Two Misguided Campaigns: Ending Birthright Citizenship and Raising Social Security Retirement Age

Ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants and raising the retirement age for Social Security are two causes Republicans tend to favor more than Democrats. But different groups of Republicans are enthusiastic about each idea: very roughly speaking, the base and the establishment, respectively. (There is, of course, some overlap: Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, and Rand Paul are for both ideas.)

These ideas seem to me to have a few things in common. They’re neither necessary nor sufficient to solve the underlying problems with which they are associated (too much illegal immigration and insolvent entitlements); campaigning for them would carry very significant political costs; and they have nonetheless becomes tests of seriousness about the underlying problems.

Raising the retirement age doesn’t have to be done to make Social Security solvent: The growth of benefits for people with high lifetime earnings could instead be moderated. That will have to be done anyway, even if the retirement age is raised. (Obviously, I’m not considering raising it to 100. Then, it’s true, you’d have a nice surplus.) And trying to raise the retirement age opens you up to a potent line of attack–what about the guy who’s had to do backbreaking labor all his life?–that changing the benefits formula wouldn’t. Notice that Paul Krugman, in attacking Republicans this week for being willing to make Social Security solvent, merely mentions the idea of changing the formula and concentrates his fire on the retirement-age proposal.

Merely end birthright citizenship, and there would still be a lot of illegal immigration. To get it down to tolerable levels you’d still have to impose e-verify requirements for new hires, build a border wall or walls, and crack down on visa overstayers; and if you did those things, there would be a lot fewer illegal immigrants with citizen-children. Going after birthright citizenship also puts conservatives on weak ground. Notice how much advocates of liberal immigration policies have wanted to make illegal immigrants’ children the subject all along.

There are of course differences between these ideas. Ending birthright citizenship has done better than raising the retirement age in polls; on the other hand, the bar for getting it done–whether or not the Supreme Court would be right to say it’s constitutionally required, it seems highly likely that it would do so–is much higher. Raising the retirement age would increase incentives to work, not just save money for Social Security. Still and all, neither of these fights seem like the right ones to pick.

More on immigration, and the seeds of a compromise that are hidden–well hidden–in Donald Trump’s plan, here.

RE: Probably an anchor baby!

SEE HERE:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesh_Ponnuru

I think both his parents were American when he was born.

Ponnuru was raised in Prairie Village, Kansas, a suburb of Kansas City. He attended Briarwood Elementary School and Mission Valley Middle School. He skipped the 8th grade and directly entered high school. After graduating from Shawnee Mission East High School at the age of 15, he went to Princeton University, where he earned a B.A. in history and graduated summa cum laude.

Raised by a Hindu father and a Lutheran mother, Ponnuru is of Asian Indian descent and has converted to Roman Catholicism from agnosticism.

He is married to April Ponnuru.

Nevertheless, you find that people who are a generation or two from somewhere else, want to “clear the way” for their fellow countrymen to come here. Those that have the means of communication, like this guy, talk as though they and “their people” are somehow “special” and deserve to come here and get a free ride.

Best would be to eliminate social Security altogether with a one year taper down. A substantial part of my income is Social Security. I also work a $9 an hour job. I can't "afford" for it to go away. I also know that it is going to go away no matter what. I don't feel that my investment in it forces me to demand my due return if its continuation will collapse the economy. For most folks, including most who call themselves Constitutionalists and Conservatives, welfare and other transfer payments have to go, they know that but they ALWAYS say, everybody else's welfare has to go, not mine. I better get a raise! The whole economy can come down and everyone else can starve but I better get my particular welfare payment. And yes Social Security IS welfare. It doesn't matter how much you paid. Legally that money is not connected to your "benefits." It is, in fact gone. It went into General Revenue. The money you will/would get starting next year is purely money being taken from others as they pay it in. The fiction that there ever was a "fund" is no longer supportable. Starting next year SS pays out more than it takes in and there is NO savings, NO fund.

I hope you are enraged. The government has done this to us. You and 99% of everyone else, including otherwise conservative people will do what you can to push the economy over the precipice and end the farce even sooner to protect what you think is your due.

how funny!

you are collecting SS (and perhaps have been for many years) yet you propose that those under age 55 should get none.

and I am not enraged. it’s been quite obvious to me for decades that SS is a scam. after all, the first SS recipient contributed $25 into the system and collected ~$25,000 in benefits.

so I’ve never counted on receiving SS and have managed my finances accordingly.

don’t preach to me (or anyone else) until you start returning your SS checks to the US Government uncashed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.