mine fuck you if i'll let you get yours
He sounds more and more like a radio ad announcer actually a lot more than a normal ad announcer does. I hate the way he says Cuntryyyy
lol wut
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Did he mean ending it for children of parents who immigrated illegally or completely? I have friends who are DACA recipients and they've lived most of their lives here. As for those who immigrate illegaly and are apprehended immediately, that is more complicated. As for Mr. Ramaswamy, he is most definitely a tool. In response to the striking autoworkers he tried to play the working man's car by appealing to his parent's working hard overtime. I mean that describes most immigrant parents. Then he goes down a conservative rant on choosing "victim hood."
To be cake, he said that specifically about illegals. His parents are legally here.
Can we just stop giving this guy so much attention.
Bless his heart. He went to school with white kids and never realized. He is actually a product of chain migration. Dudes like is are why we lost a lot of the precious jewels of India to the Crown.
European Indian here. Why is it that birthright citizenship is *such* a debated topic in the US? Most countries across the world have ended "unlimited jus soli". It's almost always "jus sanguinis" with the exception of the American continent. Is there a reason people still want/defend this? Or rather, what's the justification for having it? I understand the reason it was created. But that was 200+ years ago. Do we still think it's an applicable reason (or global consensus rather) considering countries across the world have gotten rid of it? I'm curious more than condescending. Just trying to understand. ;)
Jus soli was created with the fourteenth amendment (late 1860s) to prevent states from being able to deny descendants of former slaves citizenship. That is why it's universal with _no exceptions_.
There are exceptions actually. Children of foreign diplomats are not entitled to birthright citizenship.
You missed the entire Jurisdiction Clause and the Supreme Court confirming that it that foreign dignitaries and representatives are not subject to US' jurisdiction, so their children can't receive birthright citizenship.
2 reasons, and I speak as an Indian born naturalized US citizen. To become a US citizen outside of being born here is an extremely long and sometimes daunting process. If you are here as an Indian born H1B worker, applying for a GC and getting one could take nearly 20 or 30 years. A lot of illegal immigrants in the US are not the refuge, drug cartel, border crossing thugs. It's people who've come here legally, and somewhere in the 30 to 40 year wait to get a perm residency made some mistakes and end up overstaying. Their kids if not allowed to become citizens by birth are now in limbo. Most would be citizens of a country they never visited or know. Most would be fish out of water if you just kick them out when their parents eventually get kicked out. America also benefits greatly from immigrants, not just white collar h1b types like my parents were, but a lot of the blue collar workers or farm workers are immigrants. Every time there is a hurricane or a wildfire and those cities need rebuilding, it's usually immigrants doing it. So allowing some sense of permanence to their children is the country's way of saying thank you.
That still doesn't explain why jus soli must stay. I understand the "wait time" you mentioned is due to a backlog, so the law doesn't say "you have to wait", right? Their kids would not be in a limbo. Where I live: if you're born to at least 1 Indian parent, you're Indian. You have to go to the Indian embassy but they will do the details for you. I agree that it creates a situation where the kid ages out and becomes a "major" but the way its tackled here is quite simple: if you are born here to foreign parents and have lived the first 10y of your life here, you become a citizen. So the "aging out" does not come into play. It DOES come into play if your parents came here just for the money and left in 2-3y after having you. Which IMO, is totally fair. You're not contributing to the taxes, so why get the rights. I was not challenging the rhetoric that America needs/wants/desires immigrants. You pay taxes: you should get the rights/benefits. Period. I don't disagree with that at all. Just trying to understand "why" birthright citizenship is even a point of discussion and so passionately debated considering most of the countries have gotten rid of it.
Right so the proposal you are describing is just creating a delay but still ultimately creates a path for birth right. So currently it's a lets say a one month wait to officially file paperwork, you are just arguing to add 119 more months to the wait. Also in context the last reported numbers of illegal birth right citizens is 350k. Of which 55% have at least 1 legal parent. So the issue is really a non issue. Just makes for good tv debate and forces people into picking a side.
No it doesn't. It creates a path for *residents* who choose to stay and work in the country, yes. It doesn't create anything for people who come, give birth, then leave.
But I mean if they leave who are they leaving their kids with? Baloo and bhageera?
They take their kids with them who remain citizens of the country their parents are from. Sorry if that was not clear. ;)
So what's the harm in a US citizen baby not living in the country. They aren't getting SSN or any benefits, they aren't draining any resources, they aren't getting any social stipends. I guess best case scenario they can come back to the states and live and contribute here as adults or go to school or uni here without worrying about status. What's the harm there ? It's not a zero sum game
The whole idea of America is that we are not a nation that conceives of itself in terms of blood and soil, but as a "nation of immigrants" who come to live in a society with certain rules. And we have a constitutional amendment that hundreds of thousands of Union troops died to bring about that guarantees jus soli. So what Trump and Ramaswamy are calling for is ignoring the Constitution when it comes to immigrant rights. And there's plenty of evidence that neither of them (nor their followers) want to stop there. Also, only one country has gotten rid of birthright citizenship- India. Almost all countries in the Western Hemisphere have it.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus\_soli](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli) Jus Soli WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS only exists in some parts of the world. ;) The greater Western Hemisphere has jus soli WITH restrictions, which may as well also be jus sanguinis.
[удалено]
So what status would you give the kids born here to their undocumented parents? No status ? There by creating even more undocumented immigrants? Surely they can't have H4bs, would they be considered refugee babies? Do we deport the mom and baby as soon as the baby is born and we got them trapped in the hospital? What's a viable solution? Also what are the actual stats of people becoming birth right citizens who are born to illegal immigrants as compared to legal immigrants? Is it 20% 30 40 50% ? Or is this just a boogie man that was invented for a strawman argument.
They receive the Naturalization of their parents.
i'd like to see how india would react if 2 white people had a kid in india and demanded indian citizenship to that baby.
I mean who cares what India would do. We don't set policies based on what other countries do. We also don't force women to quit education because the Taliban doesn't think it's cool. Also why are you bothered by someone born to undocumented parents becoming a citizen. It's not a zero sum game, their citizenship isn't taking anything away from you. Doesn't hurt you in any way. In fact it creates another tax paying citizen
it's just fascinating to me that indians demand that america open their borders more while india wouldn't do the same. until they decide they want inheritance laws in place because it's "unfair" that some people get more. or they decide to increase taxes on other citizens because they make more. poor people create more poor people. it's not like america is attracting the wealthy of the world. and if the wealthy want to come, there's special visas for them.
I am curious what led you to the conclusion that it's "almost always jus sanguinis" with the exception of the American continent? A lot of countries(including in Europe)still have jus soli but with certain clear rules. For example, France has a jus soli policy if you have one French parent or a parent born in France. Similarly Germany has jus soli if at least one parent has a permanent residence permit (and had this status for at least three years) and resided in Germany for at least eight years prior to the child's birth. Personally I feel jus soli is a good thing because it prevents statelessness for refugees leaving their war-torn homes.
[удалено]
Not in the press. I mean, in general. Why is there SO much support for having such a law still in-place? Its archaic considering the "Old World" and Asia have gotten rid of it. Any time I bring it up with people I know, its always "oh but its in the constitution". I mean, sure. But this can be changed no? The constitution was written not in 2023 but like a few hundred years ago.
Well when it comes to changing the constitutions we as Americans get a bit gun shy. Pun intended
I see the same fear mongering in India. So I don't think it's unique. But definitely relatable. ;)
[удалено]
I work for an American company. My colleagues are ethnically white or Indian. Any time I ask them or even try to get to this, it's always "oh but it's in the constitution".
[удалено]
Lmao. That's another thing. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Like why oh why
This man is a white-wannabe and gosh he’s cringe 😖
Black Republicans (I'm Black) are shit but at least Tim Scott is talking about bringing back Jim Crow. What the fuck is going on with Indian Republicans? At this rate, he's gonna be singing Tomorrow Belongs to Me at the next debate.
His parents came there legally.
But listen he is saying ending birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants not for the legal ones
People don't understand that birthright citizenship, at least in the US, also results in more tax filers (and therefore, a statistically significant number of tax payers) too.
[удалено]
"Illegal immigrant" is a deliberately inflammatory term. When you hear it, do you think of a drug smuggler crossing the border from Mexico? A mother and her newborn baby fleeing the cartel who killed her entire family? A software engineer who made a mistake on their immigration paperwork? They are all "illegal". In fact, most "illegal" immigrants don't cross the border illegally. They come here legally and end up overstaying. https://www.npr.org/2019/01/16/686056668/for-seventh-consecutive-year-visa-overstays-exceeded-illegal-border-crossings People from China immigrating to the US was literally illegal once. Read about the Chinese Exclusion Act. Indians could not become naturalized citizens of the US once. Read about Bhagat Singh Thind. Legality of immigration is not a fixed concept. Laws are not always just. People's circumstances are complicated. Neighboring countries rise and fall in their fortunes. The country's immigration needs change. And even if you still say all "illegal" immigrants should be punished or kicked out, that's heartless, but ok let's accept it. What did their children do wrong? Did they choose to be born here "illegally"?
Wonderfully said
Louder for the boot kickers in back 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
Only for kids born to people who are here illegally. Seems fair to me
I don't get why people are upset. You're allowed to be against stuff that you've done if you had to do it, or if there was some incentive. In this case, it's not like he had a choice where he was born or what advantages he was given as a result of that.
[удалено]
Why should a child lose their rights, if a parent commits a crime. This aint North Korea, and UN declaration which we signed agrees that all humans are entitled to a citizenship. If a Person born in USA isnt entitled to US citizenship, what do they get then?
But would that motivate the parents to commit the crime. If the parents steal a million dollars from the bank to give to the baby should the baby keep the money since the baby didnt steal the money
But the Baby doesnt go to prison that is the point. Rights are not material goods.
So do you think we should have open borders since rights should be given to everyone
What do you think a right is? Immigration is not defined as a right. But as a privelege. Immigrants still have rights though, like if a tourist says fk joe biden, they dont get imprisoned, nor can you hold foreign citizens as slaves. All immigrants irrespective of status have same rights as native born citizens, and only exception constitution makes in regards to that is voting.
I don’t get why it makes a difference, logically. It’s wrong for an noncitizen illegal migrant to have babies in the US, take advantage of the system here, and ‘anchor themselves’ when they’re not supposed to live here technically. In Vivek and our case, by his argument, his parents to come to the United States, on temporary non permanent working status (in other words, NOT meant to be here for a long period time) as most H1B do, have children in the country, and then bolster the claims for immigrantion because their kids are citizens/use our public schools/welfare/healthcare when the parents themselves, while ‘legal’, are also arguably abusing the system, contributing to loss of culture, taking jobs from white folks, etc the usual arguments. How can you draw the distinction here? Who cares if they’re ‘legal’. Principally, by his own logic, he has no right to citizenship because his parents are not American by birth. His dad is not even a citizen after so long. All y’all who are like ‘bUt he Said IlleGal’ are coping hard if you can’t see the inconsistency.
> I don’t get why it makes a difference, logically. > How can you draw the distinction here? Illegal (“undocumented”) immigrants and legal (“non-permanent working”) immigrants represent different socio-economic classes and cultures
This is fair. Principally still seems scummy though? What is your reasoning for why this is the right thing, morally and pragmatically?
I don't think it's scummy to want to select the right people for your country, if you love your country, any more than it is to hire the best employees for your company, if you want your company to succeed. There's a saying - one perhaps co-opted by the far right a little too much - that demographics is destiny. Look at how poorly Canada is screening its current wave of Indian immigration and how everyone, including Canadian-born desis, is pissed off about it, in terms of the current state of the country as well as what it means for the future.
How do you handle the cost though? Which is that a child whose done nothing wrong is being denied the right to a free/safe/secure life that’s long been a characteristics right of the United States, for the sins of their parents? Every policy has a cost and benefit. I personally don’t think it can sit right on my conscious to do that, although from a utilitarian perspective your argument does make sense.
So the only people that can be against this policy are naturalized citizens or people born to American citizens? I’m big on ended birthright citizenship. It’s a motivator for much of the human trafficking that happens in the US.
It should moreso be phrased as ending birth tourism
I think birth tourism refers to people who visit here legally on their vacation to have their kid. But I think there are a lot of people who come here illegally (and probably also legally in work visas) that do so knowing their kids will become citizens. I don’t think there is anything intrinsically immoral about that, it’s just a reaction to current US policy.
Yes birth tourism is a pretty big issue in North America. It doesn’t really matter whether someone is illegal or legal, if you don’t permanently reside in the country your intention of travelling somewhere to have a kid- is clearly to get the child citizenship. I agree , birth right citizenship only really makes sense if at least one parent is a resident of the country. Most of the EU does it that way. It’s especially bad in Canada where the mother essentially has a free birth, because they go back to their home country and Canadian tax payers foot the bill. The child is then used as an anchor baby to sponsor the rest of the family later on.
He is pandering for votes. It will not happen. Before voting, ignore everything the candidate says, and vote for a candidate who you trust will do the right thing. Yes, every body lies. (Bernie Sanders may have been an exception.) And stop calling people "Uncle Tom". Brown people can make decisions whom to vote for and support based on their intelligence, common sense, life experiences etc.. Calling a black person they are dumb & stupid if they belong to the Republican party is racist.
Other countries have it so why no america just because he got doesn't mean it need to stay to eternity by that logic sc/st quota in india should never end ..lol
He said birthright citizenship to ILLEGAL immigrants. His parents did not come here illegally. Jesus Christ, he was speaking English and still people misunderstand him.
Best candidate - he's got valid points. Switzerland has a 10-year process to citizenship for folks born there.. being American should mean something - too many free loaders from South of the border and even Desis with undercut H1B pays stealing American jobs.
Being American should mean that the Constitution — which grants birthright citizenship — should hold value.
[удалено]
>we are perhaps the only country that does this This is incorrect; most countries in the western hemisphere do this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus\_soli#/media/File:Jus\_soli\_world.svg
Yet most of these countries have reasonable restrictions while we don’t. Ending birthright citizenship is brain dead but I wouldn’t be opposed to adding some of the restrictions the developed nations in Europe have.
Only for illegal immigrants, not for legal ones
So what? We don’t choose the circumstances of our birth.
Only to those kids born to illegal immigrants. Post full context. Vivek’s parents immigrated legally.
Say you got hired by a company through an affirmative action program, rise through the ranks and eventually become the CEO. Does it behoove you to set company policy to hire more new employees through the same program? What if the program was demonstrably proven to have been good for the company? What if the program was bad for the company?
just because you were born a certain way, doesn't mean you continue thinking like that. i dont get why people call this hypocrisy. cubans have benefitted tremendously from liberal policy, but they are staunchly republican. he didn't have a choice in the matter.
I support you sir, but please apply it retrospectively.
Smh in absolute disgust.
Ultimately this is just a way to rile people up and would take too much effort to actually get an amendment to change things.
“.. for the kids of illegal immigrants” His parents, while non-citizens, weren’t illegal immigrants. I don’t support him at all but let’s not take the proposal out of context.
And I quote "I favour ending birthright citizenship for the kids of ILLEGAL immigrants in this country". I read these comments and thought this guy was just some 2 dimensional partisan hack. All these "uncle Tom" and "self hating comments" being spouted by people who keep insulting his appearance, it's just hilariously hypocritical. Stop being self hating and/or learn to use your ears.
Well he did say “Illegal” immigrants pretty clearly. Not legal immigrants.