That’s something that’s developed over the last couple decades. Europe didn’t have vast amounts of homelessness and poverty. My guess is Schengen plus lax immigration policies. That is compare requirements for entering the UAE vs Europe. Europe is less selective.
You’re importing millions which puts pressure on housing and employment where they compete against locals depressing wages. Additionally many/majority from Eastern Europe, Middle East, Central Asia and Africa are semi skilled and unskilled who in turn either can’t land a job or don’t earn enough.
People like ignoring this aspect and even deny it has any effect.
Exactly!
In Europe, people that are leaving in the streets are mostly illegal immigrants, drug addicted or people that refuse helps for mental issues or culture (gipsies).
The same happens to US citizens who have/bear children in other countries. Moreover some will do much as assume the children do not have local citizenship but US citizenship despite being born in that non-US country.
I've known children of US citizens who were presumed Americans though having been born in a south American country. Government kicked them all out for being personae non grata Americans --children not excepted.
That’s because, for a while, the USA has been seen as the main exponent (although obviously not the only one) of western ideals such as freedom, democracy, human rights, etc. So yeah it’s logical that people would expect that the “leader of the free world” does not act like some other random country.
Rather a different interpretation of the XIV. It was intended for slaves and the children of slaves (there were few non-British foreigners in the US) at the time. However, over time, it was interpreted to mean anyone not only the descendants of slaves/ex-slaves). That could very well be re-interpreted.
“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.”
This seems pretty clear to me. How else could you interpret it?
The entire interpretation of that amendment turns on this phrase:
>and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
And if you go back and read what the drafters of that amendment stated they meant on the floor of congress, they did not intend it to mean Jus soli. The idea was so ridiculous at the time that no one thought it worth writing it down. Pity. The controlling Supreme Court case spends a lot of time talking about English Common Law and what "subject to the jurisdiction of the King" meant. It is not hard to believe, at all, that the current SCOTUS may have a different interpretation than "anyone who happens to be born across this line on the map is a US citizen and is granted all rights, responsibilities, and privileges thereof".
Having read the Senate debate on the amendment to grant citizenship to what would become the 14th amendment, I can't disagree more.
They were absolutely aware that is what it. Indeed, they stated it outright:
> The proposition before us … relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that
they shall be citizens. … I am in favor of doing so. … We are entirely ready to
accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.
- Senator John Conness (R-CA), May 29, 1866 during Senate debates on citizenship amendment introduced by Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI)
The only real change came when they worried that citizenship would be extended to Indians in tribes we had treaties saying we wouldn't do just that leading to a change that excluded them.
Conness wasn't an author of the amendment, and was an immigration advocate as part of a Machiavellian strategy to lock out the Democrats in Reconstruction-era America. I agree with you, though, there certainly were other opinions on what those words meant, and the actual author doesn't do himself any favors by trying to tread right on the line to ensure the amendment passed. In any case, SCOTUS will eventually weigh in, and probably just settle the question, at least for now. It's a pity that the argument is about just the one phrase, because the arguments about the wisdom of Jus Soli policies are much more interesting.
Do you have more info about what they said they meant?
Certainly that clause has weight. It excludes diplomats, members of occupying armies, and members of Native tribes. But it seems strange to apply it to others, unless you’re also going to say that they have immunity from our laws as well.
It's not that they have "immunity", it's about whether the US Government has jurisdiction over them, meaning they can conscript them in time of war, collect taxes and so on, and that there isn't another foreign power that can do or already does this.
Howard, who introduced the Amendment, said this[1]:
>This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.
>Now, all this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power—for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us—shall be considered as citizens of the United States ... If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States, there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.
Doubly funny that he added a line in that speech where he thinks all ambiguity is gone.
Thanks. Dude couldn’t even make his own statements unambiguous. And he can’t seem to make up his mind about whether the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause refers to the child or the parents.
People born in the Germany made up about 3.5% of the US population (1.11 million) in 1860. While they were one of the largest groups, many states/territories had large percentages of other non-British people like California, where 9% of the population was born in China. Then you have territories like New Mexico where most of the population had been born in Mexico.
Regardless, the debates for the 14th Amendment make it absolutely clear they understood they understood a child born to, say, Chinese parents in the US would get citizenship.
Well then it's a good thing historical context matters more than numerical consensus when analyzing why the majority of two continents settled by Europeans in the last 500 years nearly all opted for one broad form of conferring citizenship over another. If you were to redact the name of all 195 countries, but list ten facts about them and draw random names, you could accurately predict which ones will have birthright citizenship just by looking at other properties.
Decent vendors usually list their website or farm name on their tent/stall. They could make things up of course, but people who frequent the market would get wise to the shenanigans. If it’s some guy with a bunch of wax boxes worth of produce then yeah, they may just be reselling -just like the rando selling strawberries on a random corner without a license.
If money exchanges hands. If you pay someone to distribute flyers, or you pay someone to run ads.
If you expect a this for that that benefits the giver. Like say a pharma offering free airfare and lodging to a medical conference if you talk up their product to patients.
There will be corner cases, obscure circumstances, unforeseen loopholes, etc., but this would be a good start.
Worth questioning who that benefits the most. It definitely benefits consumers in the sense that they won't be bombarded by advertisements.
But it also benefits large businesses that already spent millions advertising and now have a much deeper moat.
It kind of reminds me of college sports before NIL deals. Back then, you couldn't pay college recruits. You'd think this levels the playing field, right?
In fact, we saw the opposite effect. You see schools spending millions to add waterslides to their locker rooms, or promising "exposure" that smaller schools can't offer. You essentially had to spend twice as much on stuff that indirectly benefited the players.
I'd expect similar things to happen among businesses. Think "crazy stunt in Times Square so that an actual news site will write about it."
I don't think best minds ever implied empathy or even should.
Best, to me, means people who are the top of their specialty, whether it be mathematics, astrophysics, rocketry, economics, business, politics, pedagogy, archeology, etc. People with unnerving dedication and pursuit of knowledge to advance whatever their specialty is. It could be the marketing most of us loathe but it can also be any of the above and more and only a few pursuits only tangentially imply empathy.
People will defend or denounce hackers not on the actual activity but will base it on politics.
Ic someone aligns with the hacker hacktivist then that person is good. (All the Anonymous activity a decade back), if they don’t like their politics then they want to bring the weight of federal regulation down on them.
People are hypocrites.
For example, Manning, Schwartz. they are typically seen in good light.
Then there is the scourge of those who hack for money (ransomware) that just about everyone hates.
Swartz was acting to make locked-up information (information derived from research largely paid for with tax dollars) free, because he believed it was an injustice to charge people for it.
Stanley was hacking Paypal and defacing other people's forums and websites, for the lulz.
While I think it's safe to say both committed crimes, I'm a lot more sympathetic to Swartz than to Stanley. Anonymous is a bit more grey: they perhaps exposed things that needed to be exposed, but they were often indiscriminate and hurt people in the process.
This isn't politics or hypocrisy; it's thinking critically about different circumstances and applying common-sense ethics and morality.
In popular US culture the pursuit of wealth, is framed as crass. Movies that some see as promoting wealth accumulation are often actually critiques against wealth.
Also, since the mid 60s pop culture has embraced the slacker as being hip and cool.
They guy and gal trying to get ahead are portrayed as greedy or at best blindly joining a rat-race forgoing more noble pursuits. Not so for many other cultures.
I don't think this is true anymore. "Selling out" is now seen as a goal. Kids post fake ads on their instagrams to convince each other that they have brand sponsorship deals. Every celebrity, from reality-show nobody to AAA-lister shills for their own signature alcohol or cell phone carrier. The culture celebrates grindset mindset crypto-scam rugpulls and denigrates anyone who toils at a 9-5 as a wage-slave who'll never make it.
I think that in almost all western countries, a life spent entirely on hoarding wealth for the sake of wealth, is considered a sad life. Especially if you don't even have any loved ones to share your wealth with.
I think the same it true for most of Latin america, where many of my friends and colleagues are from. And when I was in Nepal they thought that, if anything, western people are way too much focused on gathering wealth.
Islam specifically rejects hoarding wealth, so I think that pretty much takes out most of the middle east and northern africa.
So I'm curious which other cultures you are referring to. Perhaps specifically Indian and Chinese culture?
Islam specifically rejects hoarding wealth, so I think that pretty much takes out most of the middle east
I don't know much about religions but I don't believe it is that clearly delineated. How would you explain Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Bahrain, from my limited vantage point they seem pretty much all in on their religion. Are they practicing a perverse form of Islam like the Christian who practice prosperity gospel?
There's no such thing as prosperity gospel in Islam. I researched all the major religions when I decided to become religious in my 20s. The prosperity gospel even in Christianity has very loose / 0 underpinnings in any actual theological study.
The Gulf countries became wealthy because of oil. They don't really hoard that wealth though. They are pretty famous around the world for investing that money, no? They fund universities (with many Gulf countries having their own outpost of NYU or other such prestigious colleges), arts and arts museums (there is a Louvre in the Middle East), tech startups, and of course invest in tourism to diversify their country.
They also have many horrible qualities, which are 100% not condoned in Islam like employing slaves in deadly conditions even though all nations agreed to abolish slavery years ago. Or confiscating the passports of foreign workers. Or their ethnostate mentality (similar to Israel where citizens must be of a specific blood lineage even though the majority of people living in their nation are not of that lineage). I could go on and on.
Anyways, Tl;Dr, I don't think they really hoard wealth. They do spend and invest in the world around them and find lots of charitable things (they have rebuilt Palestine a few times now, a very costly endeavor). Also, being Muslim doesn't mean they don't do anything morally wrong by that religion's standard. Same as the many charlatan "priests" of various religions in the world.
Islam is probably the most economically savvy major religion (Mohammed was a merchant after all). Unlike other religions which issue blanket prohibitions on things like charging interest or having wealth Islam is more pragmatic. Hoarding wealth is considered sinful when it means that others are going without but it is not a sin to make money, have money or be rich. The gulf states could all broadly be described as socialist. Yes they have a lot of money but pretty much everyone lives on welfare and enjoys a high quality of life (nobody is going hungry or falling ill from easily treated diseases). In a country where everyone has attained a high standard of living there is no issue with someone having a huge pile of cash. We could throw out labor issues from guest workers, but that is a bigger topic.
Sorry but they cannot be described as socialist because workers rights are non existent.
Just because there is some protection for the native Arabs doesn't mean it can be "broadly described as socialist".
There is no protection for the Bangladeshis, Filipinos, Indians, etc, who are doing the work. Protecting the working class is pretty much the point of socialism.
This is a ludicrous statement.
They’re welfare states, with three classes of residents. A slave-like underclass, disenfranchised expats, and citizens who get paid off by their royal families with generous benefits. Maybe the closest analogy is Ancient Rome?
I don't think the underclass is living under slave like conditions though.
Full disclosure, I worked in Dubai for 2 years(as a disenfranchised expat), working closely with guys from above mentioned countries. I install heavy machinery.
It's true some are treated poorly, but most are there genuinely there out of free will, because they make buckets of money to send back home. One Pakistani foreman I worked with had stashed away 250k Dirhams and was going back home to start his own business.
The gulf states can/could be an opportunity for the poor, see Bin Laden family for a famous example.
More than criticizing the gulf states for using these people as cheap labor, the criticism should be aimed at their corrupt governments not giving opportunities to their own population. Ironically they are not even allowed inside Europe and the US.
FWIW my experience in Dubai changed my views on the region to a much more nuanced one.
Islam is a very practical religion. And that applies to how it treats wealth and socialism.
Like many religion it emphasises the importance of being good, and doing good, to enjoy the rewards of that in the after life (i.e. it teaches delayed gratification). But it also recognizes that advocating its adherent to forego all wordly attachment and live like a saint is also not practical for society. Thus, it also pragmatically says that a muslims doesn't have to wait for the afterlife to enjoy the rewards of good deeds - God has given humans the ability to enjoy certain pleasures in life, and achieve a higher sense of spiritual enlightenment, and that too depends on the good deeds you do in this life:
Whoever does good, whether male or female, and is a believer, We will surely bless them with a good life, and We will certainly reward them according to the best of their deeds. (Quran 16:97)
Islamic scholars interpret this as a promise from God to the Children of Adam, who do righteous deeds - deeds in accordance with the Book of God and the teachings of His Prophet, with a heart that believes in God and His Messenger. God promises that He will give them a good life in this world and that He will reward them according to the best of their deeds in the Hereafter. Some scholars say this means a life with feelings of tranquillity in all aspects of life, while some suggest it means contentment and / or happiness in this life.
That is why no muslim needs to feel guilty about the wealth they have inherited or earned provided it is done through honest means, without hurting others, and they also follow the Islamic obligations of Zakat (charity). This charity is how socialism works in Islam. Islam says that the wealth of the world doesn't belong to anyone but God. And wealthy muslims (and rulers) are just custodians of his wealth. And God commands the wealthy to share their wealth with the poor, and prescribes how this should be done (annually 2.5% of your wealth should be given to the poor and needy). Even here, Islam is very practical - it recognizes how human nature is often suspicious of helping strangers, and thus says to look for people within your own family, your own friends, your own neighbourhood, your own muslim community etc. (i.e. your own social circles) to do this kind of charity.
It's also commonplace in traditional Buddhist and Hindu cultures, especially a lot of the older upper class in India are obsessed with following Gandhi-like living too. You still find it in many Buddhist countries like Sri Lanka and South East Asia too.
A lot of the older upper class Hindus in India do actually act like that. And it's also quite common in Sri Lanka and South East Asia for the upper class to do that.
That's because America is fundamentally a Christian country. I know no one wants to hear this. But this zeitgeist is unmistakenly Christian.
Interestingly enough the same forces are at work in kerala, which is one of the most Christian states in India (and the ruling communists are associated with them)
Can you expound on this idea? What does anti-wealth have to do with Christianity and how does Communism enter the frame in India?
Prior to the mid 60s seeking betterment and wealth was one of the main reasons people migrated to the US replacing religious persecution back home as the main reason to come.
Christianity in India is often framed against the prevailing religion Hinduism, for better or worse. The Indian church emphasizes things like social equality, income equality, etc. Some of the earliest labor activists and trade unionists in India were Catholic (actually Catholics in general are generally pro union across the world, see the Catholic vote here in America).
Secondly, Catholics are often setting up schools for everyone. India has always had a history of education, especially Kerala, but universal education of even the lower classes is extremely protestant. The church ended up adopting this around the time colonialism started and thus brought universal education to a widespread base in India.
Finally, the idea of touching everyone and treating them equally was against the general zeitgeist of the prevailing feudalistic highly hierarchical indian society. The first conversion attempts of the Portuguese for the south indian brahmins actually were incredibly successful (Nicholas of Tolentino). The Vatican even allows (and still allows as far as I'm aware, although no one does it) vedic rites for Catholics (malabar rites controversy).
However, no one wanted to give up untouchability. The Vatican eventually forced the missionaries to not have separate missions for touchables and untouchables, which basically ended Brahmanic conversions (and is one of the reasons indian Catholics no longer really care to do the vedic rites, since most are now from the lower class. As far as I know, some still do in Mangalore). Caste is still a problem in some christian communities in India but the bishops work to end it and it is officially condemned.
Which is to say, catholicism is associated with labor movement, equal social treatment, and universal education.
Which is also what the communists want.
It's no surprise that Kerala, being way more christian (and Catholic particularly) with a rich and prominent Christian history is thus the center of socialism.
Keep in mind also that communism in feudal countries has basically no relation to the communism you find on university campuses of america.
Now to the west. In the west, the church is seen as conservative, but the church is actually radically left wing in most parts of the world. It's only because leftism (in a global sense) is fundamentally a part of western culture that the church seems right wing because the church does not go as far as some leftist parties in the west.
I was raised by a catholic system in Kerala christian heartland. For decades every Roman Catholic church required to have a school associated with it mostly primary but often secondary - managed by priests and nuns. These priests are heavily connected to Rome often visiting or getting their degree from there. I often hear Matthew 19:23-24 preached during sunday mass and many people have become content with what they have even though its barely enough.
If you ask me about communism, I would say its effects were kind of bad - overseas remittence came in as gulf nations flourished but for others from 60s till end of 90's economic opportunities were bleak. It came in power around 1956 in Kerala and a lot of privileged christians migrated to US in the following decades - with the christian cultural background they have, they integrated really well in that society.
Christianity (esp. Catholicism) and socialism have a long connection, especially in South America, which did not have the economic miracle Kerala did.
Kerala did not become wealthy from socialism, it became literate and land reform lifted many out of poverty. The actual wealth started accumulating when Keralites took advantage of opportunities to work abroad and send remittances home. That has been a major economic driver for the state and India as a whole, but they did it long before others did, largely because land reform gave people a safety net to fall back on so they could risk going abroad to earn more
Socialism maybe the but the Roman Catholic church has a strong history of opposition to communism.
I would suggest God's Bankers: A History of Money and Power at the Vatican as for a pop-culture introduction of how the Catholic church aligned itself with fascist states including Mussolini's PNF, the Nazis and the Ustaše.
The Ustaše were particularly closely associated with the Catholic church.
A lot depends on how exactly you pursue wealth. You could say that Donald Trump and Elon Musk have both striven to "pursue wealth" in their business careers, but nonetheless they did so in very different ways. And plenty of people will likely find Donald's approach somewhat "crass" compared to Elon's.
SaaS are now adding e-sigs as a feature (Box, Google, etc.) Some workflows still need DS but it’s fewer and fewer. Box, I think, can be CFR11 compliant.
reply